|  | | | |
| ||||
Grand Verbalizer,
I’ll have to be on my way after this one, as I have more important things to discuss, videos to make, articles to write, etc. If you and I are standing in front of an animal, and the animal looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and you say, “It’s a rhinoceros,” I’m just not going to be interested in the discussion. Similarly, when the Muslim sources tell us about something that has pages, that is between people’s hands, that is written, that is read, that can be placed on a cushion, etc., and you say, “It’s not a book,” I can’t imagine any reason for continuing the conversation. When someone disputes the obvious, presenting more facts isn’t going to help, since the facts don’t matter for someone who ignores the obvious.
But just in case there’s someone reading this whom is not familiar with the facts, I’ll offer this final response. Since there’s no point in writing new responses to objections that Sam Shamoun has responded to ad nauseum, I’ll be incorporating a bunch of Sam’s material (which I recommend you study carefully before saying that the Torah and the Gospel aren’t books).
Let’s examine your points:
I am saying that not only is the Gospel NOT a book neither is the Torah or the Qur'an. They are wahy revelation that came down orally and than the people of those respective revelations put them into writings.
You erroneously assume that just because the Qur’an was supposedly sent down orally, it wasn’t intended to be written down. Well, the Quran exposes this error:
Qur'an 25:4-6--Those who disbelieve say: This is naught but a lie that he hath invented, and other folk have helped him with it, so that they have produced a slander and a lie. And they say: Fables of the men of old WHICH HE HATH HAD WRITTEN DOWN so that they are dictated to him morn and evening. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): He who knoweth the secret of the heavens and the earth hath revealed it. Lo! He ever is Forgiving, Merciful.
Qur'an 98:1-2--A messenger from Allah, reading purified pages (yatlu suhufan mutahharatan).
Moreover, what do you do with the references to the stone tablets which Allah gave to Moses?
Qur'an 7:145--And We wrote for him ON THE TABLETS of everything an admonition, and a distinguishing of everything: 'So take it forcefully, and command thy people to take the fairest of it. I shall show you the habitation of the ungodly.’
Qur'an 7:150--And when Moses returned to his people, angry and sorrowful, he said, 'evilly have you done in my place, after me; what, have you outstripped your Lord's commandment?' And he cast down the Tablets, and laid hold of his brother's head, dragging him to him. He said, 'Son of my mother, surely the people have abased me, and well nigh slain me. Make not my enemies to gloat over me, and put me not among the people of the evildoers.’
Qur'an 7:154--And when Moses' anger abated in him, he took the Tablets and IN THE INSCRIPTIUON OF THEM WAS GUIDANCE, AND A MERCY unto all those who hold their Lord in awe.
Why did Allah bother writing down anything on tablets if the Torah was meant to be transmitted orally?
You write:
I appreciate this lone narrator report from Sunan Abu Dawud. I was curious if I could have the source of this particular translation that you are using. Because I think it is a huge difference if we say "I believe in thee" and if we say "I believed in thee". A minor point but an important one for sure.
In the first place, this "lone report" from Abu Dawud was cited by several Muslim scholars in support of the fact that the Torah remained intact. Here’s Ibn Kathir:
“… Abu Dawud recorded that Ibn `Umar said, “Some Jews came to the Messenger of Allah and invited him to go to the Quff area. So he went to the house of Al-Midras and they said, `O Abu Al-Qasim! A man from us committed adultery with a woman, so decide on their matter.’ They arranged a pillow for the Messenger of Allah and he sat on it and said…
<> He was brought the Tawrah and he removed the pillow from under him and placed the Tawrah on it, saying…
<<I TRUST YOU AND HIM WHO REVEALED IT TO YOU. >> He then said…
<> So he was brought a young man… and then he mentioned the rest of the story that Malik narrated from Nafi`… These Hadiths state that the Messenger of Allah issued a decision that conforms to the ruling in the Tawrah, not to honor the Jews in what they believe in, for the Jews were commanded to follow the Law of Muhammad only. Rather, the Prophet did this because Allah commanded him to do so. He asked them about the ruling of stoning in the Tawrah to make them admit to what the Tawrah contains and what they collaborated to hide, deny and exclude from implementing for all that time. They had to admit to what they did, although they did it while having knowledge of the correct ruling…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 5:41: http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=5&tid=13875)
Here’s more:
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.
