The View of Ibn Abbaas (d. 68 A.H.)
Ibn Abbaas is one of the greatest companions of the Prophet peace be upon him. He holds much authority as a Quranic interpreter, for the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him prayed to Allah to make Ibn Abbaas a great commentator of the Qur’an and scholar of Islam in general…
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 613:
Narrated ‘Ikrima:
Ibn ‘Abbaas said, “How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about their Books while you have Allah’s Book (the Qur’an) which is the most recent of the Books revealed by Allah, and you read it in its pure undistorted form?”
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614:
Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah:
‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbaas said, “O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, ‘This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you.
reblogged from Evidence That Islam Teaches That There Was Textual Corruption of The Christian and Jewish Scriptures by Bassam Zawadi
Categories: Hadith
Blogging Theology 
The list of contradictions in hadith in the link in the first post reminds me of this verse from God Almighty…
(Surah 4, verse 82). Do they not then consider the Qur’an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much contradictions.
Although the Qur’an says much good of previous scriptures (as is expected since they are from God also), there are multiple verses that imply that it is not in its pure state.
Also, please noticed how God Almighty says that the preservation of the Torah was entrusted to the rabbis and doctors of law. But in contradistinction, the Qur’an is promised by God to be preserved by God Himself. Can we trust the rabbis and doctors of law as much as God Almighty? God Almighty tells us in Surah 9 to not trust the rabbis.
(Surah 4, verse 44) Verily, We did send down the Torah, therein was guidance and light, by which the Prophets, who submitted themselves to Allah’s Will, judged the Jews. And the rabbis and the doctors of law [too judged the Jews by the Torah after those Prophets] for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah’s Book, and they were witnesses thereto. Therefore fear not men but fear Me (O Jews) and sell not My Verses for a miserable price. And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun.
(Surah 15, verse 9) Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Reminder and surely, We will preserve it.
LikeLike
Wow Williams, you truly are shameless. Why did you remove the links to my three articles where I decimate Zawadi’s distortion of this particular hadith? Moreover, are you flip flopping again? Do I need to hunt down your post which you titled “David Wood and Sam Shamoun Are Right”, where you cited your Muslim scholar friend and Quran translator admitting that we are correct that the Quran confirms the Holy Bible, and nowhere claims that the text of the previous Scriptures has been corrupted?
LikeLike
Sam don’t be silly. How many times have I told you not to spam links on my site? If you want to join in on the discussion be my guest but your usual MO won’t work here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Sam.
Peace.
What do you think of the verses and the reasoning I cited?
LikeLike
Omer, to be honest your interpretation of Q. 5:44 (not 4:44) is a gross distortion of the context, which begins at v. 43 and continues to 48. Try reading it in context and then get back to me since I have written several articles on this text proving that this is one of the most powerful witnesses to Muhammad’s belief in the incorruptibility of the previous Scriptures.
LikeLike
Williams, here is what you posted awhile back:
BEGIN
My bizarre day in London town started out with a visit to Trafalgar Square to join the protesters at the Stand up to racism demo and rally (pic taken during clearing up). I bumped into some old Muslim friends who introduced me to one of the sons of Abdel Haleem whose father just happens to be Professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London and editor of theJournal of Qur’anic Studies. I took the chance to ask him if he knew his fathers views on the Quran concerning two questions:
1) Does the Quran teach that the Bible is textually corrupted?
2) Is the Injeel the same as the canonical gospels or the New Testament? Or is it a different book given to Jesus?
Instantly he reached for his mobile phone and offered to ask his dad there and then. Nearly speechless I said ‘yes please’. So he called his dad (the world-renowned scholar Professor Haleem) who was in Oxford, introduced me, and suggested I speak to him myself – which I did.
This in summary form is what the professor told me:
1) The Quran does not teach that the Bible has been textually corrupted – it does suggest that the Bible has been misinterpreted etc.
2) The Injeel is not the same as the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) or the New Testament. There are just a few shreds of Jesus’ teaching left in the four gospels.
So Professor Haleem would appear to vindicate the oft-stated views of Sam Shamoun and David Wood on subject 1) above and put Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi (who has argued many times for the view that the Quran teaches textual corruption) in the wrong. Conversely, however, the Professor’s answer to question 2) suggests that contrary to popular Christian polemic, the original ‘gospel’ the ‘Injeel’ has been largely lost to history. The Quran claims to restate the original gospel of Jesus which Muslims follow today.
END
So Professor Haleem proves that your taghut Zawadi doesn’t know what he is talking about. OUCH!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wood’s Buddy
You said;
Omer, to be honest your interpretation of Q. 5:44 (not 4:44) is a gross distortion of the context, which begins at v. 43 and continues to 48. Try reading it in context and then get back to me since I have written several articles on this text proving that this is one of the most powerful witnesses to Muhammad’s belief in the incorruptibility of the previous Scriptures.
I say;
Do you have any qualifications at all? What qualifications do you have on Islam and or Christianity to merit taking your articles on Islam or Christianity seriously. In Islam, credibility is given to those who have learnt Islam and know Arabic fluently, study the science of Hadith at the University, Islamic History, fiq, aqeedah, tafsir, Islamic Jurisprudence, Classical Arabic, Commentary etc. Any one who writes articles without any Islamic qualifications can only have credibility to his fellow Christians but not Muslims.
A convert to Islam, must study Islam if he wants to become an Islamic theologian, unlike Christian converts who will just start extorting money from Christians by telling lies to them and they will accept any lies he tells them. Wood’s Buddy, Can you speak fluent Greek? Aramaic? Hebrew? Arabic? which are the languages of the scripture. No, So you have no authority, credibility and seriousness to write article on any scripture except for your Christian audience.
Proof
A Christian convert to Islam speaking fluent Arabic
White men, blacks, Hispanics, Chinese etc. learning the original Arabic language of the Scripture Quran to know what they are about in their religion.
1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rCspL55poA&list=PLor3HsSGM43YbasT3W2ATvh9O9utrF5eq
2.
A Muslim convert to Christianity
1.
2.
3.
—————————————————-
Thanks
LikeLike
Sam,
I did read 5, 43-38 before I made my earlier comment…but I read it again.
It is very important to read the Qur’an or any book in context….thanks for citing the importance of this essential point to attempt to make an honest interpretation.
I have copied the english translation below….this time I used Saheeh International instead of translating myself.
What did I say that is a distortion?
