Richard Zetter hanging out with peace-loving Christians in the US 😉
Categories: Islam
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Richard Zetter hanging out with peace-loving Christians in the US 😉
Categories: Islam
Blogging Theology 
This is a worse scandal than that of Anthony Weiner. SHOCKING!!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Drama queen 👸
LikeLike
I hope this is hoax.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly not.
LikeLike
Sure no photoshop?
LikeLike
Definitely not. I know Richard, and he met up with these individuals at a conference in the US.
LikeLike
Could be, the work of radical muslim?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a real possibility.
LikeLike
… says more than thousand words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What does it say to you?
LikeLike
One possible caption
“We’re from the DMA – Deceptive Missionary Agency – and guess who’s gonna play the good cop you stupid Muslims?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
hahaha
I liked this one 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
The individual on the left is sporting a particularly peace-loving look I must say…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes indeed, loving sentiments are characteristic of this particular individual.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With the Name of Allah
On a serious note, I am amazed how shallow qureshi’s knowledge on the Qur’an. Diacritical marks including the alif, the waw, hamzah etc. were never part of the Qur’anic mushafs since the beginning. The earliest muslim Arabs did not need it. The knew the proper recitation of the Qur’an: the tajweed, exactly as recited by no other than Prophet Muhammad himself.
The Qur’an is always an oral first and foremost. I doubt that even when he was the follower of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad he’d ever been taught or learnt to memorize the Qur’an under a supervision of a Qur’anic memorizer: a Hafeez. This is a unbroken tradition going back to the Prophet Muhammad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I am amazed how shallow qureshi’s knowledge on the Qur’an” ==> I was referring to conversation from wood’s youtube channel
LikeLike
Diacritical marks including the alif, the waw, hamzah etc. were never part of the Qur’anic mushafs since the beginning. The earliest muslim Arabs did not need it. The knew the proper recitation of the Qur’an: the tajweed, exactly as recited by no other than Prophet Muhammad himself.
Then why, according to certain Hadith, are there 7 different inspired ahroof (احروف) (ways of reading the Qur’an) (plural of harf حرف which can mean “letter” of the alphabet, and “speaking” or “talking” – this seems to mean pronunications or talafoz تلفظ ) that are all acceptable (according to the debate Nabeel had with Bassam Zawadi) and different Qaraa’ts قرائت / قراعت (readings out loud, mind you, I am writing it in the Farsi way of writing it, but it is the same root. قرائه
??
LikeLike
With the Name fo Allah
There are seven recognized ways of recitation ( قراءات سبعة) and seven dialects of the Qur’an (سبعة أحرف ). You are confusing the two terms.
For example of permitted أحرف is in surah al-Qari`ah, a short surah which most muslim kids memorize, in verse 5 the original recitation itself is “وَتَكُونُ الْجِبَالُ كَالْعِهْنِ الْمَنفُوشِ” but there is hadith which mention the use of “صوف in place of “عِهْنِ” so it can be read as “وَتَكُونُ الْجِبَالُ كَالْصوف الْمَنفُوشِ” .
LikeLiked by 1 person
How is an alif = ا or with a “hat” آ
or waw = و
diacritical marks ? these are letters
“hamze” – yes, I can see that as a diacritical mark – it is a softer form of aiyne ع
hamze is ئ but in middle it almost disappears, as in قرائت
LikeLike
is not this also a “hamze” ? ء
LikeLike
Alif functions as a diacritic mark in the second syllable of Islam. Same for waw in muslimoon. The hamza is a consonant which when doubled with alif to indicate a long sound becomes an alif with a hat as in Quran and Adam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nabbel was talking about ( alif) . He is literally ignorant about this subject. It’s very stupid argument.
LikeLike
in medina book 3 , page 41 there is an explanation
ken thinks he is sounding clever
LikeLike
Brother Paul, my apologies for not getting the point of this post, but how does this picture prove Brother Richard guilty anything, if that is the point?
LikeLike
*of anything
LikeLike
The pic doe not prove anything as such.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Brother. I just got confused by some comments. Sorry about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not really surprised. Richard used some arguments that David uses. Nabeel & David are liars والمرء على دين خليله
I’m just wondering if someone like Ricahrd is ok with those people, what should we expect from the other christians who follow those liars?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, by mixing with person such wood and qureshi, I start to think that he is one of them.
