22 replies

  1. Thanks for the link, brother Paul! I must admit though that I haven’t made many updates to the blog in the past few months. The last major article was published almost 5 months ago (it was on the Book of Revelation). InshaAllah, I will get back on track once the I get a little less busy!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Thanks Paul,

    Faiz, excellent blog. I just want to mention a stylistic issue…in google chrome, the title words look too close.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Thanks Omer. I always thought that the title needs to be improved to make it more visible. I will try to fix it soon, inshaAllah.

    Like

  4. The author defends the destruction of Noah’s tribe on the grounds of their stubborn refusal to worship Allah. This is never a reason for judgement in the bible.

    Moses encountered a number of pagan nations on his way to the promised land but he did not command them to convert under threat of being attacked.

    There must be some moral lapse for judgement to occur.

    The author argues for a local flood. Maybe many Muslims don’t like the idea of a worldwide flood because it would inevitably involve the death of many “innocents”, the space on the ark being limited by design. Though women worship the same gods as their male relatives.

    The idea that Ishmael was a small infant because the word hey-ye-led, as opposed to ye-led, can only mean infant is not supported by the translators, for example in Ecclesiastes 4 v 13 and 15. Verse 13 is the word ye-led and verse 15 is the word hey-ye-led.

    Most of the translations translate both words as youth, the KJV both words as child. Douey Rheims translates verse 15 as young man and verse 13 as child, whereas God’s Word translation translates both v 13 and v 15 as young man. NAS translates both verses as “lad”.

    Like

  5. “The author defends the destruction of Noah’s tribe on the grounds of their stubborn refusal to worship Allah. This is never a reason for judgement in the bible.

    Moses encountered a number of pagan nations on his way to the promised land but he did not command them to convert under threat of being attacked.

    There must be some moral lapse for judgement to occur.”

    Not quite. In the Bible, the Jews are routinely punished for their worship of other gods besides the God of Israel. For example, see Numbers 25:3:

    “So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.”

    Also, see Judges 2:10ff.

    “The author argues for a local flood. Maybe many Muslims don’t like the idea of a worldwide flood because it would inevitably involve the death of many “innocents”, the space on the ark being limited by design. Though women worship the same gods as their male relatives.”

    I argue for a local flood because that it what the evidence from the Quran shows. A global flood makes no sense if the people were not warned beforehand. Allah says in the Quran:

    “…thy Lord would not destroy for their wrong-doing men’s habitations whilst their occupants were unwarned” (Surah al-Anaam, 6:131)

    But yes, it would be unjust to destroy many innocent people that were not guilty of the sins of Noah’s people, especially if those people were not warned ahead of time to prepare for the coming catastrophe. That is one reason why the Biblical account makes no sense.

    “The idea that Ishmael was a small infant because the word hey-ye-led, as opposed to ye-led, can only mean infant is not supported by the translators, for example in Ecclesiastes 4 v 13 and 15. Verse 13 is the word ye-led and verse 15 is the word hey-ye-led.

    Most of the translations translate both words as youth, the KJV both words as child. Douey Rheims translates verse 15 as young man and verse 13 as child, whereas God’s Word translation translates both v 13 and v 15 as young man. NAS translates both verses as “lad”.”

    That’s exactly the point! The translators choose to be inconsistent in how they translate these words, even though they are different.

    Also, as I explained in a follow-up article, there is evidence that ancient Jews recognized the contradiction regarding ishmael’s age and thus tried to remove the contradiction. In a 2006 article in the journal “Dead Sea Discoveries”, Betsy Halpern-Amaru made the following interesting observation about a variant of the story in question in the fragment of the Dead Scrolls known as 4Q225:

    “…the author of 4Q225 develops a structure that creates a new backdrop for the narrative of the Aqedah. Prefacing the account of the Aqedah is a summary presentation of the promises of a son and multiple progeny in Gen 15:2–6 (2 i 3–7). Isaac’s birth is announced immediately thereafter (2 1 8–9a) and thereby is explicitly portrayed as the fulfillment of the preceding divine promise of a son. The Ishmael narratives that intervene between the promises of the covenant making in Genesis 15 and the birth of Isaac are omitted. Indeed, in 4Q225 Ishmael is never born. Consequently, when God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son (2 i 11), Isaac is quite literally…the only son the patriarch has.”

    Also, in a 2001 article in the journal “Vetus Testamentum”, S. Nikaido of Berkeley University made a very interesting observation about the depiction of Ishmael in Genesis 21, which supports our contention that the story has been altered by Jewish scribes. Nikaido states:

    “According to Gen. xvii 25 (P), Ishmael was at least thirteen. Therefore, Gen. Rabbah 53.13 (also Rashi) suggests that he was carried because of illness; Abravanel interprets we”et-hayyeled as meaning Ishmael helped carry the provisions. Modern commentators, however, fault the discrepancy on P’s superimposed chronology (Gen. xvi 16 and xxi 5; xvii 25), a phenomenon occurring elsewhere (e.g., Gen. xii 11 compared with xvii 17 and xii 4). The text clearly does not portray Ishmael as a grown child (P) but most likely as an infant (E), since Hagar not only carries him (xxi 14) but also “casts” him under a bush (v. 15; cf. Exod i 22) and “lifts him up” (v. 18). Other clues include: God hears the child’s voice (v. 17), presumably crying, rather than his mother’s (E. Fripp, “Note on Gen. xxi 6. 8-12”, ZAW 12 [1892], pp. 164-65), the reference to his “growing” (v. 20), and the fact that Hagar is not portrayed as being in any mortal danger but only the child.”

    So, as you can see, scholars recognize the contradiction. The only ones who don’t are fundamentalist Jews and Christians.