My point is that the Qur’an explicitly says that the rabbis and doctors of law were entrusted to safely preserve the Torah.
It certainly would have been a challenge to have done this when idolatry became widespread among Israelites as the Torah testifies and in the long captivity of the remaining Israelites in Babylon.
The Qur’an in contradistinction says that God Himself will preserve the Qur’an. In fact, there are verses in the Qur’an where God tells Prophet Muhammad to not worry about being in haste to memorize and that God Himself will take care of it.
The Qur’an often criticizes the Children of Israel for serious lapses and in not fulfilling their duties. And it specifically warns about rabbis themselves in Surah 9.
The full context of the passage you mention does clearly talk about God’s judgement being in the present Torah and it implicitly indicates that there is still much guidance in the Torah.
But it does not state anywhere that the current Torah is in the perfectly pure condition. In fact, it indicates the opposite by saying that the Qur’an is a criterion over the Torah. If the Torah was perfectly preserved, it would not need a criterion. There are many verses in the Qur’an where it corrects the Torah such as that God needed to rest on the 7th day, etc.
Sam, you asked me to get back to you after I read the passage. This passage does truly indicate that the Torah has not been corrupted to the point where it is devoid of guidance. But it does not indicate that the Torah is in the pure state. For instance, I categorically assert that reading the Torah holistically supports the truth of monotheism and the teachings of the Qur’an.
Where is the gross distortion in what I say about 5:44 with regards to the rabbis and doctors of law being entrusted to preserve the Torah?
But how is it that they come to you for judgement while they have the Torah, in which is the judgement of Allah ? Then they turn away, [even] after that; but those are not [in fact] believers.Indeed, We sent down the Torah, in which was guidance and light. The prophets who submitted [to Allah ] judged by it for the Jews, as did the rabbis and scholars by that with which they were entrusted of the Scripture of Allah , and they were witnesses thereto. So do not fear the people but fear Me, and do not exchange My verses 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. 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. And let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the defiantly disobedient. And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ.
LikeLike
Omer, you really need to stop begging the question since you need to first prove that the Torah has been corrupted, not assume that it has been so. Nowhere in the text does it say anything about the text being corrupted. You erroneously assume that just because the Torah was entrusted to the rabbis and scholars, this somehow means that they failed to preserve or ended up corrupting the text in some places. Classic example of begging the question since verse 46 shows why your eisegesis is simply erroneous. There it says that Jesus was sent IN THEIR FOOTSTEPS to confirm the Torah in his possession or, more literally, the Torah between his hands (musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi). Nothing about corruption here, since Jesus confirmed the authority and textual veracity of the Scriptures which were in circulation during his time. This is further brought out by what Ibn Kathir says concerning Q. 5:41:
“… 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 THE PLACED THE TAWRAH ON IT, saying…
<> 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 with 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; capital emphasis ours)
This same narration is cited by another renowned Muslim authority. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, in Ighathat Al Lahfan, Volume 2, p. 351, writes:
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 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.”
AND THE TORAH IS ALLAH’S WORD. (Bold and underline emphasis ours)
You further beg the question by again erroneously assuming that Q. 15:9 is speaking ONLY of the Quran, when the context shows that dhikr here refers to all the revelations that God sent through his messengers. Just read v. 10 for the confirmation, and then read Q. 16:43-44 and 21:7 where the Jews and Christians are called the people of the dhikr, an obvious reference to their Scriptures, in the same way that the scripture which Muhammad recited is said to be the dhikr.
In fact, a strong case can be made on the basis of Q. 15:90-91 further proves that Q. 15:9 is not speaking of the Quran, but of the Holy Bible:
Like as We sent down on the dividers, Those who made the Quran INTO SHREDS. So, by your Lord, We would most certainly question them all, As to what they did. S. 15:90-93 Shakir
Here are some of the various ways that Q. 15:91 has been translated:
(So also on such) as have made Qur’an into shreds (as they please). Y. Ali
Those who break the Qur’an into parts. Pickthall
who dismember the Qur’an. Palmer
who have broken the Koran into fragments. Arberry
Who splintered the Quran into diverse parts. Tarif Khalidi
Those who divided the Qur’an into parts. Maulana Muhammad Ali
Those who break the Quran into separate parts. Hamid S. Aziz
Those who have broken the Qur’an into fragments (as they please). Ali Unal
and also divided the Quran believing in some parts and rejecting others. Muhammad Sarwar
and who have broken the Scripture into fragments— Wahiduddin Khan
And severed their Scripture into fragments. Muhammad Ahmed-Samira
It is thus clear from this verse that the words of the Quran were being changed. As the late Islamic Scholar Alphonse Mingana explained:
“Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): ‘As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,’ we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses.” (Mingana, “Three Ancient Korans”, The Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84)
The evidence also shows that such corruptions to the text continued long after Muhammad’s death. For instance, Mingana records the Muslim reaction to Uthman b. Affan’s burning and wholesale destruction of primary, competing Quranic codices:
“The book, drawn up by this method, continued to be authoritative and the standard text till 29-30 A.H. under the caliphate of ‘Uthman. At this time the wonderful faithfulness of Arab memory was defective, and according to a general weakness of human nature, the Believers have been heard reciting the verses of the Koran in a different way. This fact was due specially, it is said, to the hundreds of dialects used in Arabia. Zaid was again asked to put an end to these variations which had begun to scandalize the votaries of the Prophet. That indefatigable compiler, assisted by three men from the tribe of Quraish, started to do what he had already done more than fifteen years before. The previous copies made from the first one written under Abu Bakr were all destroyed by special order of the caliph: the revelation sent down from heaven was one, and the book containing this revelation must be one. The critic remarks that the only guarantee of the authenticity of the Koran is the testimony of Zaid; and for this reason, a scholar who doubts whether a given word has been really used by Muhammad, or whether it has been only employed by Zaid on his own authority, or on the meagre testimony of some Arab reciters, does not transgress the strict laws of high criticism. If the memory of the followers of the Prophet has been found defective from the year 15 to 30 A.H. when Islam was proclaimed over all Arabia, why may it not have been defective from 612 to 632 C.E. when the Prophet was often obliged to defend his own life against terrible aggressors? And if the first recension of Zaid contained always the actual words of Muhammad, why was this compiler not content with re-establishing it in its entirety, and why was the want of a new recension felt by ‘Uthman? How can it be that in the short space of fifteen years such wonderful variants could have crept into the few copies preceding the reign of the third caliph that he found himself bound to destroy all those he could find? If ‘Uthman was certainly inspired only by religious purposes, why did his enemies call him ‘THE TEARER OF THE BOOKS’ and why did they fasten on him the following stigma: ‘He found the Korans many and left one; HE TORE UP THE BOOK’? …” (Ibid., pp. 84-85; capital emphasis ours)
