Tag Archives: Diving Line

Refutation: The Quran’s View of the Holy Bible Revisited Pt. 2

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Continuing from part one, let’s see what other faulty arguments against Islam that Sam’s invented this week:

The second problem with Williams’ appeal to Asad’s perversion of Q. 5:48 is that it ignores the immediate context of the passage which explains what is meant by the Quran coming to confirm and safeguard the Scriptures before it. Here is the immediate context, once again, in order to help the readers follow along with our exegesis:

This is a very shocking opening statement, what is bothersome about this is that Sam clearly displays intellectual fraud, anyone who has ever done a class in hermeneutics, literature, communication studies, academic writing would have you know that each and every translation from an original language to another is an interpretation based upon the methodology and understanding of the original text by the translator. However Sam decides that the translation he disagrees with is a perversion, that however as seen in part one, does not help his case as even that translation, which he appeals to confirms what Asad’s translation says.

I have to ask a direct question to Sam Shamoun, under what pretenses are you certified to do an exegesis of the Qur’aan? What have you formally studied under Ulum al Qur’aan? May we have your degree? Your Ijaza? Some form of academic approval to do Qur’aanic exegesis? Perhaps you can demonstrate for us your skill in Arabic, I’m sure you know very well classical Arabic and Arabic etymology. With that in mind, may we also know what form of certification you have to do exegesis of the Bible? It would be our pleasure for you to make public your certification, otherwise Sam Shamoun is not qualified to do such things, and as such his work is not an exegesis, rather it’s what we term eisegesis.

eisegesis – The interpretation of a word or passage by reading into it one’s own ideas.

Eisegesis is what uneducated laymen do to scripture. Eisegesis is the anti-thesis to exegesis. Ironically he has appealed to exegetical fallacies in part one, three of which I highlighted, namely:

(1) The Word Fallacy.
(2) The Reading Between the Lines Fallacy.
(3) The Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

You can find these fallacies through various books, however I prefer to use Exegetical Fallacies: Common Mistakes Every Student of the Bible Must Avoid – Professor William D. Barrick. Sam goes on to reference Qur’aan Surah 5, Ayat 43 – 45, I however am using a translation variant from his, as it’s suited for modern English readers as translated by a scholar of Ulum al Qur’aan, Mufti Taq Uthmani [db]:

How do they ask you to judge while the Torah is with them, having the ruling of Allaah? Still, they turn away, after all that. They are no believers. Surely We have sent down the Torah, in which there was guidance and light by which the prophets, who submitted themselves to Allaah , used to judge for the Jews, and (so did) the men of Allaah and the men of knowledge, because they were ordained to protect the Book of Allaah, and they stood guard over it. So, (O Jews of today), do not fear people. Fear Me, and do not take a paltry price for My verses. Those who do not judge according to what Allaah has sent down are the disbelievers. We prescribed for them therein: A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear and a tooth for a tooth; and for wounds, an equal retaliation. Then, if one forgives it, that will be expiation for him. Those who do not judge according to what Allaah has sent down, they are the unjust.

Notice, I’ve highlighted the areas Sam has also highlighted. He’s desperately trying to draw the conclusion that there was no need for the Qur’aan’s revelation or Muhammad’s {saw} judgement  because the Qur’aan is saying that the Torah was still the modus operandi of the day when it come to judicial implementation. This however is a fanciful generalization. Refer to the Qur’aanic quotation above, it clearly states that the Torah which the Jews had contained a ruling from Allaah and it goes on to explicitly state what that ruling was: An eye for an eye…..etc, hence the Qur’aan is rebuking the Jews for knowing what the ruling of Allaah was, while they neglected to implement it. Hence why the Qur’aan states:

So, (O Jews of today), do not fear people. Fear Me, and do not take a paltry price for My verses. Those who do not judge according to what Allaah has sent down are the disbelievers.

The following excerpt explains the verses before the above ayat:

Their gist is that the Jews were habitually used to issuing religious edicts as desired by the people, either for the benefit of relatives or to satisfy their greed for money, property, influence, and recognition. This had become a common custom particularly in matters involving punishments that they would, if the crime was committed by an influential person, change the severe punishment of the Torah into an ordinary one. It is this behaviour, part of theirs which has been described in the first verse (41) in the following words: يُحَرِّ‌فُونَ الْكَلِمَ مِنْ بَعْدِ مَوَاضِعِهِ (They displace the words after their having been placed properly).

Now the people who were used to making the severe punishments of the Torah easy for their clients by changing them saw an opportunity for themselves whereby they could take such shady matters to the Holy Prophet {saw} and make him their judge or arbitrator. The dual advantage they saw in it was that they would reap the benefits of all easy and light rules of Islamic law, while at the same time, they would not have to commit the crime of altering the Torah. But, here too, they had their crookedness at work as they would hold on to their decision of taking their case to him until such time that they succeeded in finding out beforehand through some source or ruse as to the actual verdict which would be delivered in their case when presented. Then, if they found this verdict matching their wishes, they would make him their arbitrator and have him decide their case. If it happened to be contrary to their wishses, they would leave it at that.- Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, pages 164- 165.

This presents the precedence for verse 44 and onwards:

By saying:  إِنَّا أَنْزَلْنَا التَّوْرَ‌اةَ فِيهَا هُدًى وَنُورٌ‌ (Surely We have sent down the Torah, having guidance and light therein), the hint given is that the abrogation of the Shari’ah of Torah at that point of time is not because of any shortcoming of the Torah itself but it has been done rather because of the need to change injunctions with the change of time. Otherwise the Torah too is a Book revealed by the same Revealer.

After that is was said: that is,  ۚ يَحْكُمُ بِهَا النَّبِيُّونَ الَّذِينَ أَسْلَمُوا  “We had revealed the Torah so that, until its Shari’ah has not been abrogated, all incoming prophets and their deputies, the men of Allaah and the Ulama shall all decide and rule in accordance with this Torah making it the working law of their time“. After that, it was said لِلَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالرَّ‌بَّانِيُّونَ وَالْأَحْبَارُ‌ بِمَا اسْتُحْفِظُوا مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّـهِ وَكَانُوا عَلَيْهِ شُهَدَاءَ (because they were entrusted with the protection of the Book of Allaah and they stood guard over it). It means that these prophets and their two kinds of deputies, the Ulama and the Masha’ikh (Men of Knowledge and Men of Allaah) were responsible for enforcing the laws of the Torah because Almighty Allaah had entrusted them with the protection of the Torah and they had given up the pledge that they would guard it.

Up to this point, the text was referring to the Torah as Divine Scripture and guidance and light which was enforced and guarded by the Prophets, and their deputies among guides and scholars. Then, the focus turns on to the contemporary Jews who have been censured for not having guarded the Torah as their elders did. They acted crookedly when they started changing its injunctions, for example, the glad tidings of the coming of the Last among Prophets, Muhammad al Mustafa, may the peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him, was mentioned clearly in the Torah and the Jews were asked to believe in him. But, rather than believe in him as required, they became hostile to him. Also given here is the reason what prompted them to do so. It was love for power and love for money. They knew that the Holy Prophet {saw} was a true prophet of Allaah but they balked at the thought of following him because they were taken as leaders among their people, common Jews who followed them. Now if they were to embrace Islam, they will turn into common Muslim individuals. Gone will be their pivotal position for power play. Other than this, they had almost made it a profession that they would bend and alter the provisions of the Torah to provide officially endorsed conveniences for influential people against payment of bribes. The contemporary Jews were warned about this practise in the following words:

فَلَا تَخْشَوُا النَّاسَ وَاخْشَوْنِ وَلَا تَشْتَرُ‌وا بِآيَاتِي ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۚ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُ‌ونَ
(So, do not fear people, fear Me. And do not take a paltry price for My verses).

It means that they should not fear that their people will stop following them or turn against them and they they should not alter the Divine commands for the sake of insignificant worldly gains for it would ruin them both materially and spiritually because:

وَمَنْ لَمْ يَحْكُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّـهُ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْكَافِرُ‌ونَ
(And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has sent down, then, they are the disbelievers.)

In the second verse after that (45), there is a description of the injunctions of Qisas (Even Retaliation) with a particular reference stressing that, “We had revealed these injunctions on the Torah”. The words of the text are:

وَكَتَبْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهَا أَنَّ النَّفْسَ بِالنَّفْسِ وَالْعَيْنَ بِالْعَيْنِ وَالْأَنْفَ بِالْأَنْفِ وَالْأُذُنَ بِالْأُذُنِ وَالسِّنَّ بِالسِّنِّ وَالْجُرُ‌وحَ قِصَاصٌ
(And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution.) Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, pages  177 -180

Finally, to sum the entire context of the verses from 41 to 48, we read:

In the fifth (48) and sixth (49) verse, the address is to the Holy Prophet {saw} saying that to him Allaah has revealed the Qur’aan which confirms the Torah and Injil, Books previous to it, and is their custodian as well. This is because, after the people of the Torah altered the Torah and the people of the Injil made changes in the Injil, it was the Qur’aan alone which turned out to be the kind of overseer and protector which exposed the alterations made by them, lit up the truth and reality in their proper perspective. Even today, the true teachings of the Torah and Injil still survive through the Qur’aan while those who inherited them and those who claim to follow them have disfigured them to the extant that it has become impossible to distinguish truth from untruth. Towards the end of the verse, the Holy Prophet {saw} has been given the same instruction as was given to the people of the Torah and the people of the Injil, that is, all orders and judgments given by him should be accordng to injunctions revealed by Allaah, and that he should see through the ploy of these people who intend to have him decide matters according to their wishes and take his guard against their evil plans. – Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan : Mufti Rafi Uthmani, page 181.