LikeLike
Yes and no. But he is misguided in my opinion
LikeLiked by 2 people
He is a self confessed evangelical calvinist
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken even if it’s explained a million times ,nothing changes , right?
so why should one bother?
You guys don’t know how ludicrous your arguments sound to students , not to talk of scholars, in the field.
it’s like an arab proverb
عنز و ان طار
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes I feel the same way
LikeLiked by 2 people
let me give a background to the proverb so you understand better, two men saw an animal far off and an argument ensued about its being a vulture or a goat.
soon the animal flew , the one who said it was a goat looked at his interlocutor, and said
عنز و ان طار
its a goat even if it flies !!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good one, I love Arab proverbs!
LikeLike
In regard to the above photo of Richard Zetter, here is some applicable American Proverb:
You are known by the company you Keep!
When you lay down with the dogs you wake up with fleas!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“You are known by the company you Keep!”
Exactly like the hadith br Abdullah Mentioned:
والمرء على دين خليله
LikeLike
There are seven recognized ways of recitation ( قراءات سبعة) and seven dialects of the Qur’an (سبعة أحرف ). You are confusing the two terms.
That whole thing is confusing in itself.
What does it mean, 7 ways of recitation” ? – how is that different than pronouncing words ?(the second one “dialects”)
Does dialect mean “pronunciation” ? نلفظ = telefoz ?
so, there were 7 different dialects in Arabia among the different tribes, when the Qur’an was revealed, even though Islam had not conquered the other areas yet, and created the basic five kinds of Arabic of today?
1. Gulf Arabic
2. Egyptian Arabic
3. North African Derige Arabic
4. Iraqi Arabic
5. Levant Arabic (Palestine, Syria, Jordan)
LikeLike
sorry for typo of the word, Telefoz تلفظ
LikeLike
With the Name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
There are seven recognized ways of recitation ( قراءات سبعة) and seven dialects of the Qur’an (سبعة أحرف ). You are confusing the two terms.
//What does it mean, 7 ways of recitation” ? – how is that different than pronouncing words ?(the second one “dialects”)
Does dialect mean “pronunciation” ? نلفظ = telefoz ?//
No.
أحرف in Qur’anic sciences is a broad concept but we can simply say it’s a inspired variation in words of the Qur’an, based on the dialects of the ancient arab lexicon, not the modern arabic dialects.
Abu Hatim Al-Sajastaniy refer the seven dialects as :
While قراءات means in Qur’anic sciences, the ways and manners of reciting the Qur’an as folows:
If you sincerely interested to have more information, I can recommend you to an excellent Introductory book on the sciences of the Qur’an by Dr . Yassir Qadhi, Professor of Religious studies at Rhodes College:
LikeLike
can you explain the difference between the “seven ways of recitation” and “the seven different dialects” ?
LikeLike
أحرف in Qur’anic sciences is a broad concept but we can simply say it’s a inspired variation in words of the Qur’an, based on the dialects of the ancient arab lexicon, not the modern arabic dialects.
Thank you, Eric.
so if it is not a difference in pronouncing words, as in different Telefoz تلفظ , and you say it is a variation of words, does not a variation of words change the meaning?
Can you give an example of a variation of words (into English) from verses of some of the seven ways of variation of words?
LikeLike
With the Name of Allah the Gracious the Merciful
//so if it is not a difference in pronouncing words, as in different Telefoz تلفظ , and you say it is a variation of words, does not a variation of words change the meaning?//
No, there is no change in meaning.
You mention the تلفظ, it is only one aspect of the Qiraat (there are others). Myself, for example, read and memorize the Qur’an according to Qiraah Hafs which is based on Imam Aasim ibn Abi al-Najud عاصم بن أبي النَّجود.
The most important thing is تلفظ does not belong to the Ahruf أحرف category and you must also understand that with regard to the Ahruf we know it exists only because on there are testimony from a few hadiths like the one exampe I gave you in Sura Al Qari’ah. It is not like we have now 7 versions of the Qur’an today. It was after Caliph ‘Uthman decision to standardize the Ahruf adopting the language of the Quraysh قريش we now have the Quran which is to be read in only one Harf. You may check anywhere around the word, Quran which is available to muslim from all spectrum in the world today uniformly is written and recited only according to the harf of Quraysh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps I should add more in the example of Harf variation in verse 5 al Qariah 101:5 the original recitation itself is “وَتَكُونُ الْجِبَالُ كَالْعِهْنِ الْمَنفُوشِ” but there is hadith which mention the use of “صوف in place of “عِهْنِ” both means wool, so it can be read as “وَتَكُونُ الْجِبَالُ كَالْصوف الْمَنفُوشِ” . There are no change in the meaning.