In another article, Mingana cites Muslim historian al-Tabari who wrote that:
“… ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, and ‘Uthman b. Affan wrote the Revelation to the Prophet; but in their absence it was Ubai b. Ka’b and Zaid b. Thabit who wrote it.’ He informs us, too, that the people said to ‘Uthman: ‘The Koran was in MANY BOOKS, and thou discreditedst them all but one’; and after the Prophet’s death, ‘People gave him as successor Abu Bakr, who in turn was succeeded by ‘Umar; and both of them acted according to the Book and the Sunnah of the Apostle of God – and praise be to God the Lord of the worlds; then people elected ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan WHO … TORE UP THE BOOK.’” (Ibid., The Transmission of the Koran, p. 102; bold and capital emphasis ours)
In this same article Mingana references another ancient writer regarding the compilation of the Quran. The author whom he quotes was a Christian apologist named Abd al-Masih al-Kindi. Al-Kindi wrote an apology titled The Apology of Al-Kindi at the Court of al-Mamun circa A.D. 830, approximately forty years before al-Bukhari compiled his hadith collection. Al-Kindi mentions the Muslim reaction to the conflicting readings that existed amongst the different Quranic codices that circulated shortly after Muhammad’s death:
… Then the people fell to variance in their reading; some read according to the version of ‘Ali, which they follow to the present day; some read according to the collection of which we have made mention; one party read according to the text of ibn Mas’ud, and another according to that of Ubai ibn Ka’b. When ‘Uthman came to power, and people everywhere differed in their reading, ‘Ali sought grounds of accusation against him. One man would read verse one way, and another man another way; and there was change and interpolation, some copies having more and some less. When this was represented to ‘Uthman, and the danger urged of division, strife, and apostasy, he thereupon caused to be collected together all the leaves and scraps that he could, together with the copy that was written out at the first. But they did not interfere with that which was in the hands of ‘Ali, or of those who followed his reading. Ubai was dead by this time, as for Ibn Mas’ud, they demanded his exemplar, but he refused to give it up. Then they commanded Zaid ibn Thabit, and with him ‘Abdallah ibn ‘Abbas, to revise and correct the text, eliminating all that was corrupt; they were instructed, when they differed on any reading, word, or name, or to follow the dialect of the Quraish.
When the recension was completed, four exemplars were written out in large text; one was sent to Mecca, and another to Medina; the third was dispatched to Syria, and is to this day at Malatya; the fourth was deposited in Kufa. People say that this last copy is still extant at Kufa, but this is not case, for it was lost in the insurrection of Mukhtar (A.H. 67). The copy of Mecca remained there till the city was stormed by Abu Sarayah (A.H. 200); he did not carry it away; but it is supposed to have been burned in the conflagration. The Medina exemplar was lost in the reign of terror, that is, in the days of Yazid b. Mu’awiah (A.H. 60-64).
After what we have related above, ‘Uthman called in all the former leaves and copies, and destroyed them, threatening those held any portion back; and so only some scattered remains, concealed here and there, survived. Ibn Mas’ud, however, retained his exemplar in his own hands, and it was inherited by his posterity, as it is this day; and likewise the collection of ‘Ali has descended in his family.
Then followed the business of Hajjaj b. Yusuf, who gathered together every single copy he could lay hold of, and caused to be omitted from the text a great many passages. Among these, they say, were verses revealed concerning the House of the Umayyah with names of certain persons, and concerning the House of ‘Abbas also with names. Six copies of the text thus revised were distributed to Egypt, Syria, Medina, Mecca, Kufa, and Basra. After that he called in and destroyed all the preceding copies, even as ‘Uthman had done before him. The enmity subsisting between ‘Ali and Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman is well known; how each of these entered in the text whatever favored his own claims, and left out what was otherwise. How, then, can we distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit? And what about the losses caused by Hajjaj? The kind of faith that this tyrant held in other matters is well-known; how can we make an arbiter as to the Book of God a man who never ceased play into the hands of the Umayyads whenever he found opportunity? (Ibid., pp. 108-109; bold emphasis ours)
Mingana proceeds to quote what al-Kindi had to say to the Muslim whom was debating:
Then al-Kindi, addressing his Muslim friend, says: ‘All that I have said is drawn from your own authorities, and no single argument has been advanced but what is based on evidence accepted by yourselves; in proof thereof, we have the Kur’an itself, which is a confused heap, with neither system nor order.’ (Ibn Warraq, pp. 109-110)
So I hope you now see why your interpretation of Q. 5:44 is erroneous and a gross distortion of it’s immediate and overall contexts.
LikeLike
Sam Shamoun
You said;
In this same article Mingana references another ancient writer regarding the compilation of the Quran. The author whom he quotes was a Christian apologist named Abd al-Masih al-Kindi. Al-Kindi wrote an apology titled The Apology of Al-Kindi at the Court of al-Mamun circa A.D. 830, approximately forty years before al-Bukhari compiled his hadith collection. Al-Kindi mentions the Muslim reaction to the conflicting readings that existed amongst the different Quranic codices that circulated shortly after Muhammad’s death:
I say;
No wonder you do not want to attend any School or Institution and learn religion to be fluent in Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke, Hebrew-the language of the Bible and Greek another language the Bible was written. You have no basic education in Christianity, Judaism or Islam but just to be quoting Al-Kindi, a Christian apologist to Muslims. This shows your desperation.
I want to see you speaking fluent Hebrew, Greek and or Arabic and have some qualification to be credible, but not to quote Al-Kindi, a Christian apologist to Muslims
Muslims have traditions of recitation of their scripture(Quran) and complimented by written ones and the Angel Gabriel Keep reciting over and over what he revealed to our prophet and our prophet will in turn recite it over and over to his disciples and we use the verses in prayers from the time of our prophet till today and will continue to recite the Quran till the day of judgement in its pure form.