Abu Dawood narrated in his collection that Ibn Umar said:
A group of Jewish people invited the messenger of Allah to a house. When he came, they asked him: O Abu Qassim, one of our men committed adultery with a woman, what is your judgment against him? So they placed a pillow and asked the messenger of Allah to set on it. Then the messenger of Allah proceeded to say: bring me the Torah. When they brought it, he removed the pillow from underneath him and placed the Torah on it and said: I BELIEVE IN YOU AND IN THE ONE WHO REVEALED YOU then said: bring me one of you who have the most knowledge. So they brought him a young man who told him the story of the stoning.
The scholars said: if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you.
This group of scholars also said: Allah said:
"And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing." (Q. 6:115)
And the Torah is Allah’s word. (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, Ighathat Al Lahfan, Volume 2, p. 351)
Not only did this renowned Islamic scholar mention Muslim authorities who denied that the Torah was corrupted, he even referred to the narration where Muhammad took the Torah which the Jews gave him and placed it on a cushion testifying that it was the Word of God. Ibn al-Qayyim clearly states that many Muslim scholars correctly reasoned on the basis of this report that the Torah could not have been corrupted since Muhammad would not have praised it if it were. It's amazing that all of these Muslim scholars were, according to you, led astray by the Qur'an, which claims over and over again to be clear. Isn't it amazing that you're arguing against me, when I have Ibn Kathir and al-Bukhari on my side?
These same scholars used similar logic in their exegesis of Qur'an 6:115 to prove that the Torah can never be corrupted since that verse expressly says that God’s Words can never been changed and the Torah is the Word of God!
So your own scholars didn’t see a difference between saying “I believed in thee” and “I believe in thee.”
But if you want to press the point about “believed” being in the past tense, I should point out that your view would make Muhammad an atheist! You forgot to mention that Muhammad actually said, “I believed in thee AND IN HIM who revealed thee.” If you interpret “believed” here to mean “believed in the past, but not now,” according to your logic this means that Muhammad used to believe in Allah but no longer did so since he didn’t use the word “believe” but “believed”!
You apparently ignore verses of the Qur'an which confirm the fact that Moses’ revelation was written down on pages:
Qur'an 53:36--Or is he not informed with what is in the Pages (Scripture) of Musa (Moses).
Qur'an 87:18-19--Surely this is in the ancient scrolls, the scrolls of Abraham and Moses.
You ask whether the revelation could be written in a scroll rather than a book. I don’t see any difference here. The question is whether the revelation was written down and read by Christians and Jews, not whether it was written on bound pages rather than a long, rolled page. Give me any scroll in the world, and it can be easily written as a book. Give me any book, and it can be written on a scroll. The Gospels, for instance, were originally all written on scrolls. Later, they were written in book form. I would use "book" interchangeably here. You’re clearly getting desperate, and with objections like this, I'm wondering if your goal is simply to waste my time.
You ask why I believe that the Torah was the first five books of the Old Testament. I should probably point out that you're in trouble either way. If Muhammad meant something other than the first five books of the Old Testament, then Muhammad was clearly ignorant of the meaning of "Torah" among the Jews, and the Qur'an obviously isn't very clear. If Muhammad was referring to the first five books of the Old Testament, then the Torah was obviously a book. I’ll also note that Qur’an 5:43-46 quotes the lax talionis, i.e. “eye for an eye,” and says that all the prophets along with Jesus confirmed the Torah and ruled by it. The Qur'an presupposes that readers have some idea of what the Torah was. But according to you, no one has a clue. Why does the Qur'an talk about the Torah so much, if doing so is only going to lead us into error? Qur’an 3:48-50 and 61:6 make the same point about Jesus confirming the Torah in his possession. It even says that God actually taught Jesus the Torah. Now the question becomes: What torah did Jesus confirm? More importantly, what was the Torah which the Jews gave to Muhammad? I think the answer is obvious, but you don’t want to face the obvious.
I have more to say about Moses’ revelation being a book later on.