As properly demonstrate above by an exegete, we can conclude the following:

(1) The Qur’aan confirms the Torah and Injil which are from Allaah.
(2) Allaah does not recognize the rulings of the Jews which are not based on His law.
(3) The Qur’aan although confirming what was revealed makes it clear that,
(4) It was revealed because the Shari’ah (laws) of the Torah were altered by the Jews and
(5) Altered by the Christians in the Injil, therefore:
(6) It makes it clear that the only rule of law to be accepted by Allaah is:
(7) By the Qur’aan and Muhammad {saw}.

The ruling which Allaah validates that is from Him is the ruling if Qisas given in ayat 44 (Equal Retribution), it is not validating the entire Bible. In fact, Sam’s quotation helps further prove this, but first, let’s examine this statement of his:

Here we not only have Muhammad judging the Jews according to their own copy of the Torah we also find him praising it by testifying that he believes in it and the God who revealed it! This clearly is not the actions of a man who thought that the Holy Bible was corrupted.

Note how he over exaggerates what Muhammad {saw} is doing. What exactly do the Hadith and Qur’aanic ayat speak of which Allaah had revealed? The law of Qisas (equal retribution – an eye for an eye…. etc), Muhammad {saw} was testifying that he believed in the law of Qisas which Allaah had revealed and protected. That is the only logical conclusion one can come to after reading the various exegeses on the matter in light of the Qur’aan and Hadith Sharh (commentary). To reaffirm this, let’s take one more look at the ayats in question,:

So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses (بِآيَاتِي) for a small price. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the disbelievers. And We ordained for them therein a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds is legal retribution. But whoever gives [up his right as] charity, it is an expiation for him. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the wrongdoers. Qur’aan : Suratul Ma’ida (5) : 44 – 45.

Clearly the ayat speaks for itself, it is referring to these verses as it uses the term, بِآيَاتِي (verses) in ayat 44. Therefore for Sam’s argument to be valid, the ayat would have had to use the word كتب (book), however as one can see for themselves, it does not use that term. Shamoun then seeks to abuse even the most basic tenets of Islam:

On the other side, another party of hadith and fiqh scholars said: these changes took place during its interpretation and not during the process of its revelation. This is the view of Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Ishmael Al-Bukhari who said in his hadith collection:

“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it.”

Al-Razi also agrees with this opinion. In his commentary he said:

“There is a difference of opinions regarding this matter among some of the respectable scholars. Some of these scholars said: the manuscript copies of the Torah were distributed everywhere and no one knows the exact number of these copies except Allah. It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible. And when Allah told his messenger (Muhammad) to ask the Jews to bring their Torah and read it concerning the stoning command they were not able to change this command from their copies, that is why they covered up the stoning verse while they were reading it to the prophet. It was then when Abdullah Ibn Salam requested that they remove their hand so that the verse became clear. If they have changed or altered the Torah then this verse would have been one of the important verses to be altered by the Jews.

“Also, whenever the prophet would ask them (the Jews) concerning the prophecies about him in the Torah they were not able to remove them either, and they would respond by stating that they are not about him and they are still waiting for the prophet in their Torah.”

The problem with Sam Shamoun is that he believes Muslims think that God’s word (Kalamullah) can become corrupted. However this only displays his ignorance as this is not an Islamic belief. We do not believe that God’s word can become corrupted. Sure someone can make scribal errors or forget a verse, those are human errors, but God preserves His revelations in a myriad of ways, while one scribe may make an error, the scribal overseer would notice that mistake, or another scribe would point it out under proof reading, in the case of recitation, a hafiz (Qur’aanic memorizer) would correct the incorrectly recited ayat. However, God’s “word” can become corrupted in another way:

(1) Interpretation (eisegesis), as what Sam is doing, or
(2) By ignoring/ hiding God’s word, writing your own “revelation” and claiming it to be from God:

فَوَيْلٌ لِلَّذِينَ يَكْتُبُونَ الْكِتَابَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ ثُمَّ يَقُولُونَ هَـٰذَا مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّـهِ لِيَشْتَرُ‌وا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا كَتَبَتْ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَوَيْلٌ لَهُمْ مِمَّا يَكْسِبُونَ
(So woe to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.) – Qur’aan : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 79.

So the corruption of God’s word that most Muslims refer to when speaking of Biblical corruption, is away from the revelation of Allaah and towards men’s words claiming to be God’s. This is what we Muslims mean, so when Ibn Qayyim {rh} says this:

And the Torah is Allah’s word. (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ighathat Al Lahfan, Volume 2, p. 351)

and the Qur’aan says this:

“And the word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can alter His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.” – Qur’aan Surat al An’am (6) : 115.

These statements are being said in relation to Qur’aan Suratul Baqarah (2), Ayat 79, that people cannot change the word of God, but that they can hide God’s word and claim their self authored writing as revelation from God. We can see one example of that here:

If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (14) : 37.

Here, Paul is self prophesying that his writing is God’s word (God’s command), this is a bit of circular thinking on behalf of Paul as he doesn’t have any authority to say his writing is now God’s command, no verse from the Old Testament refers to Paul as the one who would write God’s command. Ironic as it is, he should have taken his own advice:

Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. – Bible : 1 Corinthians (8) : 2.

Or as demonstrated by the author of the Gospel of Luke, where the author’s intent was to document Jesus’ worldly ministry but somehow Christians made it into an inerrant scripture:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.- Bible : Luke (1) : 1 – 4.

One moment this is an account for a person by the name of Theophilus, the next Christians are assuming it’s the word of God, inspired and inerrant. Therefore in this regard, this is what Muslims refer to as corruption of God’s word. People write documents and the masses are led to believe it’s from God. God’s word didn’t change, but people’s belief in a word of God changed. However things turned for a worse in Sam’s article, as he attempted to use, what I assume is logic statements:

A. No one is able to change the words of God.

B. The Torah (and by extension the Gospel and the rest of the Scriptures) is (are) God’s Word(s).

C. Therefore, no individual can ever change or corrupt the text of the Torah (or the other Scriptures for that matter).

That’s what we believe Sam, no one can change God’s word. To make it a bit more extant, God’s word is an attribute of God, just as you would have Al Alim (All Knowing) and Ar Rahman (Most Merciful), in this light Kalamullah (The Word of Allaah) cannot be altered as God does not change, He is, Al Awwal (The First – Alpha) and Al Akhir (The Last – Omega). This must be a new lesson for Sam as he clearly displays his ignorance of Islamic ‘aqidah. Continuing to examine his argument, we read:

Here is what that passage actually says:

And [likewise,] from those who say, “Behold, we are Christians.” We have accepted a solemn pledge: and they, too, have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind – wherefore We have given rise among them to enmity and hatred, [to last] until Resurrection Day: and in time God will cause them to understand what they have contrived.

Now notice the contradiction between William’s interpretation of this text with the following verse that appears a little later in the same surah:

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus son of Mary, confirming the Torah before him and We gave to him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah before it, as a guidance and an admonition unto the godfearing. So let the People of the Gospel judge according to what God has sent down therein. Whosoever judges not according to what God has sent down — they are the ungodly. S. 5:46-47 Arberry

Let’s correct Sam’s misleading statements here, in this instance he’s appealing to a post hoc argument. Essentially, he does not take the verses into their contextual order, thereby purposely misleading himself and the audience at large. To begin with, the ayats he quotes above are from verse 14 and then he skips all the way to verses 46 and 47. Between those ayat there are 32/ 33 verses. He’s jumped 33 verses, to link two different statements to develop an entirely new understanding. This surely is academic dishonesty, for an example of what he’s done, let’s look at this Biblical example:

Looking at his disciples, he [Jesus] said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

and then he says:

“How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!” – Bible, Luke 6, Luke 21.

That sounds wrong doesn’t it? Well that’s because, just as Sam, I deliberately removed those statements from their places of context, joined them together and the argument being presented from such an act is highly fraudulent, and this is what Sam has done to the Qur’aan. Moving on, the verse which Br. Paul Williams has referenced is verse 14:

And from those who say, “We are Christians” We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do.- Qur’aan : Surat al Ma’ida (5) : 14.

In its context, this admits that Christians, who at the time of Muhammad {saw} profess such statements, were sent a Prophet in the manner of Muhammad {saw}, the very next ayat demonstrates this:

O People of the Scripture, there has come to you Our Messenger making clear to you much of what you used to conceal of the Scripture and overlooking much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a clear Book. – Qur’aan : Surat al Ma’ida (5) : 15.

Later on in the Surah however, it refers to the time when Isa (Jesus – may God be pleased with him) was alive. Referring to two completely different times:

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. – Qur’aan : Surah (5) : 46.

His argument is based on verses referencing two completely different times. This only goes on to display his incompetence and dishonesty. How shallow, can you go?

Fortunately we are in a position to know what the Torah which Jesus came to confirm looked like. As a result of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, along with Jesus’ extensive use of the OT Scriptures as documented in the Canonical Gospels, we know that the Scriptures that he was reading and confirming to be from God are the very same Books that we have today. This simply provides further evidence that Muhammad actually believed that the Torah has not been corrupted since he claimed that Jesus himself was sent to confirm the authority of the same Scriptures that he himself had access to.

The problem with Sam’s argument is that he cannot be consistent. On one end he professes the Dead Sea Scrolls are scripture, however the Christian New Testament is based loosely on a mixture of the Masoretic Text, Qumran Scrolls and Septuagint Manuscripts. Unless he can provide for us a single Christian Bible which uses the entirety of the Qumran / Dead Sea Scrolls, he’s essentially jumped the gun. Sam’s logic is described as such:

(A) Jesus lived at the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
(B) Therefore he used the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Well, it’s rather simple to challenge that. If he used the Dead Sea Scrolls:

(1) Did he live among the Essenes in Qumran? If so, give a source.
(2) Did he consider their codex to be canonical, because I don’t see the Book of War in the (Jewish/ Christian) Old Testament.
(3) Why would the early Church prefer the Septuagint over the Masoretic text which is closer to the Dead Sea Scrolls in language and content?
(4) Following the logic of (A) [implies] => (B) can we say that Jesus also used the Samaritan Scrolls which existed at the same time?
(5) Why did he have to use the Dead Sea Scrolls, why not the Scrolls from (4) or perhaps the Oral Tradition of the Pharisees?