We do not need any uneducated person in Islam, Judaism and Christianity to start quoting Al-Kindi, a Christian apologist who also did not mention the recitation aspect of our Quran to us.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Sam,
I did not have time to read all that you sent because I am traveling today and reading verses and so on not only requires reading them but the passages, the context, etc and that takes a lot of time. I will try to do so when I can. Please also note that the Qur’an only claims it is revelation…not hadith, not commentary by people later on.
I did read the beginning portion where you say that I first need to prove that the Torah has been not preserved or has been corrupted.
I agree that there is no verse in the Qur’an that explicitly says that the current Torah has been corrupted.
However, your eisegesis that the Qur’an thus says that the current Torah is perfect is unwarranted.
I am not claiming that the Qur’an clearly informs us that the current Torah is corrupted.
Sam, please note that the Qur’an does not claim to be a treatise on the Torah…there are numerous books written in academia about that.
The Qur’an claims to be from God as guidance for those who are fearful of following their desires and would like to follow the truth wherever it leads.
I am claiming that the Qur’an does not in any way imply that God saw it to preserve the Torah.
Back to the main point, I am claiming on the contrary, that the Qur’an clearly states that it was the rabbis and doctors of law who had the responsibility to preserve the Torah.
Moreover, there are verses in the Qur’an that would do not show the rabbis in the best of light and thus it is reasonable to concluded that we cannot have full confidence in their responsibilities were carried perfectly for every iota…
again we cannot reasonably have full confidence that the rabbis and doctors of law in the million(s) of words and massive number of verses in the gigantic book of the Torah over the many centuries of the Children of Israel during their idolatry and during the multiple centuries of living in exile in Babylon.
Not only should we expect there to be such mistakes but when the Torah itself says about the idolatry in the Torah and when in the Tanakh we see that Jeremiah is lamenting that the scriptures were not preserved well but lies were inserted, we should not be surprised to see even more than copying mistakes but also even interpolations, etc.
God Almighty also tells in numerous verses in the Qur’an to exercise our intellect with much efforts and when we do so we can easily understand the large amount of such problems in the Bible when we study it academically and most importantly honestly.
If you are open minded and willing to follow the truth wherever it leads, you may want to read “200+ ways how the Qur’an Corrects the Bible: How Islam unites Judaism and Christianity” to see how in numerous verses the Qur’an acts as a criterion over the Torah and corrects it (which means the Torah was not preserved perfectly).
It is available to read free on the internet at
I have a feeling from your past and from you not addressing all the points that I think I have shown to be warranted that you are not looking to follow the truth and follow wherever it leads and that the conversation on this point at least will not be fruitful.
However, only God knows best.
Peace.
LikeLike
Omer, it behooves you to first read my entire before commenting since you would have seen that I used the Quran to refute your erroneous assertion that God didn’t commit himself to preserving the Torah. I even cited specific Muslim scholars who confirm on the basis of the Quran that this is precisely what God has sworn to do. Therefore if you are honest then you need drop your perversion of your own scripture and accept the fact that if the Quran is right then none of the previous scriptures have been corrupted because God has indeed perfectly preserved them. Otherwise you are no better than those Jews of Muhammad’s day who changed the words of Scripture by perverting their meanings with their tongues (Q. 4:44-46; 3:78), meaning by their erroneous misinterpretations of the Holy Bible.
Anyway I said what I had to say on this subject. You can go ahead and read the dozens of articles we have written in this subject for additional arguments and evidences.
LikeLike
Sam, I just love the word ‘behooves’ 🙂
LikeLike
I also forgot to mention Omer that had you actually read my entire response you would have further seen that I proved from the Quran itself that it is the Quran, not the Holy Bible, which is said to have been corrupted and changed. Again if you are going to be honest and consistent with your own way of arguing and interpreting your own scripture then you have no choice but to admit that your god failed to preserve Muhammad’s scripture. But again, I highly doubt that you can be objective and consistent and will therefore do everything you can to ignore and explain away the Quran’s explicit witness to its own textual corruption and perversion.
LikeLike
I love you too Williams. 😎
LikeLike
The “Bible” has changed
LikeLike
Which Bible? There are presently a number of different canons and in the early centuries there were various collections of books with the status of ‘scripture’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I bet the Septuagint isn’t Shamoun’s Bible
LikeLike
Sam,
I skimmed what you sent since you emphasize me to read those sections.
I find the evidences you cited to be irrelevant because you ground them in the hadiths and not the Qur’an.
However, even if one grants what you cite, Louay Fatoohi has refuted those specific hadiths convincingly in his book
http://www.louayfatoohi.com/books/abrogation-in-the-quran-and-islamic-law/
He shows how those hadiths used anachronisms that were not present in the Prophet’s time.
Fatoohi’s book is so masterful that after reading it, it seems that God purposively shows those hadiths to have such problems that they can be identified later.
Even after all that, the purported hadiths are referring to Jews hiding a specific passage…not of them hiding every single passage in the Torah.
Regarding dhikr, you cited how important it is to read verses in context….so to be consistent pls read 15:9 in context….read the 9 verses before it…it is obvious that 15:9 only refers to the Qur’an.
Regardless God did preserve guidance in the Torah….I am just saying that it does not follow that it is all pure.
I don’t understand why you are so fixated on what appears to be this agenda.
Your argument does not apply to the letters of Paul at all….it also does not provide backing to specific gospels because as Paul alluded to references to many texts attributed to be scriptures, there were many gospels….and the core teaching present in the early gospels talk about Jesus’s Greatest Commandment and the commandment second to the Greatest commandment (which are teachings of God in the Torah and the Qur’an).
As you stated this is what you have to say on this subject, similarly this is what I have to say on it at least in this discussion since the conversation is going in circles.
Lastly, I want to say that I sense acrimony in the tone of your writing….when some Muslims disagree with you on this, don’t assume all are being just argumentative.
Some sincerely are convinced that what they are giving you good advice and they care for you.
But I advocate full freedom for all. You are free to leave what is in your best interest.