    For more, see the following: http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/response-to-christian-about-biblical_17.html

    Like

  6. @ Faiz

    I believe that the original text that the kjv text is based upon was preserved by divine providence and that the KJV translators translated it correctly also by God’s providence. So the ony thing I can do in response is to look at the text as given by the KJV.

    Genesis 21 v 11 “And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son. 12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. 13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. 14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

    15 And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. 16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. 17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. 18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. 19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.

    20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. 21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.”

    The fact that Ishmael is sometimes referred to as lad and sometimes as child is not a contradiction in my view. From the point of view of relation the child is always the child of it’s parents. It never ceases to be so. In point of view of it’s own development the child ceases to be a child. The word “lad” signifies this.

    In my view the text does not imply that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulder.

    Perhaps the fact that Hagar is said to have cast Ishmael under one of the shrubs and that God commanded her to lift him up is not so easy to explain if he is sixteen years old.

    I would say that “cast” does not mean throw but rather to place him there. No mother would throw her child around if he was sick. That is nonsense.

    The command to lift him up does not mean to lift him up completely off the ground but to lift up his upper body so that he could drink. I don’t think this would be beyond the strength of Hagar to achieve.

    “Sarah Turns against Hagar

    Genesis 21 v 9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. 10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. ”

    It is obvious here that “cast out” does not mean literally throw out but to remove or place beyond or outside of something, in this case the household of Abraham.

    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    “Not quite. In the Bible, the Jews are routinely punished for their worship of other gods besides the God of Israel. For example, see Numbers 25:3:

    “So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.”

    Also, see Judges 2:10ff.”

    That’s true but the generation of Noah is not in a special convenant relationship to Jehovah so they cannot be held responsible and judged to be worthy of punishment on these grounds as the Israelites were. They had no written laws given to them by God through a mediator, as Moses was, which told them how they must worship God or conduct themselves so to as to avoid his wrath. The Jews were judged and punished on the grounds of the laws which they had broken but Noah’s generation did not have these laws.

    “But yes, it would be unjust to destroy many innocent people that were not guilty of the sins of Noah’s people, especially if those people were not warned ahead of time to prepare for the coming catastrophe. That is one reason why the Biblical account makes no sense. ”

    Noah was a one-time universal flood which will never be repeated according to bible. In the Quran it is the paradigm for the religious duty of continuously confronting the infidel civilizations before declaring war upon them. Mohammed interpreted the flood in this way did he not?

    Is it more just to keep repeating this scenario of confronting a people with the demand to repent and submit to the warner and then attacking those who refuse to submit? I don’t believe this is how God works in the bible. I see no evidence in the bible that this is God’s will. It is just a continual declaration of war upon the infidel rulers which will only end when there are no more infidel governments. Does God really want this kind of world?

    One specific reason that God gave for destroying the world was because it was filled with violence:

    “Gen 6 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.”

    Like

  7. “I believe that the original text that the kjv text is based upon was preserved by divine providence and that the KJV translators translated it correctly also by God’s providence. So the ony thing I can do in response is to look at the text as given by the KJV.”

    And what do you base this on? What proof do you have that the KJV “was preserved by divine providence”? I hope you understand that an a priori assumption does not serve as a convincing argument. You are essentially making a circular argument.

    But let’s use the KJV, since you prefer to use it.

    In my original article, I pointed to Exodus 2:3 to show that the Hebrew word hay-ye-led was used to describe the baby Moses (peace be upon him). Later in Exodus 2, Moses “grows” and becomes a man:

    “And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water. And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.” (Exodus 2:10-11).

    This verse is very similar to the verse about Ishmael “growing” after his exile:

    “And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20).

    Why would we assume that Moses was an infant, but Ishmael was a teenager, before they both “grew”? You have to be honest. There is something fishy going on.

    “The fact that Ishmael is sometimes referred to as lad and sometimes as child is not a contradiction in my view. From the point of view of relation the child is always the child of it’s parents. It never ceases to be so. In point of view of it’s own development the child ceases to be a child. The word “lad” signifies this.”

    Not true. In Genesis, Isaac is repeatedly referred to as Abraham’s “son”, rather than his “child”, even before he grew up (Genesis 21:3). He is referred to as “child” only once (Genesis 21:8). From that point on, he is referred to as “son”. Why wouldn’t the same be true for Ishmael? Why call him “child” in one place and “lad” in another place?

    “In my view the text does not imply that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulder.”

    Jewish scholars, like Rashi, would disagree with you. The fact is that the text clearly shows that Hagar was carrying Ishmael. The early rabbis found this difficult to explain if he was 16 years old, so they literally invented a story to explain it, as Rashi noted:

    “He also placed the child on her shoulder, because Sarah had cast an evil eye upon him, and he was seized by a fever so that he could not walk on his feet.”

    “Perhaps the fact that Hagar is said to have cast Ishmael under one of the shrubs and that God commanded her to lift him up is not so easy to explain if he is sixteen years old.

    I would say that “cast” does not mean throw but rather to place him there. No mother would throw her child around if he was sick. That is nonsense.

    The command to lift him up does not mean to lift him up completely off the ground but to lift up his upper body so that he could drink. I don’t think this would be beyond the strength of Hagar to achieve.”

    Again, what are you basing this on? What proof do you have?

    I never said that “cast” means to “throw”. What I did say is that if Ishmael was 16 years old, Hagar didn’t need to “cast” him under a bush and “lift” him up. He could have done that himself.

    “That’s true but the generation of Noah is not in a special convenant relationship to Jehovah so they cannot be held responsible and judged to be worthy of punishment on these grounds as the Israelites were. They had no written laws given to them by God through a mediator, as Moses was, which told them how they must worship God or conduct themselves so to as to avoid his wrath. The Jews were judged and punished on the grounds of the laws which they had broken but Noah’s generation did not have these laws.”