His argument doesn’t follow proper logic, just because it may have existed within the era of Jesus, does not mean that he used it, as not a single Patristic source claims that Jesus used the Scrolls of the Essenes and if Sam has evidence of Jesus using the scrolls of the Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls), then please, give it to the world, we’re waiting. In fact, to the contrary we have Christian scholars declaring the codex and canon of the Essenes to have contained pseudepigrapha books:

The Essene canon contained some of the Pseudepigrapha which they claimed to be divine. Most of these writings were midrash on canonized books and logically therefore would not be Scripture. For if the Pseudepigrapha contained a copy of a canonical book as well as commentary on it, why would it not negate the original canonical book, because the Pseudepigrapha with its inspired commentary would be much more valuable? In addition, “If they were conscious of being inspired, why did they not have the confidence to use their own names?”Even the quote in Jude 14 of 1 Enoch 1:9 does not require that 1 Enoch is Scripture. To quote what is true in Scripture is different than saying that what is quoted is Scripture. Even Paul quoted a pagan poet in Acts 17:28, yet he certainly did not regard it as Scripture but as simply true.The Content and Extent of the Old Testament, by Wayne Stiles.

Seemingly reeling from a bout of inanity, Sam then desperately tries to attack the Qur’aan ina  last ditch attempt to manifest some form of compensation for failing to argue against Br. Paul’s statements:

Lastly, what makes William’s distortion of the Quranic witness to the authenticity of the Holy Bible rather remarkable is that the Quran testifies to its own textual corruption!

(Of just such wrath) as We sent down on those who divided (Scripture into arbitrary parts), – (So also on such) AS HAVE MADE THE QUR’AN INTO SHREDS (as they please). S. 15:90-91 Y. Ali

Here is how another version translates this text:

As We sent down (Our curse and disagreement) on those who divided (the Scripture out of their own whims into equal parts and thus mutilated the integrity of its Surahs)—those who made Al-Quran into (thirty or sixty equal) parts (on the basis of the thickness of volume, completely disregarding the subject matter and the divisions sanctioned by the Divine Author). Dr. Kamal Omar

This ayat has nothing to do with textual corruption of the Qur’aan, whether during the lifetime of Muhammad {saw} or otherwise. This is why Sam’s eisegesis has led him to many false conclusions and his word study fallacy really is not helping the situation. Neither the ayat (verse) or Dr. Kamal’s translation speak about textual corruption, but Dr. Kamal does explain what the verse means:

completely disregarding the subject matter and the divisions sanctioned by the Divine Author

There were people who were disregarding what Allaah had said in the Qur’aan, and they were dividing it into their own understandings as Dr. Kamal clearly indicates. A word for word reproduction for what Sam is doing. The very Qur’aanic ayat he is trying to use to disparage the sacredness of the Qur’aan, backfires and in great irony, describes what he’s trying to do. Glory be to God. Let’s now try to seek the proper understand of this ayat:

(Who have made the Qur’an into parts.) Some have said that Al-Mutaqasimin refers to the Quraysh, that the Qur’an means this Qur’an (as opposed to the Scriptures of the People of the Book), and that “made it into parts” referred to what `Ata’ said that some of them said that he (the Prophet ) was a sorcerer, some said he was crazy, or a soothsayer. These various allegations were the parts. This opinion was also reported from Ad-Dahhak and others. Muhammad bin Ishaq reported from Ibn `Abbas that Al-Walid bin Al-Mughirah – holding a noble position among the people – rallied a group of Quraysh behind him when Al-Mawsim (the time for pilgrims to meet in Makkah for Hajj) had come. He said to them, “O people of Quraysh! The time of Al-Mawsim has come, and delegations of Arabs will come to you during this time. They will have heard some things about this companion of yours (meaning the Prophet ), so agree on one opinion, let there be no contradicting or denials of each other’s sayings”. They said, “And you, O Abu `Abd Shams, give us an opinion and we will say that.” He said, “No, you make the suggestions and I will listen.” They said, “We say he is a soothsayer.” He said, “He is not a soothsayer.” They said, “We say he is crazy.” He said, “He is not crazy.” They said, “We say he is a poet.” He said, “He is not a poet.” They said, “We say he is a sorcerer.” He said, “He is not a sorcerer.” They said, “So what should we say” He said, “By Allah, what he says is as palatable ﴿to the average person﴾ as something sweet, so you cannot say anything against it without it being obviously false.Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Qur’aan Surah 15 : Ayat 90 -91.

To now conclude with a brief summary, we recall:

(1) The Qur’aan came to confirm that Shari’ah of the Torah (from Allaah) and Injil (from Allaah), see 5:44 to 5:49.
(2) The Qur’aan which was revealed to Muhammad {saw} admonishes the Jews for ignoring the law of Qisas (Equal Retribution). (5:44)
(3) The Qur’aan which was revealed to Muhammad {saw} came to confirm the law of Qisas (which Muhammad {saw} testified was from God and which he testified in the corrupted Torah of the Jews). (5:4445)
(4) Isa (Jesus – may God be pleased with him) confirmed the Injil (Gospel) giving to him by God, not that of Mark, Matthew, Luke or John which came with Pope Siricius’ Canon in 397 AD [after the failed vote of 393 AD]. (5: 46)
(5) The Qur’aan confirmed what God revealed and admonished the Jews and Christians for corruption of scripture (2:79, 5:14).
(6) It is in this context, that it is Allaah who has established the lawmaking to be based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah of Muhammad {saw}. (5:48)

As such, the Qur’aan as given by Allaah and as received to us through the Messenger, Muhammad {saw} clearly has demonstrated the errors of the Christians and Jews with respect to their scriptures and its corruption while enforcing the sanctity of the Qur’aan as being the source of hukm (law making) for Jews, Christians and Muslims.

This now places Shamoun in a dilemma. If Shamoun continues to believe that the Bible has not been corrupted then he has to conclude that his own article proves him to be wrong, and therefore a farce of an attempt to attack Islam. Yet if he agrees with himself that the Bible is the uncorrupt Word of God then Shamoun must again accept the fact that Paul was a false apostle since the latter contradicted the essential core doctrines taught within the self inspired pages of his own falsification of scripture, i.e. the condition Paul lays for himself in 1 Corinthians 8:2.

With that said, we now end our discussion with the following advice to Sam Shamoun: Read. Inwardly digest. Learn. and at some point, be Intellectually Responsible and avoid Inane and Petulant Deceits.

“He grants wisdom to whom He pleases; and he to whom wisdom is granted receives a benefit overflowing; but none will grasp the message but men of understanding” – [Al Qur’an 2:269]

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Chessie L. Edwards: Runs from Muslim Challenge

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In an embarrassing turn of events for  Mr. Edwards, after this posting, I seemed to have gotten the better of him. Unfortunately his frustration has gained new grounds and he has sought to disregard debating with me, take a look at this photo:

Now let’s look at the screen shot today, several hours after the “debate” occurred:

At first glimpse, I was a bit confused, I could have sworn that the debate was there last night, yet this morning it’s absent? A seemingly strange occurrence with a funny outcome. It seems as if I pushed enough buttons to send Mr. Edwards up and over the edge. As it turns out, he blocked me on Facebook:

To ensure I wasn’t imagining this, I checked my inbox to see if I could message and ask if he had removed his posts, but upon checking, I was told I could no longer message him. As you can see the last message in my inbox was almost one month ago, to God knows what kind of video he was sending me. Just for further evidence of him blocking me after that horrendous debate:

With that ends a chapter of Mr. Edwards sending rather inappropriate messages to me for sometime, awkward debates where he embarrassed himself and well, Facebook screenshots of this guy really fumbling around. I’ll miss his comments, as they did provide a good laugh, but alas he knows he can’t resist replying to me, eventually he’ll respond whether on the website, via my email or I hope not, my cell.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus || Muslim Version || Spoken Word || Response

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

This video is a very good response to the “Why I Hate Religion, but Love Jesus”, Christian video which recently hit the web. Check it out and spread insha Allaah:

Really insightful and thoughtful, it gives reasons for Christians to provoke the foundations of their inconsistent faith.

wa Allaahu alam.
[and God knows best.]

CL Edwards Tries to Debate Me, Runs Away After One Question

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I knew he couldn’t resist me, CL. Edwards tried to engage me in a debate, a little discussion on Jesus, unfortunately for him, he made a claim, I questioned that claim and he ended up running away. What I did was simple, I questioned his statement, he tried to manouver out of answering the question, but I remained intent on having him show everyone that he did not know what he was speaking about. I laid a premise, he took the bait and when he realised he could no longer answer the statement he so proudly made, he imitated the disciples and fled when the truth (according to the Bible) got to real for him:

Then everyone deserted him and fled. – Bible : Mark (14) : 50.

If you want to view his apparent obsession with me and his creepy inbox messages, you can check out this post here. What you’ll discover as odd and rightly so, is his sick comment about masturbation and myself:

…….you may mentally masturbate with someone with more free time….