LikeLike
However you can never find copies of the Qur’an or its manuscripts which write the al Qariah 101:5 as “وَتَكُونُ الْجِبَالُ كَالْصوف الْمَنفُوشِ” instead of “وَتَكُونُ الْجِبَالُ كَالْعِهْنِ الْمَنفُوشِ” anywhere. We only know we can use of “صوف in place of “عِهْنِ” because there is authentic hadith which tells us so.
LikeLike
Peace loving Christians? Don’t you mean provocative, lying s’bags?
LikeLiked by 1 person
that is one possible interpretation. Richard excepted of course.
LikeLike
I really liked Richard he was a calm respectable guy, no Muslim used to argue with him like they do with other Christians, kinda lost respect for him since he is hanging around with low lives like these. Paul i thought he was your friend and a contributor to this blog, im confused!! BTW hows the lay no one seems to notice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes life is complicated and confusing.
LikeLike
You should see the widely respected Rabbi Tovia Singer who has numerous times refuted attacks on Islam and Muslims buddy up with and praise nutcases like Walid Shoebat and Brigitte Gabriel. Then you will be confused.
LikeLiked by 3 people
This is quite sad.I just hope richard at least doesn’t learn Islam from these two,we all know their deception.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wish you’d stop talking like you actually know what you’re talking about…
A “hat?” No mate, that’s called a maddah.
There is such thing as “alif khanjariyyah,” which *is* diacritic – as in الرحمن or سموت for example. Waw can also be a carrier of this alif khanjariyyah, as in the Qur’anic spelling of salah, صلوة. Ya and waw, similarly, exist as diacritics when the third person connected pronouns call for elongation.
What are you on about with hamza being a “softer form” of `ayn? `Ayn and hamza only have in common that their point of articulation (makhraj) is the glottis (but that’s the case for several other letters as well). But since when is a glottal *stop* a *softer* “form” of a glottal *constriction*?
The hamza in قرائة is *clearly* pronounced. Far from “almost disappearing,” the alif before it makes its pronunciation even more clear.
I don’t know what you’re on about, and clearly neither do you. You
LikeLiked by 1 person
David Wood is a bigoted hatemonger who amplifies and broadcasts the selected bad news and negative stories from the media about people who don’t look like him and makes sensationalist videos to propagandize those negative stories as “facts” because he’s such a powerful hatemonger like the extremists he unwittingly supports by placing their false interpretations on the screen to mischievously judge the whole religion. Wood picks and chooses between scholars and completely ignored those who disagree with his fundamentalist approach. Wood is not scholarly because he cherry picks from the Islamic traditions and takes verses out of context, he maliciously highlights the context only when it’s convenient, like Nabeel he divorces the Quran and Hadith from the rich dynamic interpretive tradition by passing his own judgments on the sacred texts and isolating one passage from another. Wood has commonly judged the profound teachings of Islam by what angry teenagers on the Internet are saying and poisonously tries to find some parallels between the Islamic texts and the actions/statements of ignorant people. Wood has absolutely no credentials and qualifications to speak about Islam or critique the Quran. Dave is simply a hatemonger who wants to steer people away from Islam by making it look ugly and overlooking the scholarly refutations against extremism and not allowing Islam that same complexity and nuance that is granted to Christianity. This is not a monolithic religion the way Dave nefariously presents it. Why the double standards and hatemongering Dave? What personal vendetta do you have? You are looking for millions of subscribers and views, not presenting any scholarship. You are just a clownish pathetic entertainer who got heckled at Speakers Corner when you attempted to spew your hatred and narrow-minded monolithic understandings of Islam. Your videos are worthless and your entertainment is for non-thinking people. You claimed in a 2009 ABN show that Muslims using the Quran to explain the Quran was something wrong and desperate when it’s actually the highest form of tafsir. Don’t forget that Ozzycda and Loonwatch exposed you. Scholars and academics are laughing at you because you take the satanic verses legend seriously. In the past you unforgivably claimed that Muslims worship the Kaaba and the black stone. Surely if you studied Islam properly without any prejudices and preconceived notions you would know that Muslims do not worship them. By the way, your videos are geared towards a particularly racist audience. This is not surprising at all.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Ken Temple
November 26, 2016 • 5:31 pm
But David and Nabeel made a lot of good points in this video. They are quoting all from the Islamic sources.