You say concerning Waraqa:
First I hope you do not mind if I quote the fuller version of the story of this obviously literate Christian man.
"He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!”Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while."
So I immediately find it very challenging to think that a Christian such as Waraqa would support a false prophet?
Obviously what ever Waraqa was translating (either from memory or from some parchment) did not allow him to dismiss the idea that Muhammed (saw) was a Messenger of Allah. In other words this evidences further buttresses the Muslim position. It's hard to believe that a document that says 'It is finished' has room for more divine Messengers with divine messages!
You make a similar point later on:
3) Is not interesting that what ever the particular Gospel that Waraqa was translating into Hebrew the
content certainly did not preclude Waraqa from saying, " and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly."
This is easily refuted. Since the Muslim sources say that Waraqa died immediately after Muhammad’s so-called “revelations” began, he never got the chance to hear what Muhammad would have to say about Christ. Had he lived and heard of all Muhammad’s denials and blasphemies, Waraqa would have turned against Muhammad, much like the rest of the Jews and Christians did. After all, didn’t Waraqa entertain the possibility that the spirit who appeared as Gabriel was possibly a demon sent to deceive Muhammad? Consider what we find in Ibn Kathir:
"Waraqa was dumbfounded at this, and said, ‘If Gabriel has actually placed his feet upon the earth, than he has done so for the best of people thereupon. And he never came down for anyone except a prophet: For he is the companion of all the prophets and messengers, the one whom God sends down to them. I believe what you tell me of him. Send for ‘Abd Allah’s son, so that I may question him, hear what he says and talk to him. I am afraid it may be someone other than Gabriel, for certain devils imitate him and by so doing can mislead and corrupt some men.
This can result in a man becoming confused and even crazy whereas before he had been of sound mind.’" (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 1998], Volume I, pp. 296-297)
So Waraqa admitted that demons can disguise themselves as angels. What a coincidence that Muhammad initially believed that he was demon-possessed. If only Waraqa had learned of Muhammad's later (obviously false and demonic) revelations, more than two billion people wouldn't have been misled by Muhammad's teachings.
(David Wood and his banter)
You then raise Qur’an 58:22 in response to my appeal to Qur'an 7:157. I just can't bring myself to believe that you don't understand the difference between an obviously literal use and an obviously metaphorical use of a term. Do you really see no difference between the following uses?
X is written on my heart.
We find X is written down with us.
Are you saying that the Torah and the Gospel are simply faiths written on our hearts??? (I will write my law upon their hearts) (Jeremiah 31:33 and Hebrews 8:10) If they're not books, how can we be responsible for finding prophecies about Muhammad in them?
Apart from the fact that Qur’an 58:22 is irrelevant since it is using the word in a different context, it still proves that faith had to be written down somewhere, which in this context happened to be the heart of the believers. Therefore, since the description of the unlettered prophet was also written down, the question now becomes: Written down where? Written in the hearts of the Jews and Christians? Come on!
You don't think that 7:157 should say that the Torah and the Gospel are "written." You know, don't you, that "written" is the primary translation?
Hilali-Khan: "whom they find written with them in the Taurat and the Injeel"
Shakir: "whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel"
Khalifa: "whom they find written in their Torah and Gospel"
Arberry: "whom they find written down with them in the Torah and the Gospel"
Palmer: "whom they find written down with them in the law and the gospel"
And here you have a massive problem. Your position is that the word can be translated differently. If this is your claim, then you still don't get the point. Obviously, the meaning of the word makes a huge difference to our interpretation. If the Qur'an is here referring to the written documents of Christians, then Islam is false. If the Qur'an is referring to something else, then we don't know what it's referring to. Either way, the meaning of the word is important. But the Qur'an doesn't tell us which meaning is intended. Indeed, the most obvious meaning would be that the Gospel is "written down."
Again, the Qur'an claims to be clear. But we find, over and over, that the Qur'an is totally unclear. You believe that "written" should be translated as "described." Thus, you must believe that numerous translators are in error. What is the source of their error? The source of their error is the ambiguity of the Qur'an, which claims to be clear!