Peace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Omer, thanks for proving my point that you could care less about truth or facts. Like I said, I have already thoroughly all your objections elsewhere and won’t bother wasting my time replying to them again. Do yourself a favor and read my responses to your desperate polemics which are all posted here:
http://answeringislam.net/Quran/Bible/index.html
LikeLike
Williams, the Bible that Muhammad himself confirmed, the one which rejects the OT apocrypha:
But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) law before them? – therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith. It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to God’s will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of God’s book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. We ordained therein for them: “Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.” But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God. S. 5:43-46 Yusuf Ali
We gave Moses the Book, and made it a Guide to the Children of Israel, (commanding): “Take not other than Me as Disposer of (your) affairs.” S. 17:2
We did aforetime give Moses the (Book of) Guidance, and We gave the book in inheritance to the Children of Israel, – A Guide and a Message to men of Understanding. S. 40:53-54
We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book, the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favoured them above the nations. And We granted them Clear Signs in affairs (of Religion): it was only after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms, through insolent envy among themselves. Verily thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment as to those matters in which they set up differences. S. 45:16-17 Y. Ali
The Islamic scripture even exhorts Muslims to ask the Children of Israel concerning OT events such as Moses and the Exodus:
To Moses We did give Nine Clear Signs: Ask the Children of Israel: when he came to them, Pharaoh said to him: “O Moses! I consider thee, indeed, to have been worked upon by sorcery! S. 17:101
The Quran is merely parroting the NT at this point:
“What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with THE VERY WORDS OF GOD.” Romans 3:1-2
“For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; THEIRS IS the divine glory, THE COVENANTS, THE RECEIVING OF THE LAW, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” Romans 9:4-5
The OT itself confirms this point:
“He has revealed his word to Jacob, his laws and decrees to Israel. He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. Praise the LORD.” Psalm 147:19-20
Therefore, since both the New Testament and the Quran affirm that God revealed his laws and decrees to Israel, and not to any other nation, this means that Christians and Muslims must turn to the Jews to discover whether they ever accepted the Apocrypha as part of the OT canon.
More goodies for you in the next post.
LikeLike
With the foregoing in perspective we can proceed to an examination of the evidence itself by turning to the testimony of two first-century Jews, Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC-AD 50) and Flavius Josephus. Their testimony regarding the canon is foundational since the OT version that they used was the Septuagint (LXX), which is sometimes referred to as the Alexandrian Canon. It is often claimed that the LXX included the Apocrypha. However, if it can be shown that the LXX in use at the time did not include the Apocrypha as part of the inspired canon, then the claim that the Alexandrian canon was somehow different from the one held by Palestinian Jewry lacks any real historical weight.
Here is what Philo wrote in regards to the revelation given to the Jews:
In each house there is a consecrated room which is called a sanctuary or closet and closeted in this day in this they are initiated into the mysteries of the sacred life. They take nothing into it, either drink or food or any other of the things necessary for the needs of the body, but LAWS and ORACLES DELIVERED THROUGH THE MOUTH OF PROPHETS, and PSALMS and anything else which fosters and perfects knowledge and piety. (On the Contemporary Life 25)
F. F. Bruce writes:
“Philo of Alexandria (c 20 BC-AD 50) evidently knew the scriptures in the Greek version only. He was an illustrious representative of Alexandrian Judaism, and if Alexandrian Judaism did indeed recognize a more comprehensive canon than Palestinian Judaism, one might have expected to find some trace of this in Philo’s voluminous writings. But, in fact, while Philo has not given us a formal statement on the limits of the canon such as we have in Josephus, the books which he acknowledged as holy scripture were quite certainly books included in the traditional Hebrew Bible… he shows no sign of accepting the authority of any of the books which we know as the Apocrypha.” (Bruce, The Canon of the Scripture, pp. 29-30)
Roger Beckwith states:
“The De Vita Contemplativa gives a significant account of things which each of the Therepeutae takes with him into his oratory. He takes none of the common things of life, but ‘(the) Laws, and (the) Oracles given by inspiration through (the) Prophets, and (the) Psalms (hymnous), and the other books whereby knowledge and piety are increased and completed…’ (De Vit. Cont. 25).
“The first three groups of books here listed (without the article, as is common in titles) seem to correspond closely to those referred to by the grandson of Ben Sira and especially by Jesus, in Luke 24. {Hymnoi as Conybeare remarks, is Philo’s regular name for the Psalms; and that here again it refers not simply to the Psalter but to the Hagiographa in general is suggested by Philo’s appeals to Job and Proverbs as Scripture, and by the Qumran community’s appeals to Proverbs and Daniel as Scripture … The Therapeutae, with their monasticism, their calendrical peculiarities and their sectarian books and hymns, were clearly akin to the Qumran community, and Philo’s statement may indicate that not only he, with his Pharisaic leanings, but also the Therapeutae, with their Essene leanings, were accustomed to divide the canon into three sections. The only problem is what is meant by ‘the other books (or things) whereby knowledge and piety are increased and completed.’ These are also evidently books, both because of the context and that they ‘increase knowledge.’ The most likely explanation is that they are books outside the canon to which the Therapeutae ascribed almost equal authority. Philo does not necessarily share their view himself, any more than on some other points on which he records the Therapeutae’s distinctive views.” (Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon, p. 117; bold emphasis ours)
Herbert Edward Ryle observes:
“The writings of Philo, who died about 50 A.D., do not throw very much positive light upon the history of the Canon. To him, as to other Alexandrine Jews, the Law alone was in the highest sense the Canon of Scripture, and alone partook of divine inspiration in the most absolute degree. Philo’s writings, however, show that he was well acquainted with many other books of the Old Testament besides the Pentateuch. He quotes from Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Minor Prophets, Psalms, Proverbs, Job, and Ezra. According to some scholars he is said to show acquaintance with books of the Apocrypha. But this is very doubtful; and, even if it be granted, he certainly never appeals to them in support of his teaching in the way that he does to books included in the Hebrew Canon, and never applies to them the formulae of citation which he employs, when referring to the acknowledged books of the Jewish Scriptures. By comparison with his quotations from the Pentateuch, his quotations from the other sacred writings are very scanty; but it is observable that even in these few extracts he ascribes an inspired origin to Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Zechariah. The negative value of his testimony IS STRONG, though not conclusive, against the canonicity of any book of the Apocrypha, or of any work not eventually included in the Hebrew Canon.” (Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament [MacMillan: London, 1904], pp. 159-160)
Now turning our attention to Josephus, who wrote during the 90s AD, here is what he stated:
“We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, ARE BUT TWO AND TWENTY, AND CONTAIN THE RECORD OF ALL TIME.
“Of these, FIVE ARE THE BOOKS OF MOSES, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years. From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, THE PROPHETS subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times IN THIRTEEN BOOKS. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.