I say;
They should quote their source in Arabic, the chain of narrations, history behind what they quote, compare it with other narrations and analyse it and tell the truth. That is what scholars do. That is what our Muslim scholars do including Christians who are Islamic scholars i.e. Dr. John L. Esposito of George town university, Dr. Graig Considine etc. speak fluent Arabic and their academic institutions will not allow them to lie like Nabeel or David Wood.
If Nabeel or Wood are expert in Islam, they should show that by lecturing or teaching Islam in a university like Georgetown university. Those Christians who study Islam and are qualified to teach in universities of repute have negative opinions on David Wood, Nabeel and the rest non-Islamic scholars who are telling lies about Islam.
Listen to the scholars like Esposito and Considine Ken and following David Wood will disgrace you as it had. Because, they just want to attack Islam but will not research well before coming out with nonsense. Anyone who did not research and follow a nonsense is a disgrace.
Thanks.
LikeLike
But David and Nabeel made a lot of good points in this video. They are quoting all from the Islamic sources.
LikeLike
we all know what your “questioning” was leading to…
LikeLike
What good points? Do you really think that these two non-scholar who do not even read Arabic can convince muslims with their shallow, pathetic mockery talks??. They may sound good to ignorant, uneducated islam-haters but not for serious and sincere truth seekers.
LikeLike
Ken, that video got refuted years ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I remember the debate that Nabeel had with Bassam Zawadi and the dispute over the reference of: Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al Tabaqat al Kabir, volume 2, page 444. That is the only point that I think is valid from your video. But I don’t know what that book is; and how to verify Bassam’s claim. How is any one suppossed to know about this without some kind of documentation where it is and where it came from? Is there such a book? Where did Nabeel get it from, if it does not exist?
The other points you make just say the Hadiths that David and Nabeel quote from are forgeries (Sunan Ibn Majah 1944) Sunan Ibn Majah is one of the six canonical collections of Hadith, and it exists, so it is hard for others to accept the dismissal of “oh, that is a forgery”.
and that, if I am not mistaken, you seem to say that the source for the Ibn Abi Daud quote in Kitab Al Mashif – you say he was a liar.
Well, it is easy for you to just reject some parts of Hadith and Sira (and Tarikh and Tafsirs) when they don’t like up with traditional Islamic dogma. It seems that there is contradictions within your own sources.
The point about Uthman burning all other copies is a valid point though, in comparing the textual history of the NT vs. the Qur’an. The textual history of the NT had no state government to enforce a fixed text – for over 300 years the manuscripts were copied freely. Copyists make and made mistakes. By studying the earliest available manuscripts, we get closer to the originals.
But we cannot do that with the Qur’an, since the older materials were all burnt.
David and Nabeel were just pointing out from your own sources that there are indications that there were some other materials left out of the Qur’an. (the verse of stoning, breastfeading, and Ibn Masood’s and Ubbay Ibn Kaa’b’s differences with Za’yd. Even though you say they did not differ, there still seems to be honest disagreement, according to those Islamic sources that they reference.
Even if the 2 additional chapters of the Qur’an were dua, Surah 1, Al Fatiha is a prayer also. How do we know for sure that the other 2 Surahs were not suppossed to be part of the original Qur’an?
LikeLike
Also, it is very very interesting to me that you use the scholar Haddad, who I found a long time ago, confirmed that the Hadith about the “greater Jihad being the striving against the inner sinful desires” is a very weak Hadith, and is not even in the 6 canonical collections of Hadith; yet this is the Hadith that is most often quoted and used in the west to fool westerners in the media that Jihad is not about physical warfare against the unbelievers.
http://www.livingislam.org/n/dgjh_e.html
LikeLike
It is hard to argue with the logic, reason, and the actual texts of Hadith and other Islamic sources that they site.
LikeLike
It’s not if you were educated about it. Basically, christians tell us that we shouldn’t trust this Quran becuase it’s standardized by the companions of the prophet who they had migrated with the prophet. Those companions who sacrificed their life, hometown, and their families to be with the prophet. They fought with the prophet.