    If that was the case, then why were they still destroyed by the flood for other sins? How could they have been judged if “they had no written laws”? How would they have known better? Surely, you can see the contradiction in your reasoning?

    “Noah was a one-time universal flood which will never be repeated according to bible. In the Quran it is the paradigm for the religious duty of continuously confronting the infidel civilizations before declaring war upon them. Mohammed interpreted the flood in this way did he not?”

    No. The flood was a legitimate punishment which the people of Noah brought themselves for rejecting God’s warnings to them to give up their idolatry. They were warned ahead of time, but they remained stubborn. Therefore, they brought upon themselves God’s judgment.

    In contrast, you want us to believe that God wiped out the entire world for its sins, without any warning whatsoever. Even if it was “a one-time universal flood”, it was extremely unfair to destroy the world for not knowing any better since, as you stated, the people did not have “written laws”.

    “Is it more just to keep repeating this scenario of confronting a people with the demand to repent and submit to the warner and then attacking those who refuse to submit? I don’t believe this is how God works in the bible. I see no evidence in the bible that this is God’s will. It is just a continual declaration of war upon the infidel rulers which will only end when there are no more infidel governments. Does God really want this kind of world?”

    You are conflating two different scenarios. Before the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), people were called on to accept the teachings of their prophets. If they rejected their prophets, they were punished. That is why the people of Noah, Salih, and Hud were destroyed. After the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), there is only one universal message since he was sent to the entire world, not just to his own people. Even then, the only time it is allowed to wage war is against those who wage war against Muslims. Once that happens, then and only then are they given 3 choices: convert to Islam, pay a tax (jizya) or face war. Muslims are not allowed to fight against unbelievers with whom they have a treaty with.

    In addition, you claim that there is “no evidence in the Bible that this is God’s will”. You are wrong. What about the people of Nineveh and Jonah?

    “And the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying,

    2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

    3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey.

    4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

    5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them” (Jonah, 3:1-5).

    Clearly, the people of Nineveh were warned to give up their wicked ways and to believe in God and worship Him. And they did:

    “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jonah 3:10).

    And by the way, according to the Bible, when Jesus returns, he will wage war against all “infidels” and kill those who refuse to accept him:

    “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).

    Even though this was a parable, it was made clear that Jesus was referring to himself. So as you can see, this was essentially “a continual declaration of war upon the infidels”. The only difference is that it is supposed to happen during Jesus’ second coming.

    <b?"One specific reason that God gave for destroying the world was because it was filled with violence:

    “Gen 6 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.”"

    But where was it written that people should do no violence? As you stated, they had no “written laws”! So, how would they have known better? And why didn’t God at least warn them first to repent of their evil ways?

    Also, it was not just “violence” but every manner of sin that people were committing:

    “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

    Like

  8. “I believe that the original text that the kjv text is based upon was preserved by divine providence and that the KJV translators translated it correctly also by God’s providence. So the ony thing I can do in response is to look at the text as given by the KJV.”

    And what do you base this on? What proof do you have that the KJV “was preserved by divine providence”? I hope you understand that an a priori assumption does not serve as a convincing argument. You are essentially making a circular argument.

    But let’s use the KJV, since you prefer to use it.

    In my original article, I pointed to Exodus 2:3 to show that the Hebrew word hay-ye-led was used to describe the baby Moses (peace be upon him). Later in Exodus 2, Moses “grows” and becomes a man:

    “And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water. And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.” (Exodus 2:10-11).

    This verse is very similar to the verse about Ishmael “growing” after his exile:

    “And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20).

    Why would we assume that Moses was an infant, but Ishmael was a teenager, before they both “grew”? You have to be honest. There is something fishy going on.

    “The fact that Ishmael is sometimes referred to as lad and sometimes as child is not a contradiction in my view. From the point of view of relation the child is always the child of it’s parents. It never ceases to be so. In point of view of it’s own development the child ceases to be a child. The word “lad” signifies this.”

    Not true. In Genesis, Isaac is repeatedly referred to as Abraham’s “son”, rather than his “child”, even before he grew up (Genesis 21:3). He is referred to as “child” only once (Genesis 21:8). From that point on, he is referred to as “son”. Why wouldn’t the same be true for Ishmael? Why call him “child” in one place and “lad” in another place?

    “In my view the text does not imply that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulder.”

    Jewish scholars, like Rashi, would disagree with you. The fact is that the text clearly shows that Hagar was carrying Ishmael. The early rabbis found this difficult to explain if he was 16 years old, so they literally invented a story to explain it, as Rashi noted:

    “He also placed the child on her shoulder, because Sarah had cast an evil eye upon him, and he was seized by a fever so that he could not walk on his feet.”

    “Perhaps the fact that Hagar is said to have cast Ishmael under one of the shrubs and that God commanded her to lift him up is not so easy to explain if he is sixteen years old.

    I would say that “cast” does not mean throw but rather to place him there. No mother would throw her child around if he was sick. That is nonsense.

    The command to lift him up does not mean to lift him up completely off the ground but to lift up his upper body so that he could drink. I don’t think this would be beyond the strength of Hagar to achieve.”

    Again, what are you basing this on? What proof do you have?

    I never said that “cast” means to “throw”. What I did say is that if Ishmael was 16 years old, Hagar didn’t need to “cast” him under a bush and “lift” him up. He could have done that himself.

    “That’s true but the generation of Noah is not in a special convenant relationship to Jehovah so they cannot be held responsible and judged to be worthy of punishment on these grounds as the Israelites were. They had no written laws given to them by God through a mediator, as Moses was, which told them how they must worship God or conduct themselves so to as to avoid his wrath. The Jews were judged and punished on the grounds of the laws which they had broken but Noah’s generation did not have these laws.”