“From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, BUT HAS NOT BEEN DEEMED WORTHY OF EQUAL CREDIT WITH THE EARLIER RECORDS, BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE EXACT SUCCESSION OF THE PROPHETS.
“We have given practical proof of our reverence FOR OUR OWN SCRIPTURES. For, although such long ages have now passed, NO ONE HAS VENTURED EITHER TO ADD, OR TO REMOVE, OR TO ALTER A SYLLABLE; AND IT IS AN INSTINCT WITH EVERY JEW, from the day of his birth, TO REGARD THEM AS THE DECREES OF GOD, to abide by them, and, if need be, CHEERFULLY TO DIE FOR THEM.” (Against Apion 1.37-42 and The Jewish War 10.35)
Josephus’ statement is so foundational to our understanding to the OT canon that Ryle states:
“We must remember that Josephus writes as the spokesman of his people, in order to defend the accuracy and sufficiency of their Scriptures, as compared with the recent and contradictory histories by Greek writers… In this controversy he defends the judgment of his people. He does not merely express a personal opinion, he claims to represent his countrymen … How then does he describe the Sacred Books? He mentions their number; he speaks of them as consisting of ‘twenty-two books’. He regards them as a well-defined national collection. That is to say, Josephus and his countrymen, at the beginning of the second cent. A.D., recognised a collection of what he, at least, calls twenty-two books, and no more, as the Canon of Holy Scripture. This Canon it was profanation to think of enlarging, diminishing, or altering in any way.” (Ibid., pp. 173-174)
John Wenham adds:
“Josephus, born about AD 37, was perhaps the most distinguished and most learned Jew of his day. His father was a priest and his mother was descended from the Maccabean kings. Given the best possible education, he proved to be something of a prodigy … What is particularly interesting about the statement of Josephus is the clear distinction between the canonical books which were completed in the time of Artaxerxes, and those written later which were not considered worthy of like credit ‘because the exact succession of the prophets ceased’. The idea evidently is that the canonical books were either written (or accredited) by the prophets, but that when the prophetical era was over, no more books suitable for the Canon were written… Josephus commits himself to a fairly precise date for the closing of the Canon. Artaxerxes Longimanus reigned for forty years, 465 to 425 BC. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh, and Nehemiah in the twentieth, year of his reign (Ez. 7:1,8; Ne. 2:1). In addition to Josephus there are several other witnesses who point to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, with occasionally a reference to the ministries of Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi, as the time of the collection, completion and recognition of the Old Testament Canon.” (Wenham, Christ and the Bible [Baker: Grand Rapids, MI, 1994], pp. 134-136)
Thus we see that the evidence from both the Palestinian and Alexandrian quarters of Judaism conclusively establishes that the Apocrypha were not recognized as part of the inspired OT canon.
I am not done with your smokescreen Williams. More to come in the next post.
LikeLike
More goodies for you Williams. I am going to conclude my rebuttal to your smokescreen here by presenting the witness of the Talmud concerning the OT canon. Here is a reference which helps us understand the rabbinic position concerning the Apocrypha:
Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration] departed from Israel. (Sanhedrin 11a)
According to the rabbis, the Holy Spirit departed from Israel after the time of Malachi. To the Jews this would have meant that the Apocryphal books were not part of the Old Testament since they were written long after the time of Malachi when there were no more Holy Spirit-inspired prophets.
We also read in Baba Bathra 14 that:
Our Rabbis taught: the order of the Prophets is, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, the twelve Minor Prophets… [Our Rabbis taught:] The order of the Hagiographa is Ruth, the book of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentation , Daniel and the scroll of Esther, Ezra and Chronicles… Who wrote the Scriptures? – Moses wrote his own book and the portion of Balaam and Job. Joshua wrote the book which bears his name and [the last] eight verses of the Pentateuch. Samuel wrote the book which bears his name and the book of Judges and Ruth. David wrote the book of Psalms, including in it the work of the ten elders, namely Adam, Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, Heman, Yeduthun, Asaph, and the three sons of Korah. Jeremiah wrote the book which bears his name, the book of Kings, and Lamentations. Hezekiah and his colleagues wrote (mnemonic YMSHQ) Isaiah, Proverbs, the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes. The Men of the Great Assembly wrote (mnemonic QNDG) Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets, Daniel and the scroll of Esther. Ezra wrote the book that bears his name and the genealogies of the book of Chronicles up to his own time. This confirms the opinion of Rab (220-250), since Rab Judah (250-290) has said in the name of Rab: Ezra did not leave Babylon to go up to Eretz Yisrael until he had written his own genealogy. Who then finished it [the book of Chronicles]? – Nehemiah the son of Hachaliah. (Source)
The late NT scholar F. F. Bruce notes that this Jewish tradition possibly stems from the first century:
One of the clearest and earliest statements of these three divisions and their respective contents comes in a baraitha (a tradition from the period AD 70-200) quoted in the Babylonian Talmud, in the tractate Baba Bathra. (Bruce, The Canon of Scripture [InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1988], pp. 29-30)
The above list excludes the Apocrypha from the sacred canon of the Hebrew Bible, and therefore gives us an idea of what the Jews thought of these books. It is clear that Jewry didn’t accept the Apocrypha as inspired Scripture and neither should Christians. After all, the NT verses which we cited earlier (cf. Romans 3:1-2; 9:4-5) clearly attest that God had entrusted his words to the Jews, and we must therefore look to them to define and delineate the extent of the OT canon for us, a canon which excludes the books which Roman Catholics accept as Scripture.
With that said, its time to turn the tables on you Williams. Which Quran do you believe is the original, uncorrupt one? Ibn Masud’s which contained only 111 surahs and verses which are no longer extant in the version you have today? Ubayy b. Kabb’s which consisted of 116 surahs and verses that are not found in your perversion of today? Or the 114 of Uthman’s? If Uthman’s, then which of the 10 versions called qiraat do you endorse as the true and authentic one? Now I hope you are not naive enough to challenge me on this since I have all the quotes from your primary Muslim sources to back up everything I just wrote.
The lesson to learn from this Williams is, people living in glass houses should never throw stones. The sad fact for you is that your Islamic glass house just came crashing down on your head. 😉
LikeLike
Sam Shamoun
Do you have qualification in Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Writing long passages without any intellectual, logical and rational analysis to arrive at true conclusion will not be accepted by Muslims, so you better restrict yourself to your Christian audience who have no problem believing people who have no qualifications and have no expertise in the Scriptural languages like Aramaic, Arabic, Hebrew and Greek.