On the other hand and oddly enough, they expect from us that we should regard the authenticity of their bible which was written by anonymous authers,and no one was eye witness , and it’s wriiten by a different language than that Jesus used to speak.
Uthamn was the one of the first ten who embressed Islam. The prophet gave him 2 of his daughters to marry. The first one was Ruqyyiah. When she died, Uthman married Umm Kulthum. He was so close to the prophet. He was from those who memorized Quran. Also, Ibn Massud had no objection about the Quran. He never stated that Quran is wrong. He had objection about his own mushaf to be taken. In fact, this Quran today is also transmitted via Ibn Masud via the road of Zir Ibn Hubish, Ibn Masud’s stuednt.
Niether Nabeel nor the Clown has any idea of this histroy of Quran. They are liars.
Then what do you mean by ( Islamic sources) ? Books written by muslims or authentic hadiths? There’s a differnce between the 2 ?
Also, that should give you an impression that most sources about Quran and history of Quran are known for muslims. We don’t need apostates or libral thoughts to tell us about Quran and its history as it happened with your bible.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Richard doesn’t look happy. Actually none of them do.
Nabeel mentions Richard in his latest book so I’m not surprised to see a pic of them together. Richard, as far as I know doesn’t endorse David Wood.
When Nabeel moved over into professional evangelism he distanced himself from Shamoun and Wood.
I think professional evangelism, which Richard Zetter may or may not be trying to get into, requires one to network with everybody in the industry and not tick anybody off.
Going off criticising other “ministries” publicly would leave one out in the cold and with less room to manoeuvre affecting career prospects. Hence why very few do so. Nobody with aspirations of the big league in evangelism does anyways. They don’t even respond to their fellow Christians criticising them.
Nabeel played it like a pro. He must have been advised by RZIM. He quietly distanced himself from the more wide-eyed types without ever criticising them. I reckon they even gave him public speaking lessons and Nabeel got the ability to inject emotion into his voice down to an art form.For big conferences like those that RZIM hold it’s all about trying to get the audience member, in that moment, caught up in the emotions to move them to commit to the faith. Mark Driscoll was good at appealing to emotions too.
Jonathan McLatchie seems to be trying to smile more and show more charisma as well as emotion – Beth and Jay may have helped him there. He’s improved in that area. He too would not criticise any of that brigade for the same reason IMO although he knows they are full of errors and inconsistencies.
Richard Zetter, however, as a Calvinist must surely be thinking David Wood’s arguments indirectly attack John Calvin’s Geneva (not to mention teachings in the OT). Wonder if he had a private discussion with him.Come to think of it, a lot of Nabeel stuff would attack Calvin too. Maybe that’s why Richard looks so sad back there 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
A Sahih Hadith that confirms the content of the quote from the passage that Bassam Zawadi said did not exist. This seems to be the solid documentation from credible hadith on the content of that quote.
Jami` at-Tirmidhi
Chapters on Tafsir
Narrated Az-Zuhri:
from Anas who said: “Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman came to ‘Uthman, at the time when the people of Ash-Sham and the people of Al-‘Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminiyah and Adharbijan. Hudhaifah saw their (the people of Ash-Sham and Al-‘Iraq) different forms of recitation of the Qur’an. So he said to ‘Uthman: ‘O Commander of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book as the Jews and the Christians did before them.’ So he (‘Uthman) sent a message to Hafsah (saying): ‘Send us the manuscripts so that we may copy them in the Musahif (plural of Mushaf: a written copy of the Qur’an) then we shall return it to you.’ So Hafsah sent the manuscripts to ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan. ‘Uthman then sent order for Zaid bin Thabit, Sa’eed bin Al-‘As, ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair to copy the manuscripts in the Musahif. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraish men: ‘In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the (recitation dialect of the) Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish for it was in their tongue.’ So when they had copied the manuscripts, ‘Uthman sent one Mushaf from those Musahif that they had copied to every province.” Az-Zuhri said: “Kharijah bin Zaid [bin Thabit] narrated to me that Zaid bin Thabit said: ‘I missed an Ayah of Surat Al-Ahzab that I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) reciting: Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah, of them some have fulfilled their obligations, and some of them are still waiting (33:23) – so I searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah bin Thabit, or Abu Khuzaimah, so I put it in its Surah.’” Az-Zuhri said: “They differed then with At-Tabut and At-Tabuh. The Quraish said: At-Tabut while Zaid said: At-Tabuh. Their disagreement was brought to ‘Uthman, so he said: ‘Write it as At-Tabut, for it was revealed in the tongue of the Quraish.’” Az-Zuhri said: “‘Ubaidullah bin ‘Abdullah bin ‘Utbah informed me that ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: ‘O you Muslims people! AVOID COPYING THE MUSHAF AND RECITATION OF THIS MAN. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man’ – meaning Zaid bin Thabit – and it was regarding this that ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Al-‘Iraq! KEEP THE MUSAHIF THAT ARE WITH YOU, AND CONCEAL THEM. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement (3:161). So meet Allah with the Musahif.’” Az-Zuhri said: “It was conveyed to me that some men amongst the most virtuous of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah disliked that view of Ibn Mas’ud.”