    If that was the case, then why were they still destroyed by the flood for other sins? How could they have been judged if “they had no written laws”? How would they have known better? Surely, you can see the contradiction in your reasoning?

    “Noah was a one-time universal flood which will never be repeated according to bible. In the Quran it is the paradigm for the religious duty of continuously confronting the infidel civilizations before declaring war upon them. Mohammed interpreted the flood in this way did he not?”

    No. The flood was a legitimate punishment which the people of Noah brought themselves for rejecting God’s warnings to them to give up their idolatry. They were warned ahead of time, but they remained stubborn. Therefore, they brought upon themselves God’s judgment.

    In contrast, you want us to believe that God wiped out the entire world for its sins, without any warning whatsoever. Even if it was “a one-time universal flood”, it was extremely unfair to destroy the world for not knowing any better since, as you stated, the people did not have “written laws”.

    “Is it more just to keep repeating this scenario of confronting a people with the demand to repent and submit to the warner and then attacking those who refuse to submit? I don’t believe this is how God works in the bible. I see no evidence in the bible that this is God’s will. It is just a continual declaration of war upon the infidel rulers which will only end when there are no more infidel governments. Does God really want this kind of world?”

    You are conflating two different scenarios. Before the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), people were called on to accept the teachings of their prophets. If they rejected their prophets, they were punished. That is why the people of Noah, Salih, and Hud were destroyed. After the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), there is only one universal message since he was sent to the entire world, not just to his own people. Even then, the only time it is allowed to wage war is against those who wage war against Muslims. Once that happens, then and only then are they given 3 choices: convert to Islam, pay a tax (jizya) or face war. Muslims are not allowed to fight against unbelievers with whom they have a treaty with.

    In addition, you claim that there is “no evidence in the Bible that this is God’s will”. You are wrong. What about the people of Nineveh and Jonah?

    “And the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying,

    2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

    3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey.

    4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

    5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them” (Jonah, 3:1-5).

    Clearly, the people of Nineveh were warned to give up their wicked ways and to believe in God and worship Him. And they did:

    “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jonah 3:10).

    And by the way, according to the Bible, when Jesus returns, he will wage war against all “infidels” and kill those who refuse to accept him:

    “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).

    Even though this was a parable, it was made clear that Jesus was referring to himself. So as you can see, this was essentially “a continual declaration of war upon the infidels”. The only difference is that it is supposed to happen during Jesus’ second coming.

    <b?"One specific reason that God gave for destroying the world was because it was filled with violence:

    “Gen 6 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.”"

    But where was it written that people should do no violence? As you stated, they had no “written laws”! So, how would they have known better? And why didn’t God at least warn them first to repent of their evil ways?

    Also, it was not just “violence” but every manner of sin that people were committing:

    “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

    Like

  9. Madmaana,

    Sorry for the lateness of my response. For some reason, my comments weren’t posting yesterday.

    “I believe that the original text that the kjv text is based upon was preserved by divine providence and that the KJV translators translated it correctly also by God’s providence. So the ony thing I can do in response is to look at the text as given by the KJV.”

    And what do you base this on? What proof do you have that the KJV “was preserved by divine providence”? I hope you understand that an a priori assumption does not serve as a convincing argument. You are essentially making a circular argument.

    But let’s use the KJV, since you prefer to use it.

    In my original article, I pointed to Exodus 2:3 to show that the Hebrew word hay-ye-led was used to describe the baby Moses (peace be upon him). Later in Exodus 2, Moses “grows” and becomes a man:

    “And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water. And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.” (Exodus 2:10-11).

    This verse is very similar to the verse about Ishmael “growing” after his exile:

    “And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20).

    Why would we assume that Moses was an infant, but Ishmael was a teenager, before they both “grew”? You have to be honest. There is something fishy going on.

    “The fact that Ishmael is sometimes referred to as lad and sometimes as child is not a contradiction in my view. From the point of view of relation the child is always the child of it’s parents. It never ceases to be so. In point of view of it’s own development the child ceases to be a child. The word “lad” signifies this.”

    Not true. In Genesis, Isaac is repeatedly referred to as Abraham’s “son”, rather than his “child”, even before he grew up (Genesis 21:3). He is referred to as “child” only once (Genesis 21:8). From that point on, he is referred to as “son”. Why wouldn’t the same be true for Ishmael? Why call him “child” in one place and “lad” in another place?

    “In my view the text does not imply that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulder.”

    Jewish scholars, like Rashi, would disagree with you. The fact is that the text clearly shows that Hagar was carrying Ishmael. The early rabbis found this difficult to explain if he was 16 years old, so they literally invented a story to explain it, as Rashi noted:

    “He also placed the child on her shoulder, because Sarah had cast an evil eye upon him, and he was seized by a fever so that he could not walk on his feet.”

    “Perhaps the fact that Hagar is said to have cast Ishmael under one of the shrubs and that God commanded her to lift him up is not so easy to explain if he is sixteen years old.

    I would say that “cast” does not mean throw but rather to place him there. No mother would throw her child around if he was sick. That is nonsense.

    The command to lift him up does not mean to lift him up completely off the ground but to lift up his upper body so that he could drink. I don’t think this would be beyond the strength of Hagar to achieve.”

    Again, what are you basing this on? What proof do you have?

    I never said that “cast” means to “throw”. What I did say is that if Ishmael was 16 years old, Hagar didn’t need to “cast” him under a bush and “lift” him up. He could have done that himself.