Not only did Allah's ambiguous word mislead so many Qur'an translators, it also misled some of Islam's greatest commentators. Consider Ibn Kathir's commentary on 7:157:
Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written with them in the Tawrah and the Injil,) this is the description of the Prophet Muhammad in the Books of the Prophets. They delivered the good news of his advent to their nations and commanded them to follow him. His descriptions were still apparent in their Books, as the rabbis and the priests well know. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sakhr Al-`Uqayli said that a bedouin man said to him, "I brought a milk-producing camel to Al-Madinah during the life time of Allah's Messenger. After I sold it, I said to myself, `I will meet that man (Muhammad) and hear from him.' So I passed by him while he was walking between Abu Bakr and `Umar, and I followed them until they went by a Jewish man, who was reading from an open copy of the Tawrah. He was mourning a son of his who was dying and who was one of the most handsome boys. The Messenger of Allah asked him (the father),
(I ask you by He Who have sent down the Tawrah, do you not find the description of me and my advent in your Book) He nodded his head in the negative. His son said, `Rather, yes, by Him who has sent down the Tawrah! We find the description of you and your advent in our Book. I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah. ‘The Prophet said (to the Companions),
(Stop the Jew (the father) from (taking care of) your brother (in Islam).) The Prophet then personally took care of the son's funeral and led the funeral prayer on him.''' This Hadith is sound and is supported by a similar Hadith in the Sahih narrated from Anas. Ibn Jarir recorded that Al-Muthanna said that `Ata' bin Yasar said, "I met `Abdullah bin `Amr and asked him, `Tell me about the description of Allah's Messenger in the Tawrah.' He said, `Yes, by Allah! He is described in the Tawrah, just as he is described in the Qur'an.'
Besides, even if we go with the definition “described,” this still proves that the Torah and Gospel must have been books which contained these descriptions of Muhammad! Otherwise, how would the Jews and Christians be able to find Muhammad’s descriptions in the Torah and the Gospel if these weren’t written documents? Do you really not see the problem here, or are you simply joking? Either the Gospel or the Torah was books, or we have no clue what they are. If we have no clue what they are (which seems to be your position), why does the Qur'an talk about them so much? Why does the Qur'an seem to presuppose that we know what is meant by "Torah" and "Gospel"? Why does the Qur'an say that we must stand upon them and judge by them? How can I do this if I don't know what the Qur'an is referring to? Why isn't the Qur'an more clear? Why does it claim to be clear when it's not clear at all?
More importantly, WHAT DID THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS OF MUHAMMAD’S TIME HAVE WITH THEM WHICH THE QUR’AN CALLS THE TORAH AND GOSPEL? The answer is obvious: the Old and New Testament writings, specifically the Pentateuch and the canonical Gospels.
That the Torah, and by extension the Gospel, are writings which were written down can be easily established by the verses which I cited above as well as the following:
Qur'an 6:91--They measured not God with His true measure when they said, 'God has not sent down aught on any mortal.' Say: 'Who sent down the Book that Moses brought as a light and guidance to men? You put it into parchments, revealing them, and hiding much; and you were taught that you knew not, you and your fathers.' Say: 'God.' Then leave them alone, playing their game of plunging.
You point out that many of the Jews rejected Jesus' claims, and that he opened the hearts of some. You say that this somehow means that people during Muhammad's time may have had parts of the Torah or Gospel. I'm not sure how you could be so grossly misinterpreting the text. The Torah was the same for Jesus, His apostles, and those who rejected him. There was no dispute about which books were in the Old Testament. The only dispute was whether certain passages were referring to Jesus or to someone else. According to the Bible, we sometimes need to be supernaturally enlightened in order to see the truth.
What in the name of common sense would this have to do with people having parts of the Old Testament??? If people during Muhammad's time only had parts of the Gospel and Torah, then the word of God was corrupted, which contradicts the Qur'an. And why doesn't the Qur'an tell us that only parts of the Gospel and Torah remained? Why does the Qur'an treat these works as complete, reliable, inspired works?
Why did Muhammad put his hand on a copy of the Torah and swear that it was revealed by God, when only parts of it were revealed by God? Once again, why is the Qur'an so unclear?