Grade: SAHIH (Darussalam)
English reference: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3104
Arabic reference: Book 47, Hadith 3387
LikeLike
link for above reference of Jami` at-Tirmidhi
https://sunnah.com/urn/641130
LikeLike
“AVOID COPYING THE MUSHAF AND RECITATION OF THIS MAN”?!!
This translation is not correct whatsoever.
وَقَالَ يَا مَعْشَرَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ أُعْزَلُ عَنْ نَسْخِ كِتَابَةِ الْمُصْحَفِ وَيَتَوَلاَّهَا رَجُلٌ وَاللَّهِ لَقَدْ أَسْلَمْتُ وَإِنَّهُ لَفِي صُلْبِ رَجُلٍ كَافِرٍ يُرِيدُ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ
How it’s not me to be chosen for this misson while I had beocme a muslim when Ziad ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not my problem; the translation is from a Muslim cite. We who don’t know Arabic have no way to verify that you are right either. Seems like a ploy when you cannot handle what your texts say.
LikeLike
Ken Temple
November 28, 2016 • 11:18 pm
Not my problem; the translation is from a Muslim cite. We who don’t know Arabic have no way to verify that you are right either. Seems like a ploy when you cannot handle what your texts say.
I say;
You know very well that, there are fake Muslim sites managed by evangelical Christians to distort our religion. We know them and the better they shut the sites down or they will continue to suffer disgrace. Christians can go and become fake Muslims like Jay Smith did and others are doing right now to get Muslims to Christianity but Islam continue to grow. They call it c4,c5,c6 etc. The fake websites might be w7 or whatever name they have chosen.
I do not know about the site you quoted. What will be beneficial is that, just ask other scholars i.e. combinations of Muslim and non Muslim scholars.
Sometimes you use Greek or Hebrew and even Arabic to challenge us here and that is fair. The translators of Arabic to English with regards to Islam, always maintain that their translation is not perfect, so they encourage learning, knowing or further asking scholars before drawing in to conclusion.
David Wood and Nabeel or a Christian maintaining a fake Islamic web site cannot help you Ken. We are smart with our religion. Any distortion will be indentified.
Thanks.
LikeLike
but the sunna.com website is done by Muslims and even has the scholars evaluations of what is sahih, hasan, and weak Hadith categories.
LikeLike
I’m just telling you that translation is dramatically wrong for that statement.
“Seems like a ploy when you cannot handle what your texts say”
🙂
Don’t worry! I know this hadith before most christian trolls start watching David’s videos.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The translation of that statement is wrong. Ibn Masud was wondering. He didn’t give a command “Avoid copying”.
أُعزل U’zal. It’s a passive form! It’s not a command.
I’ve check all the translations online, they have the same translation from Al Khalily.
I’m not sure why he translated it wrong.
LikeLike
so how else would you translate that? “avoid copying”
What are the other translations?
LikeLike
can you please give the links to the other translations of the same Hadith in question?
LikeLike
All the translations ( from dif sites) online are one. It’s all a copy of Al khalily.
I’ve no idea why he translated wrong.
I’m not sure if there’s other translation.
I’m sure of what I’m saying that this statement is got translated wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sunan Ibn Majah
The Chapters on Marriage
It was narrated that ‘Aishah said:
“The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed1, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”
1: These verses were abrogated in recitation but not ruling. Other ahadith establish the number for fosterage to be 5.
Grade: HASAN (Darussalam)
English reference: Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1944
Arabic reference: Book 9, Hadith 2020
https://sunnah.com/urn/1262630
LikeLike
These passages refute what the video response says that Yahya Snow put up. It shows that Shabir Ally and others are wrong to call those Muslims liars and forgeries.