Your long articles are boring to be honest. Attend some school and come out fluent in Greek, Arabic, Hebrew and speak with authority. Speaking of a Christian apologetics Al-Kindi to Muslims is a waste of time.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Sam Shamoun
Hear White men speaking fluent Arabic(The original language) of the Quran and Islam.
Why will they take all the pain and all these years to learn Arabic, Seerah, Aqeedah, fiq, tafsir, Quranic commentary, Islamic History by travelling all over the world and attending Universities and researching for YOU SAM SHAMOUN who has no basis and basic education in Christianity, Judaism and Islam to be writing lies and interpreting the languages you do not no in long passages to think you can convince Muslims.
You can only convince some Christians who do not research by themselves. Of course you cannot convince some learned Christians who do research. You lazy fellow. Go to school and let us see you speaking fluent Greek and Hebrew for the sake of your Lord Jesus Christ like the above White gentlemen fluent in Arabic, the language of their scripture and religion to convey the message with authority.
Enough of your long essays and Al-Kindi liar who cannot speak fluent Greek to understand his religion. Sam Shamoun,. do yourself a favour and attend Zaytuna College, which is an Islamic University founded by Hamza Yusuf and learn some Hadeeth, Quran commentary so that you will be credible otherwise continue to impress your Christian audience and stop spamming Muslim sites with your long passages that are full of lies and mistranslations.
I can give you proof of any ethnicity i.e. Chinese, Black, African, White, Latino, German, etc. who are scholars and are fluent in the original language of Islam-Arabic to be able to understand what really the Quran is saying.
Can you recite 3 pages of new testament in Greek?
Go learn Greek and know your religion and stop telling lies of a religion(Islam) that you do not know.
Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There goes self styled scholar Mr shamoun and his usual trademark rantings. ‘He’d hardly ever change’ it appears. ‘Shamounism’ seems here to remain for a long time.
Anyway, not a single argument in his entire….. still stands. Bro Zawadi has himself responded to all of them. Bro Question mark also has beamed his torch on a few. To avoid breaking Paul Williams’ first law (thou shalt not spam links), i shall not post the links to the rebuttals. However i’d paraphrase what Bro Zawadi has said about Mr Shamoun in one of them ‘his favourite fallacy is that of appeal to authority’.
LikeLike
You know a guy is a joke and a clown when he has to appeal to another joke like Bassam Zawadi to defend his cause. Anyone who has read anything that Zawadi wrote knows that he is a master at appealing to authority since all he does is quote authorities! Like I said, Islam is notorious for producing inconsistent hypocrites who wouldn’t know what a logical fallacy or honesty are even if they got up hit him in the face!
LikeLike
Shamoun talking about jokes and clowns, here’s your other buddy
LikeLike
Shamoun, even you will laugh at this clown in this video, your buddy went to the uni to discuss doing a PhD in Islam…
LikeLike
Really annoys me when people try to make out the Christian texts and the type of Christians in Arabia that the Muslims encountered in 7th century Arabia were similar to the Christians and the modern day Christian Bible of today.
The “Christianity” Prophet Muhammad (p) encountered would have differed from the way we consider Christianity today. This is essentially what the orientalists Foster and Margoliouth believed, the latter compares such “Christians” to heathens!
Foster, erroneously believing the Prophet received instruction from the surrounding Christians “suggests the type of Christian ideas Muhammad received were from the Gnostics”.
“Margoliouth shares similar view, that the Christians in those days were not that committed and in many cases not very different from the heathen”
Also consider the traditions about Salman Al Farsi [RA] and Heraclius
Salman Al-Farsi, the son of a Zoroastrian priest, met a Christian monk in Persia and converted to Christianity at the hands of the monk. Salman Al-Farsi ran away to Syria and joined the monk’s Christian sect which was dying sect. Salman Al-Farsi learned, from his Christian sect, of a Prophet to come who was predicted by Jesus (p). He was told of three signs the Prophet would meet:
He shall appear in a land full of dates.
He will have a physical mark on his back.
This man will accept gifts but never accept charity.
From Syria, Salman Al-Farsi ended up in Yathrib after being enslaved. He wound up toiling away as a slave for decades. A time came when talk spread about Prophet Muhammad (p) emigrating to Medina. Salman Al-Farsi heard of this talk and came to Prophet Muhammad (p), he soon realised Prophet Muhammad (p) fulfilled all three signs and converted to Islam.
Salman’s story indicated how few real Christians were left at the time of Prophet Muhammad (p). Another story illustrating this was that of the Emperor Heraclius, who received a letter from Prophet Muhammad (p). In the account, Heraclius mentions that there are Scriptures in which a Prophet is predicted to come after Jesus (p) and that Prophet Muhammad (p) fits the description.
Both stories indicate that there were Scriptures that the majority of Christians at the time did not have access.
LikeLike
@ Shamoun
Why are you babbling on about Bassam on Paul’s blog. Fella, you used to do this on PalTalk, crying about Shabir after he wiped the floor with you in a debate more than a decade ago. Now you’re doing it to Bassam, clearly the guy has wiped the floor with your lunacy on his EXCELLENT calltomonotheism website hence why you keep babbling on about him. Clearly he spanked you many times.
Get it through your skull, nobody wants to read your boring and nonsensical ‘articles’. I feel sorry for Bassam, he had to plough through your moonbat ravings before refuting your dribble
Now on to some excitement, Shabir is going to be debating your buddy Dave so who are you going to be debating? Clearly Shabir isn’t interested in you so I will do it. Get in touch with me on my email and lets get the floor wiped with you just like here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Sam%20Shamoun
This is your chance to get a debate on. Don’t let your hormones and excitement get the better of you by losing control. Stay calm and send me an email (one without any abuse please).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yahya slime is out barking again,. You mean the same Shabir who has been avoiding me just like Muhammad avoided heaven after our debate, which proves that he knew he did badly in the first public debate I ever did? http://answeringislam.net/Responses/Shabir-Ally/challenge.htm
That Shabir?
And Zawadi who was too afraid to ever debate me, just like you which is why you can only go on the blogs of fellow Muslims and bark off with posts in order to pretend that you have the guts to defend your lies and garbage? That Zawadi?