Creepy messages, posts focused on me, mental masturbation with me, I’m not sure what his angle is here, but I do not feel comfortable with the level of attention this adult is giving myself, a teenager over the internet. Foregoing the weird comments and inbox messages, I suggest you all read the little discussion/ debate I had with him below:

This is a lesson he should learn, don’t make claims that you cannot prove or defend. I’m still confused as to why he thinks I could not question his statement, in a discussion you question your opponents statements, if I didn’t then he’d either accuse me of ignoring his statements and questions (which he did above) or he would justify it by saying I’m incapable of responding to him. Listen Mr. Edwards, if you’re uncomfortable with people questioning your logic, questioning your statements, then I suggest you quit this arena of theological discourse, you’re clearly not cut out for this job. Leave it to the adults like myself.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: The Quran’s View of the Holy Bible Revisited Pt. 1

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Sam Shamoun continues to betray intellectual responsibility, especially in light of the Christian method of scriptural exegesis. This week he falls prey to the Word Study Fallacy:

Word studies are popular, easily obtained from available resources, and an easy way to procure sermon content. However, word studies are also subject to radical extrapolations and erroneous applications. It is not always possible to strike exegetical gold by extracting a word from the text for close examination. Word studies alone will not suffice. Indeed, over-occupation with word studies is a sign of laziness and ignorance involved in much of what passes for biblical exposition in our times. – Exegetical Fallacies: Common Mistakes Every Student of the Bible Must Avoid by William D. Barrick, page 3.

and to the Fallacy of Reading Between the Lines:

The unwarranted associative fallacy “occurs when a word or phrase triggers off an associated idea, concept, or experience that bears no close relation to the text at hand, yet is used to interpret the text.” – Exegetical Fallacies: Common Mistakes Every Student of the Bible Must Avoid by William D. Barrick, page 5.

We must also recall Sam Shamoun’s famous five step program to misrepresenting anything and everything:

(1) Quote a text (matn).
(2) Give a citation for said text (matn).
(3) Emphasize certain words or phrases from said text.
(4) Base entire argument on the emphasized phrase or word.
(5) Derive a conclusion from straw man argument of (4) based on selected phrase or word from (3).

Sam Shamoun begins his attack on rationalism, by first implying the Qur’aan is in agreement with him:

How does the Quranic revelation see itself in relation to previous books like the Bible?

God speaks to his prophet, Muhammad, in the Quran saying:

And unto thee O Prophet have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein.

Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee.

Unto every one of you have We appointed a different law and way of life.

And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but He willed it otherwise in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto you.

Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ.

(Surah 5:48)

What he’s trying to imply from the Qur’aan is that the Qur’aan gives precedence to the authenticity of the current Biblical canon and codex. As we continue you shall see how he slowly deceives himself into thinking this argument is actually valid in relation to the Qur’aanic text.

And We descended to you The Book with the truth, confirming to WHAT (IS) BETWEEN HIS HANDS from The Book (musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi), and guarding/protecting on it, so judge/rule between them with what God descended and do not follow their self attractions for desires about what came to you from the truth, to each from you We made/put God’s decreed way of life/method/law and order, and a clear/easy/plain way, and if God wanted/willed, He would have made you one nation/generation, and but to test you in what He gave you, so race/surpass (to) the goodnesses/generosity (good deeds), to God (is) your return altogether, so He informs you with what you were in it differing/disagreeing (P).

He decides that the translation he initially references from Br. Paul Williams does not help him with his word study fallacy, so he then appeals to the authority (which by itself is another fallacy) of another translation to aid him in his butchering of honesty. Notice, he emphasizes the term, “what is between his hands“. So in light of his 5 step program to misrepresenting and misunderstanding everything:

Did he quote a text? ✔
Did he emphasize a certain word or phrase? ✔
Did he try to derive an argument based on word or phrase? ✔

So far, he hasn’t skipped a single step, already violating exegetical rules his own brethren would consider horrendous, Sam goes on to lay his entire argument on the phrase, “what is between his hands”. In that light, let’s examine the actual contents of that Qur’aanic ayat:

وَأَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقًا لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ وَمُهَيْمِنًا عَلَيْهِ ۖ فَاحْكُمْ بَيْنَهُمْ بِمَا أَنْزَلَ اللَّـهُ ۖ وَلَا تَتَّبِعْ أَهْوَاءَهُمْ عَمَّا جَاءَكَ مِنَ الْحَقِّ ۚ لِكُلٍّ جَعَلْنَا مِنْكُمْ شِرْ‌عَةً وَمِنْهَاجًا ۚ وَلَوْ شَاءَ اللَّـهُ لَجَعَلَكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَلَـٰكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَكُمْ فِي مَا آتَاكُمْ ۖ فَاسْتَبِقُوا الْخَيْرَ‌اتِ ۚ إِلَى اللَّـهِ مَرْ‌جِعُكُمْ جَمِيعًا فَيُنَبِّئُكُمْ بِمَا كُنْتُمْ فِيهِ تَخْتَلِفُونَ

Translation (Mufti Taqi Uthmani [db])
We have sent down to you the Book with truth, confirming the Book before it, and a protector for it. So, judge between them according to what Allaah has sent down, and do not follow their desires against the truth that has come to you. For each of you We have made a law and a method. Had Allaah willed, He would have made a single community of people, but (He did not), so that He may test you in what He has given to you.

The phrase Sam isolates in his word study fallacy is:

مُصَدِّقًا

Essentially he pushes the premise that this word means: Confirmed what is between his (Muhammad [saw]) hands. i.e. the Bible. As he has said himself:

Muhammad had to testify that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures which were available to him were the uncorrupt revelations of God.

The problem with Sam’s statement is that he focused intensely on one phrase trying to make it into something it is not, thus negating the proper context of the scripture and the message it was trying to convey. To begin with, what does the Ayat firstly state?

We have sent down to you the Book with truth

Allaah is saying, that He has sent down the book, so which book is Allaah referring to here? The Qur’aan. Allaah is saying He has sent the Qur’aan to Muhammad {saw}. What is this Qur’aan doing in relation to the previous revelations?

confirming the Book before it

The Qur’aan is confirming the book before it, i.e. the Injil min Allaah.

So the Qur’aan is confirming that it is from Allaah and it is also confirming that Allaah had revealed the Injil and that the Qur’aan protects the Injil. However Sam’s specially chosen translation paints a slightly different picture, but one which argues against him:

And We descended to you The Book with the truth, confirming to WHAT (IS) BETWEEN HIS HANDS from The Book (musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi)

Initially the ayat says that Allaah sent a book to Muhammad {saw}, a revelation. This revelation is confirming what is between Muhammad’s {saw} hands [The Qur’aan] from the previous revelation [Injil]. Since Sam is a bit dense, I shall break this down step by step for him:

(1) Allaah says He revealed scripture to Muhammad {saw}.
(2) He says this scripture, that He has revealed which Muhammad {saw} has (presently) in his hands (possession – the Qur’aan) confirms the previous scripture.
(3) The previous scripture’s message is confirmed in what is in Muhammad’s {saw} book now, (1) – the Qur’aan.

Notice his provided translation says what is between his hands from the book. The ayat presents the case of two books being revealed, but one is presently in the hands of Muhammad {saw} and that is the one Allaah has revealed. This book presently in Muhammad’s {saw} hands confirm what was from the book, previously revealed. Let’s see what Shaykh Rafi Uthmani [db] had to say on this ayat:

In the fifth (48) and sixth (49) verse, the address is to the Holy Prophet Muhammad {saw} saying that to him Allaah has revealed the Qur’aan which confirms the Torah and Injil, Books previous to it, and is their custodian as well. This is because, after the people of the Torah altered the Torah and the people of the Injil made changes in the Injil, it was the Qur’an alone which turned out to be the overseer and protector which exposed the alterations made by them, lit up truth and reality in their proper persepctive. Even today, the true teachings of the Torah and Injil still survive through the Qur’aan, while those who inherited them and those who claim to follow them have disfigured them to the extent that it has become impossible to distinguish truth from untruth. – Tafsir Maar’iful Qur’aan, Mufti Rafi Uthman, page 181.

To make sense of Sam’s argument is a bit hilarious, but if we take his understanding into consideration from what he has provided as a suitable translation for his argument we get the following:

(1) Allaah has revealed a book to Muhammad {saw}.
(2) Forget (1) for now.
(3) The book in your hands, which is not (1) confirms…
(4) What was from another book previously revealed.

So then, the question begs itself, if it’s confirming a previous scripture (لِمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ – that which preceded it), then what currently is in Muhammad’s {saw} hands? What is in his hands now that’s confirming the previous revelation? Sam is saying the answer to this, is the previous revelation. If that makes no sense to you, as much as it does to us, then we’re on the right track. How exactly can the verse be saying that God has presently sent confirmation and that the confirmation He has sent is currently in Muhammad’s {saw} hands but the confirmation is the previous scripture, not the scripture God currently revealed to Muhammad {saw}? That leads us into a circular argument, more academically, to the fallacy of circular thinking:

Sam is saying the previous revelation is the book in Muhammad’s {saw} hands and it refers to itself as a previous revelation being confirmed by God.

How exactly Sam, is the previous revelation referring to itself as “previous”, shouldn’t it be…..current? Shouldn’t it, logically speaking, refer to itself as the current revelation to make complete sense of the ayat? Essentially, his argument is based upon a world play upon the word study fallacy and does not it into the context of the ayat (verse). The explanation which he proposes ignores rational thought, edifies non-sequitur arguments, i.e. it does not logically follow through, to be true.

He then goes on to make another word study fallacy, this time he quotes numerous places where the word, Kitab is translated as Bible in the English versions of the Qur’aan:

Asad himself translated the word Kitab as Bible and Torah as Old Testament:………….
The following Muslim translators did the same thing:………

He’s basing his argument on a translation and we can easily refute this. The word Kitab literally means Book. The word Bible does not mean Book. The word Bible comes from the Greek word:

βίβλος – A collection of papyri.