LikeLike
“The textual history of the NT had no state government to enforce a fixed text – for over 300 years the manuscripts were copied freely. Copyists make and made mistakes. By studying the earliest available manuscripts, we get closer to the originals.”
did the original writing of mark have interpolations, additions, mistaken corrections, etc etc?
did mark make changes to the unknown notes he had? did marks “original” replace with another “original” ?
LikeLike
The earliest available manuscripts of the gospel according to Mark still all have:
Mark 10:45 (this one verse, very early, proves Islam is wrong in denying substitutionary atonement, but the Qur’an and Islam actually could not escape the idea of substitutionary atonement, because Surah 37:107 confirms the concept.
Mark 14:60-64 – proof that the Jews understood that the Messiah would also be the Son of God.
Mark chapters 14-15 – details of Jesus’ arrest, trial, crucifixion.
Mark 16:1-8 – the testimony of the empty tomb and the women who first came to the tomb.
Mark chapters 9 and 10 – three times Jesus predicted His death and resurrection.
The theme of “Son of God” all through the gospel.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/11/answers-to-questions-about-codex.html
So, even if Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition; it does nothing to discredit what is already there, and is the oldest manuscripts of Mark.
LikeLike
Luke disagreed with Mark 10:45 which is why he deleted it from his gospel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
you are a broken record on that issue; like Intellect and his “Hale Salasse” and “god-monkey” goofy ad infinitum repeats and “donald trump” rants.
LikeLike
But Matthew has it also – Matthew 20:28
Two witnesses are good in a court of law.
LikeLike
“The earliest available manuscripts of the gospel according to Mark still all have:”
how many of these are HARMONISATION’S with other texts.
bart ehrman says :
Our first complete copy of Mark dates to around the year 360 – nearly three hundred years (count them 300 years) after the “original” of Mark.
we know christians have been toying with the “word of god” and have ADDED, changed, raped , distorted, harmonised , replaced words, controlled harmonisation etc etc
“Mark chapters 9 and 10 – three times Jesus predicted His death and resurrection.”
we don’t have any ancient manuscripts except christian toying with the “word of god”
we know christians have harmonised verses in matthew with verses in john
we CAUGHT them
what was going on BEFORE we caught them?
mark 10:45
quote:
Just a thought… “Giving his life as a ransom for many” could be taken merely as a way of saying he’d let himself be seized and executed, because he knew his escape would lead to the authorities he’d angered going after his followers.
but again, we don’t have ANY original of mark to catch out how much forgery and fraud and HARMONISATION’S was being created .
“Mark 16:1-8 – the testimony of the empty tomb and the women who first came to the tomb.”
we don’t know this. paul says nothing about women coming to an empty tomb. he does not have any first appearances to the women. we don’t know how badly the ending of mark has been distorted to accommodate the other changes with are found in the later gospels.
LikeLike
“So, even if Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition; it does nothing to discredit what is already there, and is the oldest manuscripts of Mark.”
no, you are wrong
quote:
If 16:8 is the original ending, and that is what the evidence shows, then “Mark” did not show 14:28 as being fulfilled. More evidence that 14:28 is an addition for you to fear for.
throw out verses 14:28
LikeLike
“Mark 16:1-8 – the testimony of the empty tomb and the women who first came to the tomb.”
the women with their lack of faith fled and ran away . they did not have any faith to remove the stone and raise jesus back to life. they did not tell peter anything and the last thing peter REMEMBERS is his FAILURE. the mark guy clearly TRASHED peter and did not want to give him reunion with his “jesus”
matthew has no other ending but marks ending in front of him.
luke throws away matthews special effects and chooses marks ending and distorts marks ending
if mark really wanted to have the women report, he would have said exactly what luke said
matthew reproduce markan wording but reverses what mark said
So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.
luke further distorts marks :
And when they returned from the tomb, they reported all these things to the eleven and to all the others
in luke , no jesus is waiting around the corner like he is in matthew.
these stories were changing and changing and changing.
LikeLike
did the original writing of mark have interpolations, additions, mistaken corrections, etc etc?
LikeLike
According to almost all Biblical scholars, as Paul Williams and Shabir Ally like to say, Mark is the earliest gospel written, and there is no evidence against those chapters and verses I showed you.
Mark 16:9-20 is in doubt; but the rest is not.
LikeLike