    “That’s true but the generation of Noah is not in a special convenant relationship to Jehovah so they cannot be held responsible and judged to be worthy of punishment on these grounds as the Israelites were. They had no written laws given to them by God through a mediator, as Moses was, which told them how they must worship God or conduct themselves so to as to avoid his wrath. The Jews were judged and punished on the grounds of the laws which they had broken but Noah’s generation did not have these laws.”

    If that was the case, then why were they still destroyed by the flood for other sins? How could they have been judged if “they had no written laws”? How would they have known better? Surely, you can see the contradiction in your reasoning?

    “Noah was a one-time universal flood which will never be repeated according to bible. In the Quran it is the paradigm for the religious duty of continuously confronting the infidel civilizations before declaring war upon them. Mohammed interpreted the flood in this way did he not?”

    No. The flood was a legitimate punishment which the people of Noah brought themselves for rejecting God’s warnings to them to give up their idolatry. They were warned ahead of time, but they remained stubborn. Therefore, they brought upon themselves God’s judgment.

    In contrast, you want us to believe that God wiped out the entire world for its sins, without any warning whatsoever. Even if it was “a one-time universal flood”, it was extremely unfair to destroy the world for not knowing any better since, as you stated, the people did not have “written laws”.

    “Is it more just to keep repeating this scenario of confronting a people with the demand to repent and submit to the warner and then attacking those who refuse to submit? I don’t believe this is how God works in the bible. I see no evidence in the bible that this is God’s will. It is just a continual declaration of war upon the infidel rulers which will only end when there are no more infidel governments. Does God really want this kind of world?”

    You are conflating two different scenarios. Before the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), people were called on to accept the teachings of their prophets. If they rejected their prophets, they were punished. That is why the people of Noah, Salih, and Hud were destroyed. After the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), there is only one universal message since he was sent to the entire world, not just to his own people. Even then, the only time it is allowed to wage war is against those who wage war against Muslims. Once that happens, then and only then are they given 3 choices: convert to Islam, pay a tax (jizya) or face war. Muslims are not allowed to fight against unbelievers with whom they have a treaty with.

    In addition, you claim that there is “no evidence in the Bible that this is God’s will”. You are wrong. What about the people of Nineveh and Jonah?

    “And the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying,

    2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

    3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey.

    4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

    5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them” (Jonah, 3:1-5).

    Clearly, the people of Nineveh were warned to give up their wicked ways and to believe in God and worship Him. And they did:

    “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jonah 3:10).

    And by the way, according to the Bible, when Jesus returns, he will wage war against all “infidels” and kill those who refuse to accept him:

    “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).

    Even though this was a parable, it was made clear that Jesus was referring to himself. So as you can see, this was essentially “a continual declaration of war upon the infidels”. The only difference is that it is supposed to happen during Jesus’ second coming.

    <b?"One specific reason that God gave for destroying the world was because it was filled with violence:

    “Gen 6 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.”"

    But where was it written that people should do no violence? As you stated, they had no “written laws”! So, how would they have known better? And why didn’t God at least warn them first to repent of their evil ways?

    Also, it was not just “violence” but every manner of sin that people were committing:

    “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

    Like

  10. Thanks Paul. I don’t why but my comments were not posting previously, but now they are are.

    Like

  11. Another point to add:

    In the Hebrew text for Exodus 2:11 and Genesis 21:20, the word used for “grew” is exactly the same:

    “And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown (way-yiḡ-dal) that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren” (Exodus 2:10)

    “And God was with the lad; and he grew (way-yiḡ-dāl), and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20).

    http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/2-10.htm
    http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/21-20.htm

    So, this is further linguistic proof that Ishmael (peace be upon him) could not have been a teenager.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Hello Faiz, thanks for the interesting discussion,

    ” “I believe that the original text that the kjv text is based upon was preserved by divine providence and that the KJV translators translated it correctly also by God’s providence. So the ony thing I can do in response is to look at the text as given by the KJV.”

    And what do you base this on? What proof do you have that the KJV “was preserved by divine providence”? I hope you understand that an a priori assumption does not serve as a convincing argument. You are essentially making a circular argument. ”

    ******I am not arguing for this. I take it as a given from the nature of revelation that it is true and God preserves it or else what would be the point? I also don’t believe that the so-called chains of narration prove in a scientific sense that the Quran is what it claims to be.

    “And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.”

    “This verse is very similar to the verse about Ishmael “growing” after his exile:

    “And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20).

    Why would we assume that Moses was an infant, but Ishmael was a teenager, before they both “grew”? You have to be honest. There is something fishy going on.”

    ******I don’t see your point to be honest. The growth process starts at birth and finishes sometime after the teenage years, i.e. when Ishmael was a lad he was still growing. It doesn’t finish because there is a bar mitvah either. There are different words which indicate at which stage the subject of the narrative has reached in his growth process. It is altogether natural to use these words to differentiate between the various points in the stage of the growth process. The bible does this. What is fishy about this?

    “Not true. In Genesis, Isaac is repeatedly referred to as Abraham’s “son”, rather than his “child”, even before he grew up (Genesis 21:3). He is referred to as “child” only once (Genesis 21:8). From that point on, he is referred to as “son”. Why wouldn’t the same be true for Ishmael? Why call him “child” in one place and “lad” in another place?”

    “Why wouldn’t the same be true for Ishmael? Why call him “child” in one place and “lad” in another place?””

    ******Why not? Why should the same be true for Ishmael?

    ******If God is controlling the narrative it’s up to him what he wants to say. If you want to see a jewish conspiracy fair enough. There are other possible reasons. I don’t have to conclude that there was a conspiracy. Unless you have compelling evidence which I do not see and which I believe derives rather from your prejudice.

    “I would say that “cast” does not mean throw but rather to place him there. No mother would throw her child around if he was sick. That is nonsense.

    The command to lift him up does not mean to lift him up completely off the ground but to lift up his upper body so that he could drink. I don’t think this would be beyond the strength of Hagar to achieve.”