A bit more research would have you know that it refers to books:

early 14c., from Anglo-Latin biblia, O.Fr. bible (13c.) “the Bible,” also any large book generally, from Medieval and Late Latin biblia (neuter plural interpreted as feminine singular), in phrase biblia sacra “holy books,” a translation of Greek ta biblia to hagia “the holy books,” – Etymology Online.

In that light the word “Holy Bible” would have two representations in classical Arabic:

(1) Majmu ul Kutub (a collection of papyri/ books).
(2) Kitab ul Muqaddas (holy book).

Neither phrase is to be found in the Qur’aan and if he is to appeal to the fallacy of hasty generalization as we see above, then anywhere the Qur’aan says the word, “Kitab” it has to refer to the New Testament/ Old Testament, otherwise his theory fails. So let’s put that to test:

ذَٰلِكَ الْكِتَابُ لَا رَ‌يْبَ ۛ فِيهِ ۛ هُدًى لِلْمُتَّقِي

Translation:

This is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah –

Editting for Sam’s theory:

This is the New Testament about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious to Allaah –

Therefore since according to Sam’s theory, the Qur’aan is the New Testament Bible, then he has no choice but to accept the Qur’aan as a word from God and become a Muslim. Otherwise he has to publicly rectify his mistake and apologize for this theological blunders. If not, then he continues to display his ignorant sense of intellectual disability.

Sam then goes on to quote, out of all people, Ibn Ishaq, which Sam goes on to say:

In fact, one of the earliest sources on the life of Muhammad even goes so far as to identify John’s Gospel as the written record of the very Gospel which God gave Jesus to pass on to his followers!……The above Muslim biographer quotes John 15:23-16:1 and says that it is taken from the Gospel of Christ which John wrote down for Jesus’ followers! And do notice that he never once states that this particular Gospel is corrupt or unreliable.

Actually, what Sam has done is proven that John 15:23 is referring to Muhammad {saw} as the comforter which Christ promised (as is what Ibn Ishaq’s statement is referring to), this is a direct quotation from Sam’s article:

‘He that hateth me hateth the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the law must be fulfilled, “They hated me without a cause” (i.e. without reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt.’

This quote from Ibn Ishaq’s work is based on the premise that Muhammad {saw} is the comforter promised:

“The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) in Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete.

Sam’s authority is Ibn Ishaq. His claim is that Ibn Ishaq says John’s Gospel is from God, however in Sam’s own quotation of Ibn Ishaq, the author himself expresses why he’s quoting John’s Gospel: to prove from the Bible that Muhammad {saw} is promised as a Prophet/ the Comforter! Sam’s own source of authority, is claiming this particular set of verses is true and from God because it confirms Muhammad {saw} as a Prophet. So the question begs itself, if the reason Ibn Ishaq has quoted this section of the Gospel of John to be true because it refers to Muhammad {saw}, does Sam accept that the verses refer to Muhammad {saw}? If not, then Sam has no right, intellectually speaking, or rather academically to state that Ibn Ishaq agrees the Gospel of John is true. As he only quotes those New Testament verses to show Muhammad {saw} is promised in the Bible.

Part 2 can be viewed here.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Boko Haram: Nigerian Group Infiltrated by Criminal Elements

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

“Meanwhile, Boko Haram has evolved into a franchise that includes criminal groups claiming its identity. Revealingly, Nigeria’s State Security Services issued a statement on Nov. 30, identifying members of four “criminal syndicates” that send threatening text messages in the name of Boko Haram. Southern Nigerians — not northern Muslims — ran three of these four syndicates, including the one that led the American Embassy and other foreign missions to issue warnings that emptied Abuja’s high-end hotels. And last week, the security services arrested a Christian southerner wearing northern Muslim garb as he set fire to a church in the Niger Delta. In Nigeria, religious terrorism is not always what it seems.

Read more on this development from The New York Times.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: Muslim Dawagandist Paul Williams Asks A Question

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Sam Shamoun who is renowned for intellectual fraud, deplorable public decorum and abusive tirades has once again fallen into the old age Christian tradition of appealing to the word study fallacy. What this essentially promotes is the purposeful misinterpretation of terms due to one’s own ignorance of cherry picking a particular phrase or word from a statement to derive an overall biased conclusion. Quite popular in Christian circles, it has been deemed as a gross abuse of the interpretation of texts, whether in the original or translated language:

Just as a sentence is more revealing than a single word, so the examination of a writer’s syntax and style is that much more important to a biblical commentator. It is not surprising that fewer books have been written on this subject than on vocabulary, because whereas students of vocabulary can quickly look up lists of words in concordances and indices, in the field of syntax the study is more circuitous. There is no help except in a few selective grammars and monographs, so that the worker really must work his way through all the texts in Greek. – (Nigel Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1965), 2-3.)

This is a common tactic employed by propagandists and laymen who are not well educated in scriptural analyses. It’s quite commonly used by Sam Shamoun as it’s an easy way to mask his faulty cognitive thinking abilities. It’s easy for anyone to take a phrase out of context, and Sam’s method is quite extant.

Sam Shamouns 5 Step Method to Misinterpreting Anything and Everything:

(1) Quote a text (matn).
(2) Give a citation for said text (matn).
(3) Emphasize certain words or phrases from said text.
(4) Base entire argument on the emphasized phrase or word.
(5) Derive a conclusion from straw man argument of (4) based on selected phrase or word from (3).

Our Br. Paul Williams has authored an excellent piece, which can be viewed here, questioning the logic and rationality of the Christian theological framework of the atonement of sins. Sam’s reply, indicates a lack of public decorum and debate etiquette, he begins (as expected) with insults and character defamation:

Muslim taqiyyist Paul Williams has a question concerning the Christian understanding of Jesus dying on the cross in order to make atonement for our sins.

It isn’t strange for Sam Shamoun to stoop to such low tactics, he’s clearly frustrated at being refuted so often by so many Muslim academics, that he needs to release some of his frustration. After all, the alcohol and Church songs can’t keep one sane minded for too long. Sam continues into his intellectual clown juggling by first interpreting a hadith and then by following the five step program as aforementioned:

Muhammad taught that Allah will ransom Muslims from their sins by sending Jews and Christians into hell to suffer the punishment they deserve for their wickedness and transgressions:

We’ll soon realise that this is not what Allaah or what Nabi ul Ummi il Kareem, Muhammad {saw} has taught us and why it is intellectually and academically dishonest to interpret ahadith without proper contextual analysis. To begin with, the Qur’aan from Allaah makes it clear that each man (men and women) are responsible for their own sins:

وَلَا تَزِرُ‌ وَازِرَ‌ةٌ وِزْرَ‌ أُخْرَ‌ىٰ ۚ وَإِنْ تَدْعُ مُثْقَلَةٌ إِلَىٰ حِمْلِهَا لَا يُحْمَلْ مِنْهُ شَيْءٌ وَلَوْ كَانَ ذَا قُرْ‌بَىٰ
Nor can a bearer of burdens bear another’s burdens if one heavily laden should call another to (bear) his load. Not the least portion of it can be carried (by the other). Even though he be nearly related.  – Qur’aan : Suratul Fatir (35) : 18.

Therefore Sam’s initial claim is refuted by the Qur’aan which implies that his interpretation from the onset is outside of Islamic aq’aid (creed beliefs, core beliefs). Therefore we have clearly established that he has purposefully misrepresented Islamic belief (step 5) by deriving a conclusion from a source he’ll intentionally misinterpret for his own benefit (step 4). He then quotes this hadith:

‘Ubada ibn as-Samit reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever testifies that there is no god but Allah alone with no partner and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger and that ‘Isa is the slave of Allah and His Messenger and a word which He cast into Maryam and a spirit from Him and that the Garden is real and the Fire is real will enter the Garden WHATEVER HIS ACTIONS.” [Agreed upon] (Al-Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya bin Sharaf An-Nawawi Ad-Dimashqi, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), 51. Chapter: On Hope; capital emphasis ours)

Notice that he admits adding emphasis to derive his conclusion, I’ve bold said part. What is striking is that this hadith, in no way mentions what Sam had stated earlier, some questions must be asked of him:

(1) Where does this hadith speak of ransom?
(2) Can he quote the part where it speaks of ransom of sins and place in the fire?
(3) Since neither of the above two (1) and (2) can be seen from the hadith, what was the point of capitalizing the words he did?
(4) Since neither (1), (2) or (3) can be demonstrated from the hadith, what was the point of quoting it?

We’ll answer number (4) for him, by referencing his 5 step program:

(3) Emphasize certain words or phrases from said text.
(4) Base entire argument on the emphasized phrase or word.
(5) Derive a conclusion from straw man argument of (4) based on selected phrase or word from (3).