Now for one of my questions:
"(7) You're still left with the fact that the Qur'an commands me to judge by the Gospel. Okay, where it this Gospel? I'm commanded to judge by it. Is it an oral message? What does this oral message say? Surely it must be widely available, since the Qur'an commands all Christians to judge by it. Could you tell me what it says?"
I can tell you what it says. The Gospel which the Qur’an is commanding Christians of Muhammad’s time to judge by is none other than what we find in the New Testament. This is based on the fact that the textual, historical, manuscript and archaeological evidence shows that the canonical Gospels are the only books which the Church possessed and affirmed as the Gospel, especially during the seventh century.
Now if you want to get silly and claim that the Qur’an may have been referring to some other Gospel such as the gospel of Thomas, the Gnostic Gospels or even the one read by the Ebionites, you are only going to be further damaging Muhammad’s reliability. If these are the writings which the Qur'an is confirming, then Muhammad is a false prophet for contradicting the Christology taught in these so-called gospels. (And why didn't the Qur'an clarify which "Gospel" was confirmed, since most Christians would assume that it's referring to the New Testament Gospels?) In other words, Muhammad loses either way.
You write:
Now what ever this Gospel was or is in it fullest context I honestly do not know. I think even Bible scholars themselves (who do not have theological points to defend) are still scratching around with what may have been the Gospel of Jesus.
You may not know, but Ibn Ishaq sure did:
"Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted FROM WHAT JOHN THE APOSTLE SET DOWN FOR THEM WHEN HE WROTE THE GOSPEL FOR THEM FROM THE TESTAMENT OF JESUS SON OF MARY: '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
"The Munahhemana (God bless and preserve him!) In Syriac is Muhammad; in Greek he is the paraclete." (The Life of Muhammad, A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Karachi Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth Impression 1995), pp. 103-104)
The preceding Gospel citation is taken from John 15:23-16:1. Ibn Ishaq never once hints that this particular Gospel is inauthentic or corrupt.
So early Muslim scholars seem to think that the Qur'an was referring to the Bible, But according to you, they were wrong for thinking this. Why did they get it wrong? Because the Qur'an is completely, utterly, totally unclear! So why does it claim to be clear, when it misleads even the greatest Muslim scholars?
You seem to think that I've got a problem because I say that Muhammad drew from heretical and apocryphal sources, and I also say that Muhammad could only be referring to the canonical Gospels when he said "Gospel." Perhaps I should make my view as clear as possible:
(a) Many of Muhammad's teachings were obviously drawn from heretical, historically untenable, late works. This shows that he was a false prophet.
(b) Muhammad referred to a book, in the possession of Christians, which was revealed by God. If he was referring to the New Testament Gospels, then he was a false prophet, since these books contradict the Qur'an. If he was referring to other books, then he was a false prophet, because these books are late, heretical, and contradict the Qur'an. If he was referring to some book that we no longer possess, then he was a false prophet, since (i) the Qur'an commands us to follow this book that we do not possess, (ii) the Qur'an says that this book cannot be corrupted (even though it's totally disappeared), and (iii) the Qur'an is completely unclear as to what this book is (when the Qur'an claims to be clear). Hence, there are many possibilities, but all of them point to a single conclusion: Muhammad was a false prophet.
You ask some questions about the contents of the Gospel. If you're asking just for your personal knowledge, I might answer you. But it seems you're asking because you think it's relevant to the present discussion. I want to be clear (much more clear than the Qur'an): For purposes of our present discussion, it doesn't matter whether the "Gospel" was one book, or four books, or twenty-two books, or twenty-seven books, or fifty million books. It doesn't matter what verses are in the Gospel of Mark. If the Gospel was what we have today, then Muhammad was a false prophet. If the Gospel was something different from what we have today, then Muhammad was a false prophet. Either way, Muhammad was a false prophet. What sense does it make to ask irrelevant questions about the contents of the Gospel; when any answer to these questions would make Muhammad was a false prophet?
Well, I'm officially bored. I hope you'll make the only reasonable move, given the evidence before us. The only reasonable move, given the evidence, is to reject Islam. Of course, we haven't discussed the evidence for Christianity, but that's a different issue.
David
0 comments:
Post a Comment