    Again, what are you basing this on? What proof do you have?

    I never said that “cast” means to “throw”. What I did say is that if Ishmael was 16 years old, Hagar didn’t need to “cast” him under a bush and “lift” him up. He could have done that himself. ”

    ***** I think it is quite logical to deduce from the narrative that Hagar has placed Ishmael under a bush because he was sick and close to death and she left him for dead. The idea that they have no water and this has no consequences is irrational but it seems to be your belief.

    “If that was the case, then why were they still destroyed by the flood for other sins? How could they have been judged if “they had no written laws”? How would they have known better? Surely, you can see the contradiction in your reasoning?

    No. The flood was a legitimate punishment which the people of Noah brought themselves for rejecting God’s warnings to them to give up their idolatry. They were warned ahead of time, but they remained stubborn. Therefore, they brought upon themselves God’s judgment.

    In contrast, you want us to believe that God wiped out the entire world for its sins, without any warning whatsoever. Even if it was “a one-time universal flood”, it was extremely unfair to destroy the world for not knowing any better since, as you stated, the people did not have “written laws”.”

    ******Yes, but God revealed his moral will verbally from the beginning and through the conscience. They did not die because they were idolaters. They died because their thoughts, and as a result their actions, were only evil continually. So if someone dies who has not been warned is that an unjust action on the part of Allah? It would seem so according to your logic.

    “After the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), there is only one universal message since he was sent to the entire world, not just to his own people. Even then, the only time it is allowed to wage war is against those who wage war against Muslims. Once that happens, then and only then are they given 3 choices: convert to Islam, pay a tax (jizya) or face war. Muslims are not allowed to fight against unbelievers with whom they have a treaty with.”

    ******Why should the message change because there is only prophet instead of many? Why should rejection have a different consequence after Mohammed? If idolatry was punished by death before Mohammed why not the same punishment after Mohammed? So if the idolaters do not wage war against Muslims they can continue their idolatrous way of life? Is that what you are saying? If nobody wages war against the idolaters they will just continue with their idolatry won’t they? This does not jive with the Quran in my view.

    “Another point to add:

    In the Hebrew text for Exodus 2:11 and Genesis 21:20, the word used for “grew” is exactly the same:

    “And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown (way-yiḡ-dal) that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren” (Exodus 2:10)

    “And God was with the lad; and he grew (way-yiḡ-dāl), and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20).

    http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/2-10.htm
    http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/21-20.htm

    So, this is further linguistic proof that Ishmael (peace be upon him) could not have been a teenager.”

    *******I don’t agree with your claim that this is linguistic proof of anything. The text just states that in the case of Moses the growth process was finished and he was a fully grown man. In the case of Ishmael that he was still growing because he was called a lad.

    I look forward to your response whenever.

    Like

  13. Welcome back madmanna.

    ******I am not arguing for this. I take it as a given from the nature of revelation that it is true and God preserves it or else what would be the point? I also don’t believe that the so-called chains of narration prove in a scientific sense that the Quran is what it claims to be.

    So, you are just making an a priori assumption. That’s the problem from the get-go. This is the foundation of the rest of your response. You simply assume that “it is true”, which spares you the trouble of actually seeking proof for it. It is nothing more than a circular argument.

    ******I don’t see your point to be honest. The growth process starts at birth and finishes sometime after the teenage years, i.e. when Ishmael was a lad he was still growing. It doesn’t finish because there is a bar mitvah either. There are different words which indicate at which stage the subject of the narrative has reached in his growth process. It is altogether natural to use these words to differentiate between the various points in the stage of the growth process. The bible does this. What is fishy about this?

    The word used to describe both Ishmael and Moses (peace be upon them) is exactly the same. You have not given any good reason as to why we should assume that the meaning is different in each case. The fact that the Bible does not differentiate is exactly the point! It is Jews and Christians who have twisted the meaning to suit their own agendas. On the other hand, scholars are acknowledging the clear facts. They know that the text does not allow for Ishmael be older than a few months or years at the time of the exile as I previously showed:

    …in a 2001 article in the journal “Vetus Testamentum”, S. Nikaido of Berkeley University made a very interesting observation about the depiction of Ishmael in Genesis 21, which supports our contention that the story has been altered by Jewish scribes. Nikaido states:

    “According to Gen. xvii 25 (P), Ishmael was at least thirteen. Therefore, Gen. Rabbah 53.13 (also Rashi) suggests that he was carried because of illness; Abravanel interprets we”et-hayyeled as meaning Ishmael helped carry the provisions. Modern commentators, however, fault the discrepancy on P’s superimposed chronology (Gen. xvi 16 and xxi 5; xvii 25), a phenomenon occurring elsewhere (e.g., Gen. xii 11 compared with xvii 17 and xii 4). The text clearly does not portray Ishmael as a grown child (P) but most likely as an infant (E), since Hagar not only carries him (xxi 14) but also “casts” him under a bush (v. 15; cf. Exod i 22) and “lifts him up” (v. 18). Other clues include: God hears the child’s voice (v. 17), presumably crying, rather than his mother’s (E. Fripp, “Note on Gen. xxi 6. 8-12”, ZAW 12 [1892], pp. 164-65), the reference to his “growing” (v. 20), and the fact that Hagar is not portrayed as being in any mortal danger but only the child.”

    ******Why not? Why should the same be true for Ishmael?

    Because the word used in the original Hebrew is the same, not different. So why would the translation be different? Isn’t it obvious that the translators are deliberately twisting the meaning? It looks that way to me. You don’t see it because you don’t want to see it. I understand your apprehension, but the truth is that the text does not support your belief that Ishmael was a teenager.