It is clear that he needs to play word games in order to justify his misrepresentations of Islam. What this hadith in question refers to, is the Islamic belief that a believer who sins, more than he does good, will actually be punished in the fire (which will be a form of expiation of sins for him), for which after he has been punished for his sins, he will be rewarded with Jannah (heaven). This is so because the Muslim who entires the fire has more sins than good deeds, but since he is a (sincere) believer, Allaah has granted him a mercy and while the fire punishes him, the sin for which he is punished is expiated (paid for, forgiven). Therefore his good deeds will eventually out number his sins:

“…….. Then when Allah had finished from the Judgments amongst his creations, one man will be left between Hell and Paradise and he will be the last man from the people of Hell to enter paradise. He will be facing Hell, and will say, ‘O Allah! Turn my face from the fire as its wind has dried me and its steam has burnt me.’ Allah will ask him, “Will you ask for anything more in case this favor is granted to you?’ He will say, “No by Your (Honor) Power!” And he will give to his Lord (Allah) what he will of the pledges and the covenants. Allah will then turn his face from the Fire. When he will face Paradise and will see its charm, he will remain quiet as long as Allah will. He then will say, ‘O my Lord! Let me go to the gate of Paradise.’ Allah will ask him, ‘Didn’t you give pledges and make covenants (to the effect) that you would not ask for anything more than what you requested at first?’ He will say, ‘O my Lord! Do not make me the most wretched, amongst Your creatures.’ Allah will say, ‘If this request is granted, will you then ask for anything else?’ He will say, ‘No! By Your Power! I shall not ask for anything else.’ Then he will give to his Lord what He will of the pledges and the covenants. Allah will then let him go to the gate of Paradise. On reaching then and seeing its life, charm, and pleasure, he will remain quiet as long as Allah wills and then will say, ‘O my Lord ! Let me enter Paradise.’ Allah will say, May Allah be merciful unto you, O son of Adam! How treacherous you are! Haven’t you made covenants and given pledges that you will not ask for anything more that what you have been given?’ He will say, ‘O my Lord! Do not make me the most wretched amongst Your creatures.’ So Allah will laugh and allow him to enter Paradise and will ask him to request as much as he likes. He will do so till all his desires have been fulfilled . Then Allah will say, ‘Request more of such and such things.’ Allah will remind him and when all his desires and wishes; have been fulfilled, Allah will say “All this is granted to you and a similar amount besides.” Abu Said Al-Khudri, said to Abu Huraira, ‘Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah said, ‘That is for you and ten times more like it.’ “Abu Huraira said, “I do not remember from Allah’s Apostle except (his saying), ‘All this is granted to you and a similar amount besides.” Abu Sahd said, “I heard him saying, ‘That is for you and ten times more the like of it.” – Sahih al Bukhari : Characteristics of Prayer (12) : Hadith 770.

Sam then goes on to display a complete ignorance of Islamic belief when it comes to the anbiya (Messengers of Allaah – May He be pleased with them all):

Notice carefully Muhammad’s assertion that confessing Jesus as the Word and Spirit of Allah is necessary in order to be saved. This shows that it is simply not enough to bear witness that Allah is god or that Muhammad is his messenger for salvation.

This is called the fallacy of a hasty generalization. He’s trying to generalize the hadith to make it seems as if it is of the utmost importance to affirm the place of Isa (Jesus – alayhi as salaatu wa salaam) as the word and spirit of Allaah. Whereas, this is not something new to Muslims, the belief that we have to affirm the place of all the prophets is called one of the six articles of faith (if one disbelieves in one of the 6 articles, he is not a Muslim). It is as mentioned in the Qur’aan:

آمَنَ الرَّ‌سُولُ بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ رَ‌بِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ ۚ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللَّـهِ وَمَلَائِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُ‌سُلِهِ لَا نُفَرِّ‌قُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِنْ رُ‌سُلِهِ ۚ وَقَالُوا سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا ۖ غُفْرَ‌انَكَ رَ‌بَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ‌
The Messenger believeth in what hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. Each one (of them) believeth in Allah, His angels, His books, and His messengers. “We make no distinction (they say) between one and another of His messengers.” And they say: “We hear, and we obey: (We seek) Thy forgiveness, our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys.”  – Qur’aan : Suratul Baqarah (2) : 285.

He then draws an illogical conclusion from the hadith in Riyadus Saliheen:

Also notice that according to Muhammad whoever makes such a confession will enter paradise no matter what actions they have committed. This means that a person could have committed the most evil sins imaginable and yet still enter heaven simply because of making this profession!

Yet, we have already placed the hadith into context, the person gains Jannah after being punished for their sins:

“…….. Then when Allah had finished from the Judgments amongst his creations, one man will be left between Hell and Paradise and he will be the last man from the people of Hell to enter paradise…….”

Sam then goes on to misrepresent and intentionally pervert the meaning and context of other ahadith:

Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your RESCUE from Hell-Fire. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6665*)

Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit IN HIS STEAD a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6666*)

Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with AS HEAVY SINS AS A MOUNTAIN, and Allah would FORGIVE THEM and He would PLACE IN THEIR STEAD the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle? I said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6668*)

The problem here, is that he appeals to the fallacy of reading between the lines, this is described as such:

This fallacy falls into the category of logical fallacies that Carson discusses in Exegetical Fallacies. The unwarranted associative fallacy “occurs when a word or phrase triggers off an associated idea, concept, or experience that bears no close relation to the text at hand, yet is used to interpret the text.” – [Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 117 (perhaps an “unwarranted associative jump”)].

This is another common fallacy of Sam. He constantly tries to reinterpret Islamic texts to comply with Christian theology, to therefore show that Islamic works agrees with, in principle to Christian doctrine. He sees the words “in his place” and automatically assumes that one person pays for the sin of another. He tries to liken his hilarious beliefs with our theological doctrine. To begin with answering this claim, the Qur’aan as quoted above, refutes him:

وَلَا تَزِرُ‌ وَازِرَ‌ةٌ وِزْرَ‌ أُخْرَ‌ىٰ ۚ وَإِنْ تَدْعُ مُثْقَلَةٌ إِلَىٰ حِمْلِهَا لَا يُحْمَلْ مِنْهُ شَيْءٌ وَلَوْ كَانَ ذَا قُرْ‌بَىٰ
Nor can a bearer of burdens bear another’s burdens if one heavily laden should call another to (bear) his load. Not the least portion of it can be carried (by the other). Even though he be nearly related.  – Qur’aan : Suratul Fatir (35) : 18.

Furthermore those ahadith should be placed into context, for now we’ll educate Sam and let him know that this is termed, “contextual analysis”. In light of Islamic doctrine, what exactly are these ahadith referring to? If the Qur’aan says no man pays for the sin of another, how do we derive the context of the ahadith and the Qur’aanic statement? Simple. We negate Sam’s conclusion and we start from scratch. Instead of copying his method of appealing to fallacies, let us actually try to understand what Islam says. The ahadith refer to what we Muslims call “Qadr/ Taqdeer”, or “Predestination”. Sam should know what this is, as his close ally in Islamophobia, “Dr.” James White is a staunch Calvinist. Calvinism, like Islam, holds true to the belief in Predestination ( Allaah is Al – Alim [All Knowing], He knows the past, present and future, therefore He knows what we will do, how we’ll do it, why and when etc). In this light we must then grasp the reality that every person is destined for a place in hell or a place in paradise (as God knew what actions they would do and where it would lead them).

With this in mind, the ahadith mention that a slave (servant of Allaah – a Muslim) is being judged on Yawmul Qiyamaat (day of Judgement), for him a place is destined in heaven (due to his actions). So if that servant could either go to heaven or hell, but his actions have gained him access to heaven, what happens to what could have been his place in hell? That logically implies that if a person has two places and we use one for heaven, then there is one place remaining (hell). As Muslims and Christians believe, who goes to hell? Disbelievers. So the hadith is simply saying, for every Muslim that goes to Jannah (heaven) in what could have been his place in Jahanum (hell), a disbeliever (Christian or Jew) would take that place. This makes sense as there is a hadith which says for every 1 person who gains Jannah (paradise), 999 will go to hell:

Narrated Abu Huraira:  The Prophet {saw} said, “The first man to be called on the Day of Resurrection will be Adam who will be shown his offspring, and it will be said to them, ‘This is your father, Adam.’ Adam will say (responding to the call), ‘Labbaik and Sa’daik’ Then Allah will say (to Adam), ‘Take out of your offspring, the people of Hell.’ Adam will say, ‘O Lord, how many should I take out?’ Allah will say, ‘Take out ninety-nine out of every hundred.” They (the Prophet’s {saw} companions) said, “O Allah’s Apostle! If ninety-nine out of every one hundred of us are taken away, what will remain out of us?” He {saw} said, “My followers in comparison to the other nations are like a white hair on a black ox.
Sahih al Bukhari : Book 76 : Hadith 536.

I’ve even drawn up an image here to make things easier to understand, by God’s will:

Those ahadith, have nothing to do with one person atoning for the sins of another. They simply refer to a common principle, that if a person could go to heaven or hell and a believer goes to heaven, then it logically implies the anti-thesis to a believer is a disbeliever and the anti-thesis to heaven is hell, so the believer goes to heaven and the disbeliever goes to hell.

We hope that Sam discontinues his appeal to the fallacy of reading between the lines and that sometime in the near future he can uphold himself to a degree of academic and intellectual responsibility while retaining a standard of acceptable public decorum.

wa Allaahu Alam
[and God knows best.]

The Preservation of Islam through Female Scholarship

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

And Allâh has brought you out from the wombs of your mothers while you know nothing. And He gave you hearing, sight, and hearts that you might give thanks (to Allâh)” – Qur’aan : Surat al-Nahl (16) : 78.

Islam has always emphasized the place of education in our religion. In fact the Qur’aan commands us to seek knowledge:

“It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allâh” – Qur’aan : Surat Faatir (35) : 28.

The religion of Islam as we know it, has been preserved by God’s will through the believers, both men and women. We often hear about the men, but not so often of the women. It is in this light that there is a small discussion by Shaykh Abdul Hakim Murad on this very issue. He delicately points out the great role that female Islamic scholarship played in the preservation of the religion, by God’s will. It’s only 10 minutes in length but it is truly inspiring to hear of the great reverence we should have for the women scholars:

In Islam we have many women scholars, judges, Qur’aan recitors and memorizers, hadith scholars, the list goes on and on. It’s very much well known the extent to which we have Shaykhas and Ustadhas. However what does Christianity say about the role of women?

Ulpian (Dig., I, 16, 195) gives a celebrated rule of law which most canonists have embodied in their works: “Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators.”