Let me call you out then. Since these two gents are too afraid to face me care to debate me on Paltalk so you can put me in my place for all to see? Or do you prefer to keep barking off here without giving me the chance to muzzle you once and for all?
LikeLike
Hey yahyaslime here is my mail so we can get these debates underway so I can muzzle you once and for all: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com
Boy I can’t wait! I am going to finally tame this dog! 😉
LikeLike
Sam Shameonyou
You think Muslims are cancer to the society, YOU DON’T WORTH DEBATING.
LikeLike
Sadiq I am going to assume you are not slime like Yahyaslime who pretends to be courageous and acts like a man on his buddies’ blogs. Therefore I am going address the distortion of my words. Go back and listen to my words in context and you will see that I did not say Muslims in general are a cancer. I was directed my comments to a specific group of Muslims, specifically the terrorists and the apologetic slimes like Yahyaslime and Sami Zaatari. Believe it or not I run into Muslims all the time who are some of the most beautiful people you can ever meet. And some of your Muslim scholars are also some of the most beautiful people I have seen and listened to. For instance I love hamza Yusuf and feel he makes Islam look beautiful and you should be thankful that you have someone like him.
LikeLike
Yahyaslime where are you? Instead of acting courageous here and pretending to be man enough to defend your religion EMAIL ME so we can get these debates underway you coward. Here is another email in case the other one ain’t working for you: sam_shmn@hotmail.com
NOW EMAIL ME SO WE CAN GET IT ON. I am not going to waste anymore time addressing you here since you have my emails and have no excuse for barking off pretending to have the guts to debate. Now is the time to put up or shut up.
Man I can’t wait to muzzle you! 🙂
LikeLike
Sam that’s enough of that.
LikeLike
Hmm, yes, we Muslims have a habit of “distorting” people’s word,. Having said that, stone smoocher, Muhammadan are these too also about specific Muslims? These are insults. You didn’t say Muslims like you are a cancer to the society, you rather said you Muslims are a cancer to the society. BTW, Your assumption is wrong, I am worse than them, since I have so much respect for them especially brother Sami Zaatari. I am through and sorry since this is so off the topic of this thread.
LikeLike
Sadiw, again go back and see who I direct my insults too. Muslims who mock, ridicule, insult and attack our God and our Scriptures. Therefore I do not mind giving them a taste of their own medicine and then reminding them of what Q. 6:108. Sorry about offending you but my friend you are going to have hold your felled blaspheming and ridiculing ikhwaan to the same standard and call them out for their venom against Christians. Hope you see where I am coming from.
LikeLike
I do apologize for all my typos here.
LikeLike
Like I said Williams, I won’t waste time addressing Yahyaslime here anymore since he has my emails now and therefore has no excuse in contacting me so we can get these debates underway.
LikeLike
I meant to say has no excuse NOT contacting.
LikeLike
Has anyone ever seen Yahya Snow in real life? I think he lives in London but has he done public debates before?
LikeLike
Appears I will have to break my own rules. Mr Sham Scam (as he’s called among we VOIN members) seem to be stretching me beyond…….
Due to the paucity of time as well as resources (I live in a third world country :Nigeria), I cannot refute every junk in his articles. I’ll therefore post the link to Bro Zawadi’s entire rebuttals. A quick glance through them will reveal his ‘desperation’. He’s merely parroting refuted junk.
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__
In the meantime, I’d like to inform you Mr Sam that your attitude does more harm than good. I left christianity in 2011 after reading refutations of your rebuttals to Stephen Finlan’s ‘Ransom vs Sacrifice’ allegations (in reviews of James White Vs Shabir Ally’s 2007 debate). (The theory that God paid a ransom to himself in order to appease himself is too absurd to buy. Seems fit for the dustbin). A friend left last year after a different row.
You are a celebrity in Africa Mr Sam. Think it is about time you refine your orientation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
naughty naughty Sam. You have been indulging your spamming fetish again.
LikeLike
Chico, I had started posted links to all my refutations to Zawadi’s garbage which you linked to, but Williams is at it again deleting all my posts. Tell you what. Email me so I can arrange for you to publicly refute you so I can be given the opportunity to expose you as the inconsistent charlatan that you are since you were NEVER a Christian. You can the try to defend Muhammad’s concept of substitutionary atonement where he claims that his god will throw Jews and Christians into hell as an atoning sacrifice for wicked Muslims such as yourself.
32. Abu Musa al-Ash’ari reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “On the Day of Rising, Allah will hand over a Jew or a Christian to every Muslim and say, ‘HERE IS YOUR REDEMPTION FROM THE FIRE.” [Muslim]
In another variant from him is that the Prophet said, “Some of the Muslims will be brought on the Day of Rising WITH SINS THE SIZE OF MOUNTAINS and Allah will forgive them.” (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)
Superiority of the believers in the Oneness of Allah and the punishment of the Jews and Christians
8) Narrated Abu Musa: Allah’s Messenger said: On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.
(This Hadith IS SOUND and mentioned in Mustadrak of Hakim). (110 Hadith Qudsi (Sacred Hadith), translated by Syed Masood-ul-Hasan, revision and commentaries by Ibrahim m. Kunna [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors], pp. 19-20; capital and underline emphasis ours)
Here are some more:
Chapter 8: THROWING OF NON-BELIEVERS IN HELL-FIRE FOR BELIEVERS AS DIVINE GRACE AND MERCY
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)
So PLEASE email me so we can arrange for a discussion for all to see you expose me.
Now you see why I am so popular in Africa unlike your taught Zawadi. 😉
LikeLike
Sam/Wood’s Buddy just how many identities do you have?
You know my rules: no spamming of links. Use words – arguments – articulate a case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Guess ‘shamounism’ is such a narrow concept. Mr Shamoun did exactly as I presumed. Such a rather predictable man.
Anyway, it’d appear you haven’t done your homework well Mr Shamoun. Your latest tirade has also got a sound refutation. (I’m afraid it is ‘Zawadic’ too). Bro Bassam seems to have done a good job dealing with you.
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/rebuttal_to_injustice_of_allah.htm
I could hardly withhold my laughter when I read your claim that I was never a christian. ‘How unfortunate it is’ I couldn’t help saying ‘that a man who does not even know my name could attempt telling me about myself?’. Surely should speak volumes on your own personality.
At any rate, I haven’t got the time for a debate now. Move on and deal with Bro Snow first.
LikeLiked by 2 people