    ******If God is controlling the narrative it’s up to him what he wants to say. If you want to see a jewish conspiracy fair enough. There are other possible reasons. I don’t have to conclude that there was a conspiracy. Unless you have compelling evidence which I do not see and which I believe derives rather from your prejudice.

    That’s your problem from the get-go. You accuse me of “prejudice”, but you don’t even consider that perhaps it is you who is “prejudiced”. Look at your response. You assume that “God is controlling the narrative”, but when pressed for evidence, you present none. You just assume that to be the case. And in an ironic twist, you then ask me for “compelling evidence”! Do you at least realize how ironic your statement is?

    The burden of proof is on you to prove that “there are other possible reasons”. So far, you have presented none.

    ***** I think it is quite logical to deduce from the narrative that Hagar has placed Ishmael under a bush because he was sick and close to death and she left him for dead. The idea that they have no water and this has no consequences is irrational but it seems to be your belief.

    Where does it say that? Why are you assuming things without proof? I don’t know why you seem to be under the impression that you don’t need to present proof for any of your assumptions.

    The Jewish rabbis also just assumed that Ishmael must have been “sick” or “injured”. They based it on nothing either.

    Do you think it is “quite logical” to also assume that Hagar somehow managed to carry her 16 year old son across the desert until they both ran out of energy, as the rabbis assumed? Here is what Rashi said in his commentary:

    “He also placed the child on her shoulder, because Sarah had cast an evil eye upon him, and he was seized by a fever so that he could not walk on his feet.”

    This doesn’t seem “irrational” to you???

    But somehow, it seems perfectly “logical” for you to assume that the teenage Ishmael needed to be cared for by his mother rather than the other way around.

    ******Yes, but God revealed his moral will verbally from the beginning and through the conscience. They did not die because they were idolaters. They died because their thoughts, and as a result their actions, were only evil continually. So if someone dies who has not been warned is that an unjust action on the part of Allah? It would seem so according to your logic.

    Again, no proof, just assumptions. Where does the Bible say this?

    And if God “revealed his moral will verbally from the beginning”, then why was there a need for “written laws” later on? You keep moving the goal post when your previous argument fails under scrutiny, and you present no proof for your new assumptions.

    You also don’t seem to understand the Islamic position. Death is not a punishment. It is the natural order of things. Everyone dies. It is not “unjust” on the part of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) that someone dies without receiving a warning, because we know from a hadith that He will not judge that person until he is tested in the Hereafter. On the other hand, it would seem that according to your logic, it is perfectly “just” for God to wipe out the world without warning because of some vague “conscience” factor.

    Also, why did you ignore the story of Jonah (peace be upon him)? Why was he sent to the people of Nineveh to warn them before punishment was sent upon them? Did they have “written laws”? Or did they not have a “conscience”? Why are you ignoring this story? Is it deliberate?

    ******Why should the message change because there is only prophet instead of many? Why should rejection have a different consequence after Mohammed? If idolatry was punished by death before Mohammed why not the same punishment after Mohammed? So if the idolaters do not wage war against Muslims they can continue their idolatrous way of life? Is that what you are saying? If nobody wages war against the idolaters they will just continue with their idolatry won’t they? This does not jive with the Quran in my view.

    Yes, it does. You are not an expert on the Quran. The Quran says that everyone is responsible for their actions, but that there is no compulsion in religion. If an idolater continues to worship idols, despite being warned to stop, he can continue to do so without fear of being persecuted. But when he dies, he will go to Hell, as the Quran and Ahadith state.

    As for the message, I already explained why it changed. Islam is universal and applies to all mankind for all time, not just one particular nation in a specific time period. Of course the message would be different in some ways. But certain things remain the same. Idolatry is still condemned as a heinous sin. Shirk is condemned as a heinous sin. Adultery, murder, theft etc. are all sins. The laws to deal with these things may have changed, but the spirit of the law did not change.

    *******I don’t agree with your claim that this is linguistic proof of anything. The text just states that in the case of Moses the growth process was finished and he was a fully grown man. In the case of Ishmael that he was still growing because he was called a lad.

    He was called a “lad” in the English translation, not in the original Hebrew. That’s the point you are not getting. In the original Hebrew, both Ishmael and Moses were referred to as “hay-yeled” (which the KJV inconsistently translates as “child” in one place and “lad” in another). In the original Hebrew, both Ishmael and Moses “way-yig-dal”, which means both “grew”. You did not refute these facts. You just made an assumption based on another assumption. The linguistic evidence is undeniable (see the quote from Professor Nikaido above). In fact, it was obvious even to early Jewish scribes, and prompted the author of Dead Sea Scroll 4Q225 to completely omit the “Ishmael narratives” as I also pointed out before:

    In a 2006 article in the journal “Dead Sea Discoveries”, Betsy Halpern-Amaru made the following interesting observation about a variant of the story in question in the fragment of the Dead Scrolls known as 4Q225:
    “…the author of 4Q225 develops a structure that creates a new backdrop for the narrative of the Aqedah. Prefacing the account of the Aqedah is a summary presentation of the promises of a son and multiple progeny in Gen 15:2–6 (2 i 3–7). Isaac’s birth is announced immediately thereafter (2 1 8–9a) and thereby is explicitly portrayed as the fulfillment of the preceding divine promise of a son. The Ishmael narratives that intervene between the promises of the covenant making in Genesis 15 and the birth of Isaac are omitted. Indeed, in 4Q225 Ishmael is never born. Consequently, when God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son (2 i 11), Isaac is quite literally…the only son the patriarch has.”

    So, it would seem that there was a “Jewish conspiracy” after all, at least in this regard. These are the facts. Whether you want to accept them or not is entirely up to you, of course.

    I look forward to your response whenever.

    And I to yours.