Women, however, are not capable of certain functions pertaining to religion. Thus, a woman is not capable of receiving sacred orders (cap. Novae, 10 de poen.). Certain heretics of the early ages admitted females to the sacred ministry, as the Cataphrygians, the Pepuzians, and the Gnostics, and the Fathers of the Church in arguing against them declare that this is entirely contrary to the Apostolic doctrine. Later, the Lollards and, in our own time, some denominations of Protestants have constituted women ministers. Wyclif and Luther, who taught that all Christians are priests, would logically deny that the sacred ministry must be restricted to the male sex. In the early Church, women are sometimes found with the title bishopess, priestess, deaconess, but they were so denominated because their husbands had been called to the ministry of the altar. There was, it is true, an order of deaconesses, but these women were never members of the sacred hierarchy nor considered such. St. Paul (1 Corinthians 14:34) declares: “Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church”.

It is not allowed to women, however learned and holy, to teach in monasteries (cap. Mulier, 20 de consec.). Ministering at the altar, even in a subordinate capacity, is likewise forbidden. A decree says: “It is prohibited to any woman to presume to approach the altar or minister to the priest” (cap. Inhibendum, 1 de cohab.); for if a woman should keep silence in church, much more should she abstain from the ministry of the altar, conclude the canonists. – Excerpts from the Catholic Encyclopedia, Women in Canon Law, Rössler, A., & Fanning, W. (1912).

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

 

Refutation: Islamic Spain was not Utopia for everyone

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After some serious academic insight brought about by a 3 minute youtube video, self appointed Christian Scholar and “Biblist” Chessie Edwards has decided to launch an attack on common sense and basic history. This time he focuses his ignorance towards Islamic Spain. So what exactly does he state?

It is said the victors get to write history, well boy who ever said that never lied!

His argument here is that most of the history of Islamic Spain (Al Andalus) comes from Muslims, therefore it is innately biased towards Islam. What he seems to not know, is that the blood thirsty, genocidal barbarian Christian soldiers who invaded Al Andalus destroyed almost all Islamic written literature:

In 1490 a number of Hebrew Bibles and other Jewish books were burned at the behest of the Spanish Inquisition. In 1499 about 5000 Arabic manuscripts were consumed by flames in the public square at Granada on the orders of Ximénez de Cisneros, Archbishop of Toledo.(The Spanish Inquisition, Henry Kelsea, London, White Lion, 1965, p.98) and (Eastern Wisdome and Learninge. The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth-Century England, G. J. Toomer, Oxford, 1996, p.17)

Which by all means was sanctioned by the Bible:

When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in high honor.  Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed what they had done.  A number who had practiced sorcery brought their scrolls together and burned them publicly. When they calculated the value of the scrolls, the total came to fifty thousand drachmas. Bible : Acts (19) : 17 – 19.

Mr. Edwards goes on to state:

From the “Dawah” camp unsuspecting non-Muslims are bombarded with the wonders of Islamic Spain, and how Islam produced this tolerant advanced super Middle ages Atlantis. This is some how suppose to convince the public that Shariah improves societies it enters(instead of dragging them down to 3rd worldliness), and Islam is the true religion for mankind…see look at its track record. Yea…lets do that let’s look at the track record and see if Islam produced the Utopia the Dawahist claim.

This entire post thus far, has not used a single Islamic source! I’ve used the Bible and a few European authors, yet Mr. Edwards insists that it’s Muslims who wrote the history of Islamic Spain, whereas we can see that after his own brothers in Christian bred intolerance burned Islamic and Jewish books, they themselves recorded the great history of Islamic Spain. So what do Jews say about Christian Spain?

Under Recared.

The position of the Jews became even less favorable when King Recared (586-589), for political reasons, abjured the Arian faith before the third Council of Toledo and entered the Catholic Church. In order to confirm the converted Arians in the Catholic faith and to win the clergy over to his side, he endeavored to prevent the Christians from associating with the Jews, who, as the allies of those opposed to his conversion, might have proved dangerous opponents of his religious plans. At the Council of Toledo in 589 he issued an order to the effect that Jews might not acquire or own Christian slaves, nor fill public offices, nor have intercourse with Christian women; the circumcision of a slave or of a Christian was punished with confiscation of property. Recared did not, however, succeed in enforcing his laws. The Arians, recently converted to the Catholic faith, were true allies of the Jews, who were oppressed like themselves; and the Jews were therefore protected by the Arian bishops and by the independent Visigothic nobility. The successors of Recared were, as a rule, better disposed toward the Jews, King Sisebut being the first who endeavored to enforce fully the laws enacted by Recared. He ordered that the Jews, on pain of the loss of their property, should release all their Christian slaves within a short time, and that in the future they might not hold any slaves.

Under the Visigoths.

Sisebut decreed the first persecution of the Jews in Spain. Whether he was influenced by Emperor Heraclius, or whether the clergy brought it about, is unknown, but he ordered that within a year all Jews should either submit to baptism or leave the Visigothic kingdom forever. Many Jews fled; but the greater number, more than 90,000, saved their property and their homes by embracing Christianity, though at heart they remained Jews. On account of this forcible conversion the king was severely criticized by Isidor of Seville, the most learned Spaniard of the time. During the reign of Suintala the fugitives returned to their country and the baptized Jews openly professed Judaism again. Forced to abdicate his throne, Suintala was succeeded by Sisenand. The latter was the tool of the clergy, and at the fourth Toledan Council (633) he ordered that the children of baptized Jews should be taken from their parents and given to Christians or to the cloisters for education. He ordered also that all Jews who had been forcibly baptized and who practised Jewish ceremonies should be given away as slaves.

The council called at Toledo by Chintila not only confirmed all the previously enacted anti-Jewish laws, but it ordained that no Jew might remain in the country, and that in the future every king at his accession should promise on oath to proceed with the greatest severity against all relapsing baptized Jews. The pseudo-Christians presented to the king a written statement declaring that they would live as good Catholics; but under Chindaswind they openly returned to the fold of Judaism. King Receswind was more severe than any of his predecessors. He ordered that Jews who practised the rites of their faith should be beheaded, burned, or stoned to death. The Jews of Toledo promised (653) to observe the Church regulations, including that ordering them not to abstain from eating pork. Nevertheless, they continued to observe the Jewish festivals and to ignore the Christian, so that the clergy at length insisted upon their celebrating the Christian holy days under the supervision of the Church authorities.

The severe measures taken by the Visigothic civil officers as well as by the councils were mainly directed against the secret Jews, whom the clergy considered more dangerous than the unbaptized ones; the latter were, therefore, left in peace. Erwig, however, attempted to force these to accept baptism, threatening them with the confiscation of their property or with expulsion if they refused; he pronounced the severest punishments for the reading of anti-Christian writings and for practising the rite of circumcision. All the anti-Jewish laws proposed by this king were accepted by the twelfth Toledan Council, presided over by Archbishop Julian of Toledo, who had published several writings against the Jews, although he was himself of Jewish origin and kept a Jewish servant.

Egica, the son-in-law and successor of Erwig, in the beginning of his reign showed himself mild toward the Jews. When, however, they allied themselves with the Arabs, who threatened the kingdom (which already was suffering from internal disturbances), the king confiscated all their property, and, in order to render them harmless for all time, declared all Jews, baptized or not, to be slaves and distibuted them as gifts among Christians. Jewish children over seven years of age were taken from their parents and similarly dealt with (end of 694).

The Arrival of the Moors.

Witiza, the son of Egica, is described sometimes as a paragon of virtue and sometimes as a veritable fiend; the latter description of him is the one generally given by ecclesiastical writers. Lucas de Tuy, Archbishop Rodrigo, Ambrosio de Morales, Juan do Mariana, and other Spanish historians hold that this king, to further heretical ends, misused the previous decisions of the councils, that he recalled the exiled Jews, granted them privileges, and even entrusted them with public offices. Whether this be true, or whether, as is more probable, he oppressed them as his predecessors had done, it remains a fact that the Jews, either directly or through their coreligionists in Africa, encouraged the Mohammedans to conquer Spain and that they greeted them as their deliverers. After the battle of Jerez (711), in which African Jews fought bravely under Kaula al-Yahudi, and in which the last Gothic king, Rodrigo, and his nobles were slain, the conquerors Musa and Ṭariḳ were everywhere victorious. The conquered cities Cordova, Malaga, Granada, Seville, and Toledo were placed in charge of the Jewish inhabitants, who had been armed by the Arabs. The victors removed the disabilities which had oppressed the Jews so heavily, and granted them full religious liberty, requiring them to pay only the tribute of one golden dinar per capita (Adolf do Castro, “Historia de los Judios en España,” pp. 33 et seq.; Rios, “Hist.” i. 106 et seq.; G. van Vlooten, “Recherches sur la Domination Arabe,” Amsterdam, 1894).

Chilling isn’t it? The praise of the Muslims by the Jews, whereas the crimes of the Christians are recorded in Jewish history, not Islamic. What does Mr. Edwards have to say to this? We leave him in his ignorance, but we leave our readers, not with a 3 minute YouTube video, appealing to the fallacy of, “appeal to emotion”. We’re going to leave you with a full length documentary on Islamic Spain by actual academia:

It was not a Utopia for everyone, under Christian theocratic genocide.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

Refutation: The History of the Qur’an Super Post

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

After becoming upset at our Bible post on Ezra and posting a tragedy of a response, Chessie Edwards decided to try to attack the Qur’aan, so here are the responses to his post:

Done by Professor Daniel Madigan:

Daniel Madigan S.J. is an Australian Jesuit priest who joined Georgetown’s Department of Theology in 2008, and where he is currently Director of Graduate Studies. He is also a Senior Fellow of The Al-Waleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, and of the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown, where he is directing a project on Christian theologies that are responsive to Islam. Madigan is also Honorary Professorial Fellow of the Australian Catholic University’s Asia-Pacific Center for Interreligious Dialogue.

Before moving to Georgetown he taught in Rome (2000-7), where he was was the founder and director (2002-7) of the Institute for the Study of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University. His main fields of teaching and research are Qur’anic Studies, Interreligious Dialogue and particularly Muslim-Christian relations. He has also taught as a visiting professor at Columbia University, Ankara University, Boston College and Central European University.

Mr. Edwards, also cheaply tries to use the “San’aa” manuscripts as problematic for the Qur’aan, see here what Dr. Gerd Puin has actually stated on that issue:

In 1972 a stock of old parchments manuscripts containing manuscripts of the Qur’an was discovered in the loft of the Great Mosque of San’a. in the early eighties the Yamani Antiquities Authority, particularly its President Qadi Isma’il al-Akwa’, ivited through the German Foreign Ministry two German experts, Dr. Gerd. R. Puin and H. C. Graf Von Bothmer, for the restoration and preservation of the manuscripts. They worked at San’a for some years in this project. It appears that besides being experts in restoration and preservation in manuscripts that had “orientalists” motives; for, it is reported that Bothmer make microfilm copies of some 35,000 sheets of the manuscripts and took them to Germany. In 1987 he wrote an article on these manuscripts mentioning, among other things, that one of them, no. 1033-32, could be assigned a date in the last quarter of the first hijri century.

More orientalist in nature was however the article which Puin wrote under title: “Observatons on Early Qur’an Manuscripts in San’a”. These writings attracted the attention of the orientalists to the San’a manuscripts and they held a seminar at Leiden in 1998 on “Qur’anic Studies” at which both Bothmer and Puin delivered lectures on the San’a manuscripts. It is not known what exactly they said there on the subject; but the above mentioned article of Puin clearly shows his intentions and conclusions on the subject. In the main he stresses three things in the article.

First, he refers to the attempts made previously by the orientalists like Jeffrey Arthur, Otto Pretzel, Anthony Spitaler and A. Fischer to collect the existing manuscripts of the Qur’an in order to prepare what they call a revised version by comparing any differences in them and regretfully mentions that the very large number of manuscripts collected for the purpose at the University of Munich, Germany, were destroyed by bombing during the Second World War.

He then expresses the hope that the San’a find offers an opportunity to resume that project of work.Second, he mentions what he has been able to note the “discrepancies” in the San’a manuscripts and says:

(a) In a number of manuscripts the letter alif (hamzah) is written in an incorrect way;
(b) there are some differences in the numbering of ‘ayahs in some surahs and
(c) in two or three sheets he has found surahs written not in the order as found in the Qur’an in circulation.

Third he recognises that these “discrepancies” are minor and they would not probably lead to any sudden and significant advance in the field of Qur’anic studies.

Nonetheless he asserts that the Qur’an, though it claims to be “clear” (mubin) is not so and that the existence of the above mentioned “discrepancies” show that the surahs of the Qur’an were not written down in their final form during the lifetime of the Prophet and that it is probable that a Qur’an with a different order of the surahs was in circulation for a long time.It must at once be pointed out that these statements and conclusions areclearly far-fetched and totally untenable. Before discussing this, however, it is necessary to point out that this writing of Puin (and also of Bothmer) gave rise to wide-spread and wild speculations in the orientalists circles if only because these fell on ready and willing ears. One of the orientalist writers, Toby Lester, held telephonic conversations with Puin on the subject and then put forth an article in the January 1999 issue of the Atlantic Monthly under caption: “What is the Qur’an?”.

The article is made up of three types of materials:

(a) information about the San’a find an the conclusions aid to have been arrived at by Puin and Bothmer;
(b) assumptions of the other orientalists like Wansborough, Cook , Crone, Nevo and J. A. Bellamy about the Qur’an and
(c) indications about what the orientalists are doing or propose to do in the field of Qur’anic studies.

As regards the San’a manuscripts Toby Lester inflates and reiterates the views of Puin and says that according to him the Qur’an came into being through a process of evolution over a long period; that it is not a book sent down from the heaven on the Prophet in the seventh Christian century; that it is not “clear” as it claims to be, every fifth of its ayahs being either unintelligible of inexplicable and that there are instances of palimpsests or overwriting of some words or expressions in some sheets of the manuscripts. Lester further alleges that the Yamani authorities are unwilling to allow detailed study of the manuscripts for fear of causing uneasiness in the Islamic world but, nonetheless, these manuscripts will help the orientalists in proving that the Qur’an has a “history” just as the Bible has a “history”.

As regards the assumptions of the other orientalists like Wansborough, Crone ad Cook, Lester sums up their view as already noted. Regarding the statements of J. A. Bellamy, we shall presently notice them.This article of Toby Lester, more than the articles of Puin and Bothmer, caused a wave of protests and anger against the Yamani authorities’ handling of the manuscripts, which in turn led to Puin and Bothmer to fear that their relationship with the latter would be adversely affected. Hence each of them hurried to write a letter to Qadi Isma’il al-Akwa to clarify their position. In his letter Puin defended himself as well as is colleague Bothmer and denied having said that there was among the manuscripts a different Qur’an than the one currently in circulation, that there was no basis of truth for what the American journal had alleged about their researches about the Qur’an and that the press campaign was intended to harm the academic relationship between he and the Yamani authorities.

This defence of Puin is in fact a mere twisting and turning of the words and it does not tally with what he actually says in his article. He says, as we have noticed, that the Qur’an, though it claims to be “clear” (mubin) is not so, that the alleged “discrepancies” show that the surahs of the Qur’an were not written down in their final form during the lifetime of the Prophet and that it is possible that a Qur’an with a different order of the surahs was in circulation for a long time. He also says that the San’a find offers an opportunity to the orientalists to resume the work of preparing a revised version of the Qur’an. It is therefore necessary to discuss briefly the discrepancies and inaccuracies in the statements of Puin himself.

First, in his reference to the collections of the Qur’anic manuscripts at the University of Munich and the efforts of the orientalists in that connection Puin omits to mention a very important fact. It is that, shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War the authorities in charge of those manuscripts had actually issued a statement on the basis of their study of them. That had said that a study and comparison of the manuscripts, though not complete, had not revealed any discrepancy and difference in the texts except minor spelling mistakes in some places which was natural and all of which did not, however, affect the correctness and integrity of the Qur’anic text as a whole. The “discrepancies” in the writing of ‘alif at some places to which Puin refers to belongs to this type of error or style in writing and they do not in any way affect the integrity and correctness of the text as a whole.

Second, slight difference in the numbering of ‘ayahs with regard to somesurahs which Puin notices with regard to a few surahs is quite natural. Such difference in the numbering of ‘ayahs is acknowledged even by some classical Muslim scholars and it does not affect the text at all. Even the well known orientalist Flugel’s numbering of the ‘ayahs of some surahs differs slightly from the standard numbering. Significantly enough, while speaking about the difference in numbering of ‘ayahs Puin does not at all indicate any difference in the text of the surahs.

Third, palimpsests or overwriting of words or expressions in a few places do not suggest anything more than correction of mistakes omitted in the writing of the words in the first instance. It cannot be a proof in support of the theory of revision of evolution of the text unless and earlier copy of the Qur’an containing different words and expressions in the same place is shown to exist. This has not been found in the San’a manuscripts nor shown by any other orientalist to have ever been existence.

Fourth, the conclusion that the surahs were not written down in their final form during the lifetime of the Prophet or that a Qur’an with a different ordering of the surahs was in circulation for a long time just because two or three sheets have been found where some surahs have been written in a different order, that is surahs from different places of the Qur’an in circulation have been put together, is hasty and untenable. It is important to note that is has been the habit of the Muslims since the very beginning to make collections of selected surahs in one compilation for purpose of study and memorisation, especially be students at madrasahs. And since mosques were invariably educational institutions, it is not at all strange that such collection of selected surahs should be found in a stock of Arabic manuscripts stored in a great mosque.

In any case, by the very admission of Puin, this is confined to two or three manuscript sheets only out of more than35,000 sheets. Before hazarding such a serious conclusion Puin and his sort should have got hold of copy of the Qur’an, or a considerable part of the existing Qur’an. Even the existence of a complete copy of the Qur’an with a different order of the surahs does not ipso facto prove that such a Qur’an prevailed among the Muslims unless it is proved that it was accepted and acted upon by them at ant given time; for it is well known that for academic and other purposes the Qur’an has been published from time to time with surahs arranged according to the order of their revelation.

Thus for instance, A. Rodwell published a English translation of the Qur’an in 1861 rearranging the surahs according to their order of publication under caption: The Coran : Translated from the Arabic, the surahs arranged in chronological order. And early in the twentieth century a Muslim of Bengal, Mirza Abul Fazl, issued a new translation arranging the surahs according to the order of their revelation. Similarly Richard Bell made another translation in the early thirties with what he called a “critical rearrangement of the surahs.” It has also been pointed out that the orientalists aim at preparing and publishing what they call a revised and corrected edition of the Qur’an. And of late, as Toby Lester has mentioned in his article, J. A. Bellamy has made this suggestion on the assumption that he has found a number of “mistakes” in the Qur’an.

The existence of a Qur’an with a different arrangement of the surahs or with what is called “corrections” and “revisions” cannot be cited as proof that such a Qur’an has ever been in use among the Muslims. – “The Qur’an & The Orientalists” by Mohar Ali

Here are further links on the Qur’aanic Manuscripts:

A Dissertation on the Preservation and Reliability of the Qur’aan by Brother Ibn Anwar.

An amazing collection of scholarly articles by numerous Islamic and Christian scholars on the preservation of the Qur’aan.

History of the Qur’aanic Text from Revelation to Compilation: Shaykh Mustafa Muhammad al Azami.

wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]

« Older Entries Recent Entries »