    Like

  14. Hello again Faiz, thanks for the interesting discussion.

    You said: “The word used to describe both Ishmael and Moses (peace be upon them) is exactly the same. You have not given any good reason as to why we should assume that the meaning is different in each case. The fact that the Bible does not differentiate is exactly the point!”

    As I understand the word hayyeled can refer to a small child or infant, in the case of Moses, but also to a teenager as it does in the case of Ishmael. I don’t see any incongruity here. The fact that the KJV does use the word child (hayyeled) and the word boy (hannaar) for Ishmael is proof for me that the word hayyeled can be used simply to denote the parent child relation without specifying what stage of maturity the child is in. In other words the meaning of the word is not equivalent to infant. The word is more flexible than you claim in my view. If you are right the translators of the KJV were wrong. They must have known that they were translating two incompatible descriptions of Ishmael. This is something that is ruled out of any consideration in my mind. They were all doctors and experts in their field.

    In both judgements mentioned in Genesis and Jonah the only specific evil mentioned is violence:

    11The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

    : 8But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

    No mention of false worship which is supposed to be the reason why Allah wants to destroy non-Islamic cultures by violent means, which is ironic if it were true.

    You said: “You also don’t seem to understand the Islamic position. Death is not a punishment. It is the natural order of things. Everyone dies. It is not “unjust” on the part of Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) that someone dies without receiving a warning, because we know from a hadith that He will not judge that person until he is tested in the Hereafter”

    But doesn’t Allah boast about being able to make everyone believe if he wanted to? So why does he need to offer people a second chance after death? Can’t he get the job done in this world? He doesn’t seem to be the all powerful God that he boasts of being.

    [6.39] And they who reject Our communications are deaf and dumb, in utter darkness; whom Allah pleases He causes to err and whom He pleases He puts on the right way.

    I’m sure there are other scriptures to the same effect. A deity who can’t fulfil his purposes during the normal life span of a human being can hardly be called Lord of the worlds can he? As a Calvinist there is no way I can believe in “second chance after death” deities.

    you said “As for the message, I already explained why it changed. Islam is universal and applies to all mankind for all time, not just one particular nation in a specific time period. Of course the message would be different in some ways.”

    also “After the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), there is only one universal message since he was sent to the entire world, not just to his own people. Even then, the only time it is allowed to wage war is against those who wage war against Muslims”

    But the message was universal before Mohammed through a plurality of prophets to all nations. The method of achieving universality was a different one but the end effect is the same so I am still left wondering why the message should be changed because the conduit is reduced to one. You are still not explaining exactly why the message should change solely because the mode of it’s transmission has changed. How can Allah be just and immutable if he treats the pagans differently at different times in response to the same sin of shirk?

    When you use the phrase “wage war against Muslims” and “allowed to wage war” do you just mean war in the sense of physical force or are you including other possible non-violent types of warfare?

    Look forward to your response whenever you get the chance.

    Like

  15. ” because we know from a hadith that He will not judge that person until he is tested in the Hereafter. ”

    And how is he going to be tested in the hereafter? Multiple choice? Or perhaps one question such as : Would you like to commit shirk, go to hell and have you have your skin roasted? If you answer yes you have failed the test.

    “The Quran says that everyone is responsible for their actions, but that there is no compulsion in religion. If an idolater continues to worship idols, despite being warned to stop, he can continue to do so without fear of being persecuted. But when he dies, he will go to Hell, as the Quran and Ahadith state.”

    If the religion just happens to be the state that is enforcing the law, in this case Sharia, then there is compulsion in religion. In that case the phrase “there is no compulsion in religion” is just a hollow platitude.

    Like

  16. “As for the message, I already explained why it changed. Islam is universal and applies to all mankind for all time, not just one particular nation in a specific time period.”

    “not just one particular nation in a specific time period.”

    What do you mean by this? Which nation in which time period are you talking about?

    Are you saying that before Mohammed Islam was only incumbent on one nation at a time? Doesn’t the Koran talk about a number of nations or peoples that were destroyed by Allah for going down the path of shirk? I thought the idea was that each nation received it’s own prophet before Mohammed came. Did this never happen simultaneously to different nations?

    Another question that comes to mind is why did Moses leave Egypt in a pagan state when he had the country under his control through the power of Allah? Didn’t Allah or Moses want to rid Egypt of shirk? So Moses the great islamic prophet just ran off like a coward and left Pharoah to carry on pagan business as usual. Doesn’t make sense to me. I thought the whole purpose of Islam was to establish Sharia. Just when Moses had the chance he ran off in to the desert for forty years.

    Like

  17. “You also don’t seem to understand the Islamic position. Death is not a punishment. It is the natural order of things. Everyone dies.”

    Yes, but after reading the Koran one could be mistaken for thinking that Allah prefers that process to be speeded up to it’s inevitable conclusion as far as the unbelievers are concerned.

    Allah does seem to prefer death as a punishment rather than just a “natural” death. A natural death for Muslims and an unnatural one for non-Muslims.

    “Muhammad

    [47.10] Have they not then journeyed in the land and seen how was the end of those before them: Allah brought down destruction upon them, and the unbelievers shall have the like of it.
    [47.11] That is because Allah is the Protector of those who believe, and because the unbelievers shall have no protector for them.
    [47.34] Surely those who disbelieve and turn away from Allah’s way, then they die while they are unbelievers, Allah will by no means forgive them.”

    Doesn’t look like a natural death to me!

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. My discussion with Faiz on bloggingtheology.net | Badmanna's Blog
  2. My discussion with Faiz continues at BloggingTheology.net | Badmanna's Blog
  3. Islam is a second chance after death ideology according to Faiz, additional comments I added to our last discussion | Badmanna's Blog

Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: