Isaiah a Prophet of Islam? Or: How to deal with these questions on sri?
Dr. Christoph Heger
The posting we got from Y'hoshua Ben Y'hudah <anal...@my-deja.com>
on 31 Dec 1999 08:31:30 GMT is one of those postings which make the
participation in sri worthwhile. Many thanks, indeed.
> Shalom Notsrim V'Arabim.
Would you kindly include the Minim, too, Y'hoshua? (Smile!)
I would like to continue this really interesting discussion, but will
have the problem that to deal with the points of disagreement, possibly
will not appear to our gentle moderators as appropriate for this
newsgroup sri, because it seems to them as not sufficiently relevant to
Islam.
This idea of not being sufficiently relevant to Islam when it comes to
Islamic controversies with Christianity, in my view, cannot be uphold
seriously. When you read the Qur'an you immediately realize that apart
>from a lot of legalistic stuff its verses mainly are anti-Christian
polemics. Though Muslim historiography tells that Muhammad stood against
"pagans" (the usual translation of "mushrikuwn"), you get no clear idea
how Muhammad may have addressed genuine polytheists (as the eminent
scholar Tor Andrae has remarked already in the first decades of the 20th
century). Contrary to this vagueness concerning "paganism", the polemics
against (trinitarian) Christianity is clearcut (and becomes even more so
when some distorted verses in the transmitted Qur'an are restored).
Therefore the attitude of our moderators (who nevertheless earn our
thank for their work) to permit attempts to expose a lot of real or
alleged shortcomings of Christian doctrines, but to restrict replies is
highly questionable. The whole of Jewish and Christian Scriptures,
history and doctrines is so intrinsically relevant to Islam and to the
history of its emancipation from those preceding religions and doctrines
that the moderators' attitude is an impossibility.
> I must say, Mr. Heger, that this was quite a fascinating post.
Thanks, Y'hoshua! And I enjoyed your factual manner of arguing,
especially the precision with which you addressed the logical problems
for Muslim apologists to use for their objectives the material they find
in secular or Jewish scholarship.
> I myself have wondered about Isaiah in the Qur'aan and Islaam.
> Another prophet to be considered would be Yeremyahu (Jeremiah).
> The gentleman you were responding to, Asim Awan, seemed to be merely
> regurgitating information he took from an Islamic source which was
> probably itself a rehash of an atheistic criticism of the bible.
Indeed, one often has this impression.
> Surely Isaiah is not a recognized prophet of Islaam.
Yes, at least in early Islam. I guess the reason is: In pre-Christian
and early Christian times there was in some quarters a stern enmity
against the so called great and little scriptural prophets common to
Jewish and Christian dogma (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Hosea, Joel
etc). This enmity is well-known for the Samaritans, who stood in
opposition against the religious and political evolution of the kingdom
of Judah and of the post-exilian Jewish community, centered around
Jerusalem. But it has also been established for at least some
Jewish-Christian sects (e.g.: Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Theologie und
Geschichte des Judenchristentums, Tuebingen 1949, S. 167; Martin Werner,
Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas, Bern-Tuebingen 1954, S. 158 f.).
This tradition could survive in "Arabia haeretica" (this the revealing
term from the point of view of contemporary orthodox Christianity within
the boundaries of the Roman Empire and beyond). And it is undoubtedly
this tradition in which Islam developped.
But I am not so sure about the later development of theological ideas in
Islam, as you yourself, Y'hoshua, pointed out to us:
> Of course, Muslims often feel that all religions are rooted in Islam,
> and all "prophets" preached the same message, ...
Yes, that a bit amusing idea that prophets always came with some book
under their arms.
> ... which was later changed by people.
Unfortunately, this thesis never is substantiated in such a manner that
it could be dealt with by linguistic or historic scholarly methods.
> This concept (which borders on a type of subconscious pantheism) often
> results in Buddha, Confucius, Alexander the Great, Akhenethon, and
> others being labeled as prophets (although they are not mentioned in
> the Qur'aan).
And so I am prepared to allow for the possisble fact that later Islam
tried to accept also Isaiah and other Biblical prophets as prophets of
Islam.
> Regardless, as I had said prior, I feel that Asim Awan was just
> applying something he had found in an Islamic criticism of the bible,
> which was itself taken from Atheist literature.
and possibly from Jewish literature, too, though Asim Awan does not
quote Kimchi's explanation of Isaiah 7:14 nor even Kimchi's name.
> Personally I would argue that the scroll of Isaiah was not referring
> to Jesus,
I am fully aware of this view. But we can leave this article of faith
alone. I only would insist that, as Jameel termed it, there is, from a
linguistical point of view, nothing wrong with Matthew, who referred
Isaiah 7:14 to the birth of Jesus.
> and I highly doubt it was referring to Esau (a character I know Isaiah
> was aware of).
I must admit I am unaware of such an idea. The only thing I know is that
people sometimes argue that the "`Isa" of the Qur'an, due to its
spelling, has to be connected with Esau and not Jesus (an argument which
seems erroneous to me.)
> However, for any Muslim to attack this verse is something of a
> curiousity for me.
And this is why Asim Awan in his latest contributions has to argue in
such a complicated and verbose manner and cannot stick to the point.
> This is similar to Muslim criticism of the genealogies offered in
> Matthew and Luke. Allegedly these verses prove Jesus was born of a
> virgin, and also prove he was from the bloodline of David.
The latter, of course, is the objective of the two genealogies. But that
they intend to prove Jesus' virgin birth sounds odd to me.
> Islaam and the Qur'aan badly fails in the area of proving Jesus'
> Davidic descent, which is highly important. If the Bible is worth
> nothing, then what proof do Muslims have regarding the things claimed
> for Jesus? The Qur'aan claims Jesus (or possibly Esau) is the Messiah,
> but then one must ask how he qualifies as such.
Oh yes, I havn't realized this before, but you are right!
> He was born of a virgin according to the Qur'aan, but was there ever
> anyone who foresaw such an act? The Muslim who attacks the bible,
> indirectly attacks Islaam.
unless he applies the (medieval, not early-Islam) theory of its
distortion, i.e. applies it "ad libitum": Assertions of the Bible he can
agree with are genuine, others are distorted.
> For Atheists, or Jews (or, *choke*, Atheist Jews) to criticize the
> claims about Jesus, it is logical, and has a base. For a Muslim to
> attack such notions, you get the feeling that they do not fully
> understand the issue at hand.
That often is my impression, too.
Asim Awan had written:
> > > Just to examine what I mean, the Greek
> > > translation of the Hebrew Old Testament,
> > > translates the word 'young women' as
> > > virgin in the prophecy.
> > > Every Hebrew version of the Old Testament,
> > > has it as 'young women'.
I had replied:
> > No, it has "`almah", of course.
> > Then you would realize that "`almah" in
> > various places actually has the meaning
> > of "virgin" (Gen 24:43; Ex 2:8; Cant 6:8
> > and elsewhere).
Now Y'hoshua Ben Y'hudah:
> Unfortunately I must disagree with Dr. Heger here.
No problem!
> To assume that "almah" means virgin is to adhere to a type of
> intellectual dishonesty.
Pardon, Y'hoshua, it may have been erroneous what I argued, but I am
surely not dishonest, neither intellectually nor otherwise.
But let's look your arguments!
> Any English translation of the Tanach that has been translated by a
> NONChristian (i.e. a Jew) will also have "young maiden" for the other
> verses mentioned by Dr. Heger.
That is the less important question of modern translators and their
translations. Anyway, Y'hoshua, you surely will be more familiar with
English than I. But I guess that "young maiden" without any further
qualification transfers the idea that it is a virgin. And I am fairly
sure that it is not meant as to be specific on the idea that the "young
maiden", contrary to her status as an unmarried person, is a virgin no
more - at least in those times when the English language was developped.
This, of course, is the very heart of the problem that - I guess in all
languages - their is some vagueness whether the various words "girl",
"maid", "maiden", "damsel", "virgin" etc. refer to the legal status
(married or unmarried) of a female person or to her "physiological"
virginity or even only to her young age etc. This vagueness of the
words' meaning is very appropriate in real life, since you easily can
judge her young age, with some reasonable effort you will be able to
judge whether she is married or not, but her chastity in most situations
will be unknown to you.
This vagueness you will find in the Hebrew words of the scriptures, too,
as I might show now.
> "Virgin" is a completely different word: B'tulah.
B'tulah certainly is a word different from `almah. But I don't see how
you might argue that (1) only b'tulah is used in the Hebrew scriptures
to express the idea of "virgin" and that (2) b'tulah is used in the
sense of virgin exclusively.
Regarding (1): I already had given the basic meaning of *`almah* as
"female person, separated from intercourse with man" and pointed to some
places in the Hebrew scriptures where `almah has the meaning of "virgin"
(or "young maiden", if you prefer). Here is a more complete overview
over the meanings of `almah (For the English translation I use the King
James Version, due to its traditional and precise English):
Gen 24:43 ("... when the *virgin* cometh to draw water" [she shall
become Isaak's wife]: unmarried and surely thought of as a virgin in the
strict sense.
Ex 2:8 ("And the *maid* went ..."): unmarried and most probably thought
of as a virgin, too.
Ps 68:26 ("among them were the *damsels* playing with timbrels"): in all
probability young unmarried girls, thought of as virgins, too.
Cant 1:3 ("... therefore do the *virgins* love thee."): Obviously young
unmarried girls, surely thought of as virgins, too.
Cant 6:8 ("There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and
*virgins* without number.") The `almot are in contrast to "queens" and
"concubines", not (yet) having sexual intercourse with the sultan of
this imagined "seraglio".
Spr 30:19 ("And the way of a man with a *maid*"): a virgin in her first
intercourse with a man. [That the first intercourse is meant becomes
clear from the context. In the next verse 30:20 ("Such is the way of an
adulterous *woman* ...) "ishah" is used for the experienced woman.
Regarding (2): The basic meaning b'tulah is something like "female
person, separated from intercourse with man". Here comes an overview
over the meanings of b'tulah which shows that it is questionable whether
it always has the precise meaning of "virgin" in the strict sense.
Gen 24:16 ("And the damsel (Rebecca) was very fair to look upon, a
*virgin*, neither had any man known her."): a young girl not yet
betrothed to a man and clearly said to be a virgin.
Ex 22:15 ("And if a man entice a *maid* that is not betrothed..."): a
young girl surely thought of as a virgin. But the important condition is
that she is not yet betrothed to a man.
2 S 13:2 ("for she (Tamar) was a *virgin*"): The circumstances and
conditions are somewhat dark, but it is clear that she is considered to
have been considered as a "virgin" in (probably) the strict sense or
perhaps only in the legal sense.
Jes 62:5 ("For as a young man marrieth a *virgin* ..."): The prophet
Jeremiah admittedly meant real virgins in the first place, but surely
was realistic enough to realize that sometimes this virginity is only a
legal one - also in his time.
Jo 1:8 ("Lament like a *virgin* ... for the husband of her youth."):
This imagined widow perhaps remembers when she was a virgin - and so
does the prophet Joel - marrying her husband, but actually now she in
all probability is a virgin no more.
Jer 2:32 ("Can a *virgin* forget her ornaments , or a bride her
attire?"): Here again a married wife remembers when she as a young girl
or even a virgin married her husband in her ornaments.
These linguistic arguments you may find impressive or not, Y'hoshua. But
you will admit that the Jewish scholars of pre-Christian Alexandria must
have seen some reasons to translate the `almah in Isaiah 7:14 as
"parthenos" ("virgin") and the Greek speaking Jews of those centuries
must have seen some reason to accept this translation - and hardly did
so because of mere stupidity.
> Regardless, it is very strange that a Muslim would touch on
> this point. I do not seek to slander Asim Awan, but I assume he does
> not know Hebrew. I apologize for maiking (and repeating) this
> assumption, but I feel that Asim Awan took this information from a
> source without understanding its full implications. This argument is
> often used to prove Jesus was not the Messiah, something that would be
> contradictary to Islaam and the Quraan.
Yes, of course.
> As I said at the beginning of this post, this was a very fascinating
> discussion.
For me, too. I would like to continue it. But I am afraid, since my
vacations are coming to an end this week, I will be unable to do this
work.
> It makes me wonder.... if the Christian bible is erroneous,
> what proof do Muslims have that Jesus (or worse yet, Esau) was the
> Messiah?
Because the Qur'an says so. But it only says that Jesus was the Messiah,
it gives no idea of what a Messiah is and what he is about.
> Shalom Heverim Sheli.
> Elohim lo hu haya.
Many thanks, and same to you!
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger
-----------
Mod. Note: Please keep replies relevant to Islam.]
asim...@my-deja.com
> quote Kimchi's explanation of Isaiah 7:14 nor even Kimchi's name.
This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. In fact one can only consider
it backpeddling.
>
> > Personally I would argue that the scroll of Isaiah was not
referring
> > to Jesus,
Of course it doesn't. One doesn't need to be a genius to see it.
>
> I am fully aware of this view. But we can leave this article of faith
> alone. I only would insist that, as Jameel termed it, there is, from a
> linguistical point of view, nothing wrong with Matthew, who referred
> Isaiah 7:14 to the birth of Jesus.
Linguistically? One can stretch only so far. The author of Matthew is
wrong, which is further reenforced by the historical implications, the
name Immanuel and so on and so on.
>
> > and I highly doubt it was referring to Esau (a character I know
Isaiah
> > was aware of).
>
> I must admit I am unaware of such an idea. The only thing I know is
that
> people sometimes argue that the "`Isa" of the Qur'an, due to its
> spelling, has to be connected with Esau and not Jesus (an argument
which
> seems erroneous to me.)
Proof? This hasno bearing on the topic at hand, and I could care
less. The issue boils down to the ever-changing concept of
revelation. One has a biased view, so they go searching so fervently
for something to support it, and voila.
As Urfi said:
'If your heart is not deceived by the mirage, be not proud of the
sharpness of your understanding; for your freedom from the optical
illusion is due to your imperfect thirst.'
In this case it was hastiness on the part of the author, it was a sharp
lackness of understanding. He didn't understand fully the implications
of what he was saying, and now voila. The theology of Christians comes
craching to the ground. Similar to the Jewish corruption of Ismaeel
(AS) in the Old Testament. Propblems only compound themselves when
falsehood starts. Truth is like an aroow, it shoots straight and is
very clear. People who have deluded understandings bear the
'prophetic' and I use prophetic in the western sense of the word
understanding. One only needs to look at the evangelic mentality and
the year 2000, which by the way takes roots in pagan origins and has
nothing to do with the death of Hadhrat Isa (AS). They fall prey to
the hype trying in desparation to find allusion to their narrow
visions. One only has to compare this to the saying of the Prophet
(S), if you are planting a tree, and the Day of Judgement comes,
continue planting the tree.
>
> > However, for any Muslim to attack this verse is something of a
> > curiousity for me.
There is nothing to attack. Heger and the other guy have a hard time
differentiating between attachking a verse and atatcking a baseless
interpetation. One only needs to follow the whole debate and TajMahals
baseess theories of cyclical patterns and a living revelation. The
verse is clear. What one was attacking was the concept of projecting a
prophecy forward 736 years which has nothing to do with the event.
This demonstrates quite clearly these people just shift the topics
away. One only can laugh at what one considers innerrancy.
>
> And this is why Asim Awan in his latest contributions has to argue in
> such a complicated and verbose manner and cannot stick to the point.
Cannot sustain an argument? My posting was quite clear. No amount of
sophisticated bantering can get oneself out of the clear quagmire this
type of interpretation leads to.
>
> > This is similar to Muslim criticism of the genealogies offered in
> > Matthew and Luke. Allegedly these verses prove Jesus was born of a
> > virgin, and also prove he was from the bloodline of David.
>
> The latter, of course, is the objective of the two genealogies. But
that
> they intend to prove Jesus' virgin birth sounds odd to me.
It means that the whole concept of innerrancy is just that. If the
Christians cannot even get right this, then who can blame the Jews who
followed or anyone for that matter to accuse the Christians of
fabrications. Not only that it leaves the matter open to cast
aspersions of Hadhrat Maryum (AS). Heger in all his linguitsical
shifting cannot see such an obvious point.
The Quran does not make any msitakes, and in fact uses the term
Messiah, tying it in with the virgin birth. It is a subtle allusion to
the Jews, that Jesus is anointed irrespective of the contemporary
beliefs of the Jews and their attempts to link the Prophet (S) with the
House of David. The Christians had to create a ficticuous account,
contradicting I might add, to try and tie it in with the contemporary
belief at the time. And this only because Hadhrat Maryam (AS) was
descended from the House of Aaaron (AS).
One cannot do anything for someones failure to see such an obvious
connection.
>
> > Islaam and the Qur'aan badly fails in the area of proving Jesus'
> > Davidic descent, which is highly important. If the Bible is worth
> > nothing, then what proof do Muslims have regarding the things
claimed
> > for Jesus? The Qur'aan claims Jesus (or possibly Esau) is the
Messiah,
> > but then one must ask how he qualifies as such.
The first sentence is a cop-out. This is what I mean when I say the
Jews have every reason to cast aspersions on the virgin birth of Isa
(AS). The Quran does not make any of these errors. Thus one can
appreciate surah Bayyinah a whoile lot more, as his knowledge
increases. "The People of the Book would never cease to dispute"
until a Prophet came to them, with the bayyinah. The problem does not
lie in Islam, the problem is obviously rooted somewhere else.
Also, One again ignores and avoids the point I was making in reference
to the messiah. It is not a specified term in Judaiism, and one can
refer to the Manual of Discipline which I quote enough of. For the
rest of it, i.e. Davidic descent, one does not need to delve into the
Jews confounding themselves with their own hands. This is a point I
have continuously gone over. There is nothing spiritually significant
in the role of the messiah. Prophets all taught the same spritual
message.
This is again purely ridiculous because I clearly made my points. One
needs to get out of the Judo_Christian framework one is in to see such
an obvious point.
>
> Oh yes, I havn't realized this before, but you are right!
>
> > He was born of a virgin according to the Qur'aan, but was there
ever
> > anyone who foresaw such an act? The Muslim who attacks the bible,
> > indirectly attacks Islaam.
One does not need to be a genius to understand Islams view of
revelation to demonstrate Heger's back peddling along, with TajMahal.
This is a classic excuse for dogmatism. Using the crass claims of
attacking ( though the word should actually be critical eye) the Bible
and Testament means attacking Islam. This is how the whole issue
started, about the Quranic views of scriptures. One can appreciate
this a whole lot more if they new what was in essence the main topic at
hand.
One cannot help it if Islam gave birth to the modern empirical method.
This is again proof of what I mean Islam does not suffer at all from
the problems of revelation like the Jews and Christians.
>
> unless he applies the (medieval, not early-Islam)
One does need need to get into Hegers baseless accusations.
>theory of its
> distortion, i.e. applies it "ad libitum": Assertions of the Bible he
can
> agree with are genuine, others are distorted.
There is no theory of distrotion, it is quite clear and evident. The
stench of dogma is getting stronger and stronger. The evangliests are
clung to a desparate attempt to get Muslims to assume their same
dogmatic ositions in regards to revelation. Thus they claim atheitsic
arguments and so forth. Yet it was te Muslims who gave birth to modern
biblical criticism. They can rant all they want about atheistic
propositions and so on, but the truth is clear. That is again what I
mean by Islam not being plagued with such problems of revelation
The testaments are like any other hstorical documents subject to
critical scrutiny. That doesn;'t mean one cannot find wisdom in them
also. Heger doesn't even know that this is how the whole topic started,
with reference to the issue of Islamic views of scrioptures, and
TajMahals baseless ranterings in regards to the Queen of Sheba, and the
Quranic account.
>
> > For Atheists, or Jews (or, *choke*, Atheist Jews) to criticize the
> > claims about Jesus, it is logical, and has a base. For a Muslim to
> > attack such notions, you get the feeling that they do not fully
> > understand the issue at hand.
This is avoidance of the issue, and has no relevancy to the point at
hand. One can attack anothers conception of Hadhrat Isa (AS) without
attacking Hadhrat Isa (AS). The Quran demolishes it. Heger and His
friend, the Jew, fail to see the difference.
We were speaking about the gospels being a source of revelation. No
oneis disputing the virgin birth. This is way too easy.
>
> That often is my impression, too.
>
> Asim Awan had written:
>
> > > > Just to examine what I mean, the Greek
> > > > translation of the Hebrew Old Testament,
> > > > translates the word 'young women' as
> > > > virgin in the prophecy.
> > > > Every Hebrew version of the Old Testament,
> > > > has it as 'young women'.
>
> I had replied:
>
> > > No, it has "`almah", of course.
Play o words. No need to comment.
> > > Then you would realize that "`almah" in
> > > various places actually has the meaning
> > > of "virgin" (Gen 24:43; Ex 2:8; Cant 6:8
> > > and elsewhere).
Here we go again. almah as defined by ever commentary is a young women
who is able to bear children, irrespective of whether or not she is a
virgin. Whtehr the use maiden girl or young women it all means the
same thing. If the context clarifies the position, than that is the
context.
Today’s English Version gives the words "a young woman" in Isaiah
VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "A virgin".
It explains "a young woman" in the footnote "k" as follows:
YOUNG WOMAN: The Hebrew word here translated "young woman" is not the
specific term for "virgin," but refers to any young woman of
marriageable age. The use of "virgin" in Mt 1.23 reflects a Greek
translation of the Old Testament [Septuagint], made some 500 years
after Isaiah.2
The New English Bible also gives the words "A young woman" in Isaiah
VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "The virgin".3
The Reader’s Bible, in the same way, records the words "a young woman"
in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "a
virgin".4
Revised Standard Version (Catholic edition), as well, writes the words
"a young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it translates
the word as "a virgin".5
The New Rev. Stand. Versn. (Cath.Ed. for India), has also followed suit
and has given the words "the young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in
Matthew I:23 it translates the word as "the virgin".6
The New Oxford Annotated Bible has also done the same. It has recorded
the words "the young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, and the words "the
virgin" in Matthew I:23.7 It has also afforded a footnote as follows:
‘Young woman, Hebrew "‘almah," feminine of "‘elem," young man (1Sam
17.56; 20.22); the word appears in Gen 24.43; Ex 2.8; Ps 68.25, and
elsewhere, where it is translated "young woman," "girl," "maiden.’8
The New Jerusalem Bible is of the same view. It has given the words
"the young woman" in Isaiah VII:14, whereas in Matthew I:23 it
translates the word as "the virgin"
> > To assume that "almah" means virgin is to adhere to a type of
> > intellectual dishonesty.
>
> Pardon, Y'hoshua, it may have been erroneous what I argued, but I am
> surely not dishonest, neither intellectually nor otherwise.
Thats a laugh. One can wonder about his partial quotes later on as I
will show.
>
> But let's look your arguments!
>
> > Any English translation of the Tanach that has been translated by a
> > NONChristian (i.e. a Jew) will also have "young maiden" for the
other
> > verses mentioned by Dr. Heger.
>
> That is the less important question of modern translators and their
> translations. Anyway, Y'hoshua, you surely will be more familiar with
> English than I. But I guess that "young maiden" without any further
> qualification transfers the idea that it is a virgin. And I am fairly
> sure that it is not meant as to be specific on the idea that the
"young
> maiden", contrary to her status as an unmarried person, is a virgin no
> more - at least in those times when the English language was
developped.
This type of cultural time framework doesn't work as will be shown.
Bethulah is used in ever conetx referring to the moral purity, while
almah is used with specific reference to sexual maturity. This is
purely backpeddling by Heger to the highest degree. If it doesn't suit
Heger it becomes 'modern', and then he goes about discussing his own
version of the culture of the Jews at the time, as though he knows the
use of the word.
To quote the Living Bible:
The controversial Hebrew word used here sometimes means "virgin" and
sometimes "young woman." Its immediate use here refers to Isaiah’s
young wife and her newborn son (Isaiah 8:1-4). This, of course, was not
a virgin birth. God’s sign was that before this child was old enough to
talk (verse 4) the two invading kings would be destroyed. However, the
Gospel of Matthew (1:23) tells us that there was a further fulfillment
of this prophecy, in that a virgin (Mary) conceived and bore a son,
Immanuel, the Christ. We have therefore properly used this higher
meaning, "virgin," in verse 14, as otherwise the Matthew account loses
its significance [stress added without any further comment, as it
speaks of its intent of itself].12
> This, of course, is the very heart of the problem that - I guess in
all
> languages - their is some vagueness whether the various words "girl",
> "maid", "maiden", "damsel", "virgin" etc. refer to the legal status
> (married or unmarried) of a female person or to her "physiological"
> virginity or even only to her young age etc. This vagueness of the
> words' meaning is very appropriate in real life, since you easily can
> judge her young age, with some reasonable effort you will be able to
> judge whether she is married or not, but her chastity in most
situations
> will be unknown to you.
Again, back-peddling. Just to quote the Seventh Day adventsit Bible:
The Hebrew term specifically descriptive of virginity is bethulah,
which means strictly "virgin" and nothing else in the 50 instances
where it appears in the OT. In Bible usage a bethulah was, by
definition, a marriageable woman, whether young or old, though probably
young; who had remained separate from men. Not once is the word ‘almah
used with reference to virginity as bethulah and its derivative forms
are used. Bethulah has no cognate masculine equivalent, but is often
coupled with bachur, "choice young man," or "excellent young man."
Bachur and bethulah depict the highest Hebrew ideals of young manhood
and young woman-hood, as ‘elem and ‘almah denote physical maturity.
Without a single exception, where moral integrity and virginity are
clearly referred to, bachur and bethulah are used; ‘elem and ‘almah are
never so used. >
Notice the emphasis on purity in the moral and integrity sense. This
was in fact one of the special qualities of Rachel, the daughter
selected to be the wife of Ibrahim's (S) son.
<(...).Isaiah uses bethulah altogether five times (chs. 23:4, 12;
37:22; 47:1; 62:5), and had he intended the "young woman" of ch. 7:14
to be understood as a "virgin" in the strict sense of the word, he
might logically be expected to use bethulah here as well.>
This too plays in later, but for right now,
Notice the last paragraph. If there was any emphasis on virginity the
word bethulah would have been used. If anything Ahaz who in fact did
not give any credence to the prophecy would ahve used this aspect to
mock it. But we know Ahazs objection was based on the fact that their
destruction seemed emminent.
>
> This vagueness you will find in the Hebrew words of the scriptures,
too,
> as I might show now.
The only one being vague is Heger.
>
> > "Virgin" is a completely different word: B'tulah.
>
> B'tulah certainly is a word different from `almah. But I don't see how
> you might argue that (1) only b'tulah is used in the Hebrew scriptures
> to express the idea of "virgin" and that (2) b'tulah is used in the
> sense of virgin exclusively.
Btulah is a more specific word, of which anyone can see. alamh is a
ageneral word meaning young women of marriagable age. Thats it, and
that simple.
There are only two places in which almah is translated to parthenos, or
virgin. Gen 24:43 and Isiah 7:43.
The first case is Rebecca, and that is clear because of the context.
There is an explicit statement of her virginity in 24:16. There is
absolutely no reason why almah has been rendered as parthenos in Isaiah
and the prophecy. It is that simple for the Greek translators, yet
Heger is speaking like the world-reknown authority. Everything becomes
so clear to him. Matthew quoted from the Greek version which shows
just a tremendous mistake on his part, coup[led with a narrow and
prejudiced vision. It is that simple. I could care less for the
historical value of a prophecy that was fulfilled over 2700 years ago.
One was demonstrating the 'holy spirits' descent on Matthew who made an
awfully bad mistake by relying on greek translation.
>
> Regarding (1): I already had given the basic meaning of *`almah* as
> "female person, separated from intercourse with man"
Notice, no proof for this. Just to quote the linguistic soucre:
Broadmann Bible Commentary
The Hebrew word has been translated "a virgin" in the KJV and a young
woman in the RSV. This noun is derived from a verbal root meaning "to
be ripe." Therefore it denotes a young girl who has passed the age of
puberty and is presumably capable of bearing children.
The word ‘almah neither affirms nor denies virginity on the part of the
one to whom it refers. The technically Hebrew term for virgin is
bethula, a term which is used elsewhere in Isaiah, but not in this
passage (...).
And teh Seventh Day Adventist Commentary:
Hebrew lexicographers are agreed that ‘almah is from the root ‘alam,
"to be [sexually] mature," and that the word ‘almah denotes a "young
woman," implying ability to bear children. Both ‘almah and ‘elem, the
masculine form of the word, clearly denote physical maturity, but there
is no absolute evidence as to whether they imply virginity or indicate
marital status. It may be noted, however, that in S. of Sol. 6:8,9
"virgins," ‘alamoth (plural of ‘almah), are classed with "queens" and
"concubines" in contrast with an "undefiled" young woman. According to
the Hebrew the ‘almah of Isa. 7:14 may already have conceived (see
below, "Shall conceive), and if she were yet a virgin when Isaiah spoke
we would then be confronted with another miraculous birth similar to
that of Jesus, which would create a profound theological problem.
and pointed to some
> places in the Hebrew scriptures where `almah has the meaning of
"virgin"
> (or "young maiden", if you prefer). Here is a more complete overview
> over the meanings of `almah (For the English translation I use the
King
> James Version, due to its traditional and precise English):
>
> Gen 24:43 ("... when the *virgin* cometh to draw water" [she shall
> become Isaak's wife]: unmarried and surely thought of as a virgin in
the
> strict sense.
Of course this is. It has nothing to do with the fact that the word is
almah. It is translated as version by the Greeks, because 24:16 gives
them an obvious reason to do so.
> Ex 2:8 ("And the *maid* went ..."): unmarried and most probably
thought
> of as a virgin, too.
most probably? Doesn't prove anything, except for the fact that almah
is used. One would wonder the basis for a commentator to use the word
bethulah if it has no bearing on the situation at hand. Especially
when it is just a narration of the story. There is no significant
reason to make any distinction.
>
> Ps 68:26 ("among them were the *damsels* playing with timbrels"): in
all
> probability young unmarried girls, thought of as virgins, too.
The whole verse is:
"Your procession has come into view, O God, the procession of my God
and King into the sanctuary.
25
In front are the singers, after them the musicians; with them are the
maidens playing tambourines.
Notice Hegers stretching the meaning. As if the word bethulah would
have any signifcance to a group of girls singing. The word alamah is
very appropriate here, and the sexual condition of the women have no
bearing on it.
>
> Cant 1:3 ("... therefore do the *virgins* love thee."): Obviously
young
> unmarried girls, surely thought of as virgins, too.
Again, there is nothing that indicates virgin. NIV translates the word
8 as virgin, and 9 as maidens. NASB transaltes the word 8 as maidens,
and 9 as maidens. KJV virgins and daughters respectively. Not only
that 8 says almah 'without number'. Now there is nothing which
indicates anything having to do with virginity. The word sexually
mature women is way more appropriate within the context. One wonders
how a almah without number, notice the vastness used, would be labelled
virgins without number.
In fact, to quote a commentary:
<It may be noted, however, that in S. of Sol. 6:8,9 "virgins," ‘alamoth
(plural of ‘almah), are classed with "queens" and "concubines" in
contrast with an "undefiled" young woman. >
>
> Cant 6:8 ("There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and
> *virgins* without number.") The `almot are in contrast to "queens" and
> "concubines", not (yet) having sexual intercourse with the sultan of
> this imagined "seraglio".
Same context as previous verse. Ntoice how alamah is classed with
concubines and queens. If one wanted to make a distinction of sexual
status, than bethulah would have been used. These verses only further
the point I was making.
>
> Spr 30:19 ("And the way of a man with a *maid*"): a virgin in her
first
> intercourse with a man. [That the first intercourse is meant becomes
> clear from the context. In the next verse 30:20 ("Such is the way of
an
> adulterous *woman* ...) "ishah" is used for the experienced woman.
One needs clarification on this verse. Looked for it couldn't find
it.
>
> Regarding (2): The basic meaning b'tulah is something like "female
> person, separated from intercourse with man". Here comes an overview
> over the meanings of b'tulah which shows that it is questionable
whether
> it always has the precise meaning of "virgin" in the strict sense.
One does not have to be a genius to see Hegers manipulation of whatever
suits his purpose. And just to eliminate his old argument "it is hard
to understand what a person means by a certain word unless one
understands their social and cultural sitaution":
<The Hebrew term specifically descriptive of virginity is bethulah,
which means strictly "virgin" and nothing else in the 50 instances
where it appears in the OT. In Bible usage a bethulah was, by
definition, a marriageable woman, whether young or old, though probably
young; who had remained separate from men. Not once is the word ‘almah
used with reference to virginity as bethulah and its derivative forms
are used. Bethulah has no cognate masculine equivalent, but is often
coupled with bachur, "choice young man," or "excellent young man."
Bachur and bethulah depict the highest Hebrew ideals of young manhood
and young woman-hood, as ‘elem and ‘almah denote physical maturity.
Without a single exception, where moral integrity and virginity are
clearly referred to, bachur and bethulah are used; ‘elem and ‘almah are
never so used. >
Seveth Day Adventist.
One can see the obvious interpretations of Heger dwindle away like a
leaf being blown with a gentle wind.
> Gen 24:16 ("And the damsel (Rebecca) was very fair to look upon, a
> *virgin*, neither had any man known her."): a young girl not yet
> betrothed to a man and clearly said to be a virgin.
Along with the emphasis on the fact the servant was sent to find a girl
for Abraham (AS) sons? One whow as pious I might add. That is why the
word behulah is used, to emphasize the purity of the girl. Hegers
interpretations are a farce.
>
> Ex 22:15 ("And if a man entice a *maid* that is not betrothed..."): a
> young girl surely thought of as a virgin. But the important condition
is
> that she is not yet betrothed to a man.
One wonder how Exodus 16-17 which reads
If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he
must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.
17
If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money
equal to the *dowry for virgins
proves his point.
>
> 2 S 13:2 ("for she (Tamar) was a *virgin*"): The circumstances and
> conditions are somewhat dark, but it is clear that she is considered
to
> have been considered as a "virgin" in (probably) the strict sense or
> perhaps only in the legal sense.
No bother to look up that one, because Hegers interpretations are way
off. Don't know which particular book he is referring to. One only
has to wonder what is meant by legal sense or strict sense. Tryin to
confuse the issue? Heger should make a desparate plea for help.
>
> Jes 62:5 ("For as a young man marrieth a *virgin* ..."): The prophet
> Jeremiah admittedly meant real virgins in the first place, but surely
> was realistic enough to realize that sometimes this virginity is only
a
> legal one - also in his time.
What is this suppose to mean? How is somebody a virgin in the legal
sense. And how does one bet into these wild interpretations.
The verse is in Isaiah:
For as a young man marries a virgin, So your sons will marry you; And
as the [6]bridegroom rejoices over the bride, So your *God will rejoice
over you.
In fact this is the same book in which the prophecy is made. That will
be shown later.
>
> Jo 1:8 ("Lament like a *virgin* ... for the husband of her youth."):
> This imagined widow perhaps remembers when she was a virgin - and so
> does the prophet Joel - marrying her husband, but actually now she in
> all probability is a virgin no more.
>
> Jer 2:32 ("Can a *virgin* forget her ornaments , or a bride her
> attire?"): Here again a married wife remembers when she as a young
girl
> or even a virgin married her husband in her ornaments.
«Can a virgin forget her ornaments, Or a bride her attire? Yet My
people have *forgotten Me Days without number.
The context has nothing to do with remembering past days. It has to do
with a description of how people forget God. Hegers interpretations
are baseless.
>
> These linguistic arguments you may find impressive or not, Y'hoshua.
Not.
Lets confine ourselves to Isiah of which the word bethulah is used.
23:4, 12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5
Just to quote 62:5:
For as a young man marries a virgin, So your sons will marry you; And
as the [6]bridegroom rejoices over the bride, So your *God will rejoice
over you.
One does not need to be a genius to figure out Heger is plain wrong.
The reason for confining to Isaiah in this last part is because the
prophecy is made. If there is any inkling to the prophecy referring to
a virgin, then bethulah would have been more appropriate, and Ahaz
would have used this as an excuse to blow off what he thought was a
ridiculous prophecy.
But
> you will admit that the Jewish scholars of pre-Christian Alexandria
must
> have seen some reasons to translate the `almah in Isaiah 7:14 as
> "parthenos" ("virgin") and the Greek speaking Jews of those centuries
> must have seen some reason to accept this translation - and hardly did
> so because of mere stupidity.
Of course, pure dogmatism not backed up by any substance. Heger
confronts himself with many problems. First he admits he doubts the
prophecy has anything to do with a prediction of Isa (AS). Yet he
makes this above claim. Secondly, one can stretch all he wants to fit
ones interpretations, but every angle of the prophecy reject it.
Third, even if we assume for the sake of the argument that almah was a
virgin, than that would just shake the foundations of Christianity.
One does not have to be a genius to recognize that two virgin births
wouldn't do well for a proposition of divinity. The translation
accorded by the Greeks were wrong. Its that simple. The question
becomes does anybody want to base the foundations of their whole
theology, like Matthew on a wrong translation?
>
> > Regardless, it is very strange that a Muslim would touch on
> > this point. I do not seek to slander Asim Awan, but I assume he does
> > not know Hebrew. I apologize for maiking (and repeating) this
> > assumption, but I feel that Asim Awan took this information from a
> > source without understanding its full implications. This argument is
> > often used to prove Jesus was not the Messiah, something that would
be
> > contradictary to Islaam and the Quraan.
I understand fully well its iplications. There are no iplications in
the prophecy like Matthew alleges. That is the issue? The reality of
how the authors wrote according to their own whims and fancies. The
Quran not being plagued with these problems is the point.
What you feel is your own business. There is nothing spectacular in
the word Messiah, and one only needs to go to the Quran to see its use
as far as I know only once, surah Imran. I made the mistake saying it
was ins urah saff beore. This use was limited to a preporatory role of
establishing the guidnace and deen in light of this world on a socio-
political, economic level, via surah saff. There is no spiritual
signifcance to it in bringing some new teachings. The Message is the
most comrpehensive and dynamic guidance provided to man.
The Qurans mention of Messiahship is in ayat 45 of surah Imran.
Messiah among the Hebrews always had general applications towards the
"anointed". The Dead Sea Scrolls refer to both priestly and lay
messiahs. The Quran confirms that Isa (AS) was the Messiah. One does
not need to get into the notion that the main theology of Messiahship
during the prevalent time of Hadhrat Isa (AS) and even today was that
this person would descend from the House of David. One does not need
to get into the fact that Hadhrat Maryma (AS) was a descendant from the
Housae of aaron, and how the Christians not having faith in their own
beliefs had to corrupt a line to prove it, contradicting ones I might
add. The Quran affimrs the Messiahship of Jesus irrespective of the
claims of the Jews and the fibs of the Christians. That is one proof
the Quran restores the honour of Hadhrat Isa (AS). There is no
surprise Allah follows this title with a reference to the virgin birth
and itsnarration. This is also a indirect allusion to the Jewish
arrogance in their attitude towards Isa (AS). They new fully well he
was appointed for a purpose, and that purpose as the Quran idnicates
Hadhrat Isa (AS) said was to prepare the way for Rasul (S). Thus the
allusion to the fruitless fig tree given a last chance to bear fruit
via Matthew 21:19-21. Verse 43 affirms teh Israelites failure as a
nation, and 42 affirms the rejected stone, the nation of Ismaeel
breaking every and any thing that stands in its way. "It is He who
sent the Messenger with Guidance and the Deeen of truth to make it
prevail over all other deens. Even though the disbelievers may be
averse."
There was nothing spiritually different between the Prophets (AS). The
Quran does not give any credence to the messianic legacy of the Jews
and Christians. In fact it is in total opposition to the Quanic
outlook on life in my view due to the emphasis on a wordly redemption.
The Christains onthe other hand went to the opposite extreme, and their
gnostic beliefs. The Quran views the same spirtual legacy of the
Prophets, though shareaahs vary due to the circumstances at the time,
such as political, and social. There is profound philosophical
implications in the concept of khatam of Rasul (S).
The Quran affirms that all Prophets (AS) made a covenant with God that
if Prophet Muhammad (S) comes, they will obey him and confirm him.
The Gospels on the other hand give us totally varying accounts, which
also lend credence to accusations against the chastity of Maryum (AS),
her being a bethulah.
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> > As I said at the beginning of this post, this was a very fascinating
> > discussion.
>
> For me, too. I would like to continue it. But I am afraid, since my
> vacations are coming to an end this week, I will be unable to do this
> work.
>
> > It makes me wonder.... if the Christian bible is erroneous,
> > what proof do Muslims have that Jesus (or worse yet, Esau) was the
> > Messiah?
>
> Because the Qur'an says so. But it only says that Jesus was the
Messiah,
> it gives no idea of what a Messiah is and what he is about.
Again, nothing to offer of substantial wait. One cannot help those who
cannot fail to appreciate the phenomenon of Islam and being free from
the ridiculous notions of the Jews and Christians. Oneonly has to
observe their desire to burn down masjid al-aqsa and restor the Temple
of Sulayman (AS) to speed the ushering in of their messianic legacy.
The problme for them is Masjid al aqsa is the restoration. Bani
Israeel, 1st verse. The miraaj was a pre-emblem of the momentous
hijra, the beginning of Islam on the foundations of a state. The same
manner the hijra of the Jews was there beginning. The allusions rae
profound, and Islam as brought by Rasul (S) was the culmination of the
rohetic experience on earth.
One does not need to be a genius to understand such an awesome and
evident truth.
God I love Islam.
>
> > Shalom Heverim Sheli.
> > Elohim lo hu haya.
>
> Many thanks, and same to you!
>
> Kind regards,
> Christoph Heger
Peace is only for those that accept the truth. Otherwise they confound
themselves as clearly demonstrated.
>
> -----------
> Mod. Note: Please keep replies relevant to Islam.]
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
john willis
news:84ns9t$hos$1...@samba.rahul.net...
could i make a request of the authors to please post this as a reply to the
first 'message'
thats because i and many other people would like to see new messages and
not the same thing repeated on a new line
the 'moderators' are requested to take notice of this...altho i doubt they
will considering how happy they are to delete messages by muslims
Rahim Choudhary
This is a fine example of people praising each others work, and feeling
complaiscent about it. And at the same time joining hands in bending
backwards to degrade other works (including divine revelation).
Look at this for example.
Shalom to Hager:
> I must say, Mr. Heger, that this was quite a fascinating post.
Hager's Response to Shalom's post:
is one of those postings which make the
participation in sri worthwhile. Many thanks, indeed.
And then they join together to depreciate others. This is only thinly veiled
anti Muslim rhetorics. Hager and Shalom should be thankful to the moderators
for their special kindness to themselves, and the likes.
Y'hoshua Ben Y'hudah
Shalom Haverim Sheli
My apologies if anyone has tried to email me. Someone recently brought
it to my attention that my email was not valid for some reason, and
messages were 'bouncing' back. If you sent me an email, and it
'bounced', please resend it to my new address at
joshbe...@vjmail.com
> When you read the Qur'an you immediately realize
> that apart from a lot of legalistic stuff its
> verses mainly are anti-Christian polemics.
I would agree greatly with this assertion, although one must note the
numerous anti-Jewish polemics found in this writ as well. It is quite
evident that the Qur'aan is designed to be a response to the religions
that were present during the time of it's writing.
> I enjoyed your factual manner of arguing,
> especially the precision with which you
> addressed the logical problems for Muslim
> apologists to use for their objectives the
> material they find in secular or Jewish
> scholarship.
Well, thank you. I think such things can be seen rather plainly. My
humble understanding of Islaam is that it was originally meant to be
seen as the completion and perfection of previous faiths (such as those
of the Christians and Jews). This idea is still put forth by most
Muslims. However, upon serious study many Muslims realized that,
contrary to what their prophet had claimed, the Islamic scriptures had
many inconsistencies with those of both Christianity and Judaism. Thus
the claim adopted by many was that the previous scriptures must have
been forged. However, the extent of the changes or forgeries were never
pointed out. As I understand it Al-Razi, a physician and philosopher
actually said that the previous scriptures were not changed, and
defended them. Direct attacks on the Christian and Jewish scriptures by
Muslims did not come until after Jews and Secularists had done so. When
considering the claims that previous scripture was changed, you
correctly stated:
> Unfortunately, this thesis never is substantiated
> in such a manner that it could be dealt with by
> linguistic or historic scholarly methods.
Precisely. Attempts by those who wish to promote Islaam via criticism
of Jewish and Christian scripture have been nothing more than instances
of Muslims plagerizing the work of an Atheist or Jewish scolar. The
method has always been to show contradictions or errors within the
respective text. If the 'Bible' (be it of the Christians, or the TaNaKh
of the Y'hudim) has 10,000 contradictions, it does not mean it has been
changed. We could just as easily assume that these alleged errors were
there from the very day the text was written. If that were the case,
then Islaam itself is erroneous, as it is a religion rooted in the
folklore from previous texts filled with error. A contradiction in a
text does not prove the text was changed.
> I am prepared to allow for the possisble fact
> that later Islam tried to accept also Isaiah
> and other Biblical prophets as prophets of
> Islam.
I have never seen an Islamic text that mentions Yisayahu (Isaiah).
There are Muslims who will try to find the prophet of Islaam within
Isaiah's scroll, but no mention of him is found in the Qur'aan or the
ahadith.
> The only thing I know is that people
> sometimes argue that the "`Isa" of the
> Qur'an, due to its spelling, has to be
> connected with Esau and not Jesus
Well the spelling is quite similar, although as I understand it, the
spelling is not exact. Much of the Arabic alphabet corresponds to the
characters found in the Hebrew aleph-bet. In the case of Isa and Esau,
the spelling is indeed similar. In Hebrew, Esau is Ayin-Sin-Vav ('ASV).
I may be incorrect, but I recall the spelling of Isa in Arabic to be
ain-sin-alif. If this is the case the spelling is not exact, as the
Arabic 'alif' corresponds to the Hebrew 'aleph'. However the hebrew
spelling ends with the Hebrew 'vav', which is correspondent with the
Arabic 'waaw' and not the 'alif'. Therefore you are correct in pointing
out that the spelling alone does not prove Esau. However, the name
given to this man who is clearly an adaptation of the Christian Messiah
is rather curious.
> > This is similar to Muslim criticism of the
> > genealogies offered in Matthew and Luke.
> > Allegedly these verses prove Jesus was born
> > of a virgin, and also prove he was from the
> > bloodline of David.
>
> The latter, of course, is the objective of the
> two genealogies. But that they intend to prove
> Jesus' virgin birth sounds odd to me.
My apologies. It is merely the first chapter of Matthew (after the
genealogy?) that touches on the virgin birth. Whatever the case, my
point was that these genealogies are designed to prove that Jesus was
>from the line of David. While many Jews and Atheists will call these
genealogies erroneous, it is odd to see a Muslim do so. Islaam and the
Qur'aan make no attempt to prove Jesus is from the bloodline of David,
which is a requirement of his being the Messiah. If these genealogies
are erroneous, what does Islaam have to stand on to prove such a bold
claim as that Jesus is the Messiah? The Qur'aan makes no statement
about Jesus' genealogy. If anything, based on the Qur'aan, we might
assume Isa is a Levite, from the lineage of Aaron, which would
disqualify him as being the Messiah. Can Islaam or the Qur'aan prove
Jesus is the Messiah? I think not.
The rest of this post, particularly the points regarding the hebrew
words b'tulah and almah were fascinating. However to respond to them
would no longer be relevant to the scope of this discussion, so I have
edited them out. Regardless, I am interested in the thoughts others may
have on these points.
Shalom Haverim (Notsrim, Arabim, V'kofrim =p)
Mr Mahdi
>From: "Y'hoshua Ben Y'hudah"
Interesting, I saw this same name here before under a different handle... At
any rate, back to the post in question:
>My apologies if anyone has tried to email me. Someone recently brought
>it to my attention that my email was not valid for some reason, and
>messages were 'bouncing' back.
LOL, no comment.
> please resend it to my new address at
>joshbe...@vjmail.com
>
Perfect timing.
>I would agree greatly with this assertion, although one must note the
>numerous anti-Jewish polemics found in this writ as well. It is quite
>evident that the Qur'aan is designed to be a response to the religions
>that were present during the time of it's writing.
I guess when the Quran correct the myth in the Bible where it says Pharaoh's
magicians turned the sticks to snakes or Noah's flood covered the whole earth,
it was trying to be popular. No Christian can ever answer these arguments I
raise, what makes people think that they can answer these questions?
(snip)
>However, upon serious study many Muslims realized that,
>contrary to what their prophet had claimed, the Islamic scriptures had
>many inconsistencies with those of both Christianity and Judaism.
Whoa, wait a minute...How can you claim that the Quran copied from Jewish and
Christian scriptures when you just said it contains inconsistencies? If the
Quran is different from the Bible, then the Quran did not copy from the Bible,
esp. if it corrected mistakes and myths in the Bible.
(snip)
I have refuted more of the claims of "Y'hoshua Ben Y'hudah" here:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/profile.xp?author=anal...@my-deja.com
You will find the name "Y'hoshua Ben Y'hudah" with OTHER names under the *same*
handle. Please browse through and you will see the refutation Insha' Allah.
I wonder when will any Christian or non-Christian for that matter answer my
arguments concerning "Pharaoh's magicians" and even "Noah's Flood?" I keep
hearing from Christian and Zionist missionaries that the Quran copied off of
their books, then why can't any of you answer my arguments? And tell the many
atheist and Christian scientists who converted to Islam because they can prove
that the Quran cannot be from a human being but from the Creator of the human
being.
Mahdi
Saqib Virk
"Y'hoshua Ben Y'hudah" <joshbe...@vjmail.com> wrote:
> Well, thank you. I think such things can be seen rather plainly. My
> humble understanding of Islaam is that it was originally meant to be
> seen as the completion and perfection of previous faiths (such as
> those of the Christians and Jews). This idea is still put forth by
> most Muslims. However, upon serious study many Muslims realized that,
> contrary to what their prophet had claimed, the Islamic scriptures
> had many inconsistencies with those of both Christianity and Judaism.
SV
I don't see how this required "serious study". There were many Jews
around while the Quran was being revealed. They would have made it
obvious there were inconsistencies between their scripture and the
Quran.
Bukhari
Narrated Abu Huraira:
"The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew
and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah's
Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve
them, but say:-- "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us."
(2.136)"
Bukhari
Narrated Ubaidullah:
"Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about
anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's
Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and
unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews
and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the
scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it
for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent
you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen
any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!"
> Attempts by those who wish to promote Islaam via criticism of Jewish
> and Christian scripture have been nothing more than instances of
> Muslims plagerizing the work of an Atheist or Jewish scolar. The
> method has always been to show contradictions or errors within the
> respective text.
SV
Not necessarily. There are points in the Quran which disagree with the
Christian/Jewish view but when we examine the Bible we find evidence to
support the Quranic viewpoint. The case of Solomon(as), which I will
need to refer to again near the end of this post, is one example. The
Quran states:
"And they pursue the course which was pursued by the rebellious men
against the Kingdom of Solomon. And Solomon did not disbelieve; but it
was the rebellious ones who disbelieved. They taught people falsehood
and deception,..." [Quran 2:102]
The verse refers to the Jews of Muhammad'(saaws) time who behaved
towards him as their ancestors had towards Solomon(as) in his time. They
rebelled against Solomon(as) and as such they were lead to their split
into two kingdoms and to their eventual downfall with the arrival of
Nebuchadnezzar. The Bible contains two different versions of Solomon's
live because there existed a party among the Jews who opposed him. The
truth of the matter is found in the Quran where Solomon is cleared of
all wrong doing.
Compare the account of Solomon(as) as found in 1 Kings versus the
account found in 2 Chronicles. The account in 1 Kings of the Bible has
Solomon turning away from God and taking idols to worship and he comes
across as a weak minded fool. However, in 2 Chronicles there are no
accusations of idol worship or turning away from God. Harper's Bible
Commentary states:
"Solomon thus dies, in the presentation of Chronicles, as the king who
has not only built the Temple but who remained faithful throughout his
life and whose life has accordingly witnessed that God-given prosperity
that regularly attends such faithfulness." [pg. 360]
So why the difference between the two accounts found in the Bible and
which one is the truth? We know which Biblical account is closer to the
truth by reading the Quran. The question should be why is there a
difference in the two Biblical accounts? Who wrote the defamatory
account and why? There were divisions among the Jews, among tribes and
families. The belittling of Solomon(as) is undoubtedly the work of those
Jews, the "shaitan", who opposed him. If we read the Bible we find that
there were indeed such people among the leaders of the Jews. I don't
recall the names of these people off hand but they are recorded and it
is they or their tribe/families that are responsible for the attacks on
the character of Solomon(as) as found recorded in the Bible. It is a
reason to doubt the Bible in it's present state.
> Whatever the case, my point was that these genealogies are designed to
> prove that Jesus was from the line of David. While many Jews and
> Atheists will call these genealogies erroneous, it is odd to see a
> Muslim do so. Islaam and the Qur'aan make no attempt to prove Jesus
> is from the bloodline of David, which is a requirement of his being
> the Messiah. If these genealogies are erroneous, what does Islaam
> have to stand on to prove such a bold claim as that Jesus is the
> Messiah?
SV
What proof would you accept?
> The Qur'aan makes no statement about Jesus' genealogy. If anything,
> based on the Qur'aan, we might assume Isa is a Levite, from the
> lineage of Aaron, which would disqualify him as being the Messiah.
> Can Islaam or the Qur'aan prove Jesus is the Messiah? I think not.
SV
The Quran proves that it is the word of God. Therefore anything
contained therein is the truth. The Quran states Jesus(as) was the
Messiah. Therefore Jesus(as) was the Messiah. Quite simple really. :)
I have always wondered how the Jews explain the destruction of their
Temple and their expulsion from Jerusalem a short time after they tried
to crucify Jesus(as)? Are those events not a colossal sign to the Jews?
I brought up Solomon(as) earlier and we see that the Quran states some
people rebelled against him. This led to the split of the kingdom and
eventual destruction of the Temple and expulsion of the Jews. We see the
same thing happening again after the time of Jesus(as). Are these signs
too difficult to interpret?
"And WE had clearly conveyed to the Children of Israel in the Book: 'You
will surely do great mischief in the land twice, and you will surely
become excessively overbearing.' So when the time of the fulfillment of
the first of the two warnings came, WE sent against you some servants of
OURS, possessed of great might in war, and they penetrated into your
houses and it was a warning that was bound to be fulfilled."
[Quran 17:4,5]
This first reference is to the time when some of them rebelled against
Solomon(as) and the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar who "penetrated into"
their houses.
"Then WE gave you back the power against them and aided you with wealth
and children and also made you larger in numbers than before. Now, if
you do good, you will do good for your own souls; and if you do evil, it
will be to your own loss. So when the time for the fulfillment of the
latter warning came, WE raised a people against you that they might
cover your faces with grief, and that they enter the Mosque(The Temple),
as they entered it the first time, and that they might destroy utterly
all that they conquered."
[Quran 17:6,7]
The second period of mischief you should understand was the Jewish
rejection of and attempt to kill the Messiah. The Quran continues:
"It may be that your Lord will now have mercy on you; but if you return
to mischief, WE too will return to punishment, and remember WE have made
Hell a prison for the disbelievers."
[Quran 17:8]
Do you believe?
"Indeed there have come to you clear proofs from your Lord; whoever will
therefore see, it is for his own soul and whoever will be blind, it
shall be against himself and I am not a keeper over you." [Quran 6:104]
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
Free Thought
I'm going to skip Mahdi's conspiracy theory, and his attempt to tie me
in with someone else, as I already answered both, in detail, in another
group, which happens to be unmoderated. In this post I would like to
discuss the theory that Islam borrowed much from Judaism.
> I guess when the Quran correct the myth in
> the Bible where it says Pharaoh's magicians
> turned the sticks to snakes or Noah's flood
> covered the whole earth, it was trying to be
> popular. No Christian can ever answer these
> arguments I raise, what makes people think
> that they can answer these questions?
The above, ties in with what Mahdi said a week earlier on December 31st:
> The refuted Zionist and Christianity
> missionary claims of Islam borrowing
> from Jewish sources has been refuted
> ad nauseum.
I would argue that your concept of "refuted ad nauseum" is a rather
subjective thing. If I were to again ask my poodle question, would you
claim it was refuted (I assure you it was not)? What about my questions
on women's rights? I am going to offer my own two cents on this issue,
and if what I put forth has already been refuted, please direct me to
the answers. Otherwise, please answer them directly. I will discuss
Islam being borrowed from Judaism (and other faiths) in general, then I
will respond to your Pharaoh's magicians question directly (which I
thought I already answered in the past, but I guess my ideas of
"answered" are also subjective).
First, despite people's accusations that I am an undercover Christian
Missionary, or an undercover Zionist, I want to assure everyone that I
am an Atheist, so I have no ties to any particular book when discussing
this issue. In otherwords, I don't have to "play by the same rules" that
a Christian or Jew might have to. I think Ibn Al-Rawandi put it best,
when discussing criticism of Islam, he wrote: "The mealy-mouthed and
apologetic character of so much Western scholarship on Islam springs
>from the fact that many of these scholars, were, and are, believers,
albeit in the rival creed of Christianity. While they might be willing
to show Muhammad in a poor light compared to Jesus, they were not keen
to press the non-historical and non-divine arguments too far, since they
realised that such arguments could just as well be used against their
own cherished beliefs. They preferred a complicity of intellectual
dishonesty with the Muslims in the face of an increasingly skeptical and
secular environment."
In otherwords, there's no proof Moses, or Abraham, or Isaac, ever
existed! However, when a Christian is debating with a Muslim, they're
not going to bring this up, as it does as much damage to their own
faith, as it would to Islam. So, did Islam borrow things from Judaism?
Absolutely! Consider Nuh. This is an obvious play on the Hebrew Noah
(Noach) character (I'll get to the flood issue later). Ibrahim is
obviously a play on the Abraham character found in Jewish mythology.
Musa, who went head to head with the Pharaoh of Egypt, is identical to
the Moses (Moshe) character of Hebrew folklore. No Muslim will deny the
correlation between these characters and their Hebrew counterparts. Now
here's the catch... as Farid Rice, J. Katz, Josh, C. Heger, myself and
a few others have pointed out, some Muslims believe Buddha might have
been a prophet of Islam. However, Buddha is never mentioned in the
Koran. Farid Rice and Fad have both talked of there possibly being
124,000 prophets, yet the Koran hardly mentions 1% of them. The prophets
that are mentioned just happen to be prophets already found in the
folklore of the religions present in Arabia in that time. It is claimed
that Muhammad recieved his revelation from God, yet the only characters
he touches on happen to be characters from his immediate environment!
The name of the one true God happens to be "Allah", which was already
the name of the supreme deity recognized by people in that area. The
alleged prophets of the past happen to be nearly identical to those
found in the folklore of the people in that area.
Islam didn't borrow only from Judaism, it also took some from the
Christians, Zoraosters, Arab pagans, and some assert from Hindus (see
the writings of Warraq, Claire-Tisdall, or Chaturvedi). Islam borrowed
>from the folklore of it's immediate environment. Consider Koran
71:21-23, where it lists the pagan gods allegedly worshipped in Noah's
time. In reality, these were Gods worshipped in Arabia and/or Yemen, and
thus they were incorporated into the text of the Koran as part of an
assumption that these are pagan God's worshipped by people outside of
Arabia. In otherwords, Muhammad had no clue what the names of the
deities of people from Noah's time were, so he placed the names of pagan
Gods he had heard of. Are you sure these Gods were worshiped in Noah's
time? For example, Nasr sounds like an Arabic name.... what language did
Noah speak, and what language did the names of these Gods come from?
This is something I have said repeatedly about Islam (and all other
religions). The religion incorporates things from its immediate
environment when being created.
The only claim the Muslims can put forth is that these prophets really
were prophets of God, which is why the Jews knew about them. However, we
know for a fact that Noah was taken from the Jewish folklore, not from
God, as the Jewish "Noah" is in itself a fraud, copied verbatim from a
much earlier text, known as The Epics of Gilgamesh.
Anyway, speaking about the idea that Islam borrowed from Judaism, Mahdi,
and others try to point out differences between the Koran and the Torah
of the Jews. If Islam stole from the Jewish folklore, why are there
differences? Another question is, if Muhammad was illiterate (which is
more dogmatic than historical) how could he have read the Torah. Here's
the answer: when people say that Islam borrowed from the Jewish
folklore, they don't mean the Torah, they mean the oral traditions. Jews
all over western Asia (the so-called "Middle East") are more familiar
with the oral traditions found in the Mishna, Talmud, Chazal, et cetera.
Muhammad, or whomever the author of the Koran may have been, heard these
oral traditions, and incorporated them into the Koran. For example, this
whole Queen of Sheba story is not found in the Torah, rather it is found
in the oral traditions of the Jews. I'll leave the Queen of Sheba
debate to others, and go to another example....
In the Koran (al-Baqarah 2:30-32) there is a story of God speaking to
the angels about creating Adam, and then teaching Adam the names of the
animals, which the angels didn't happen to know. This story is *NOT*
found in the Torah, however, it was obviously taken verbatim from Jewish
oral traditions. Lets compare the two.
[al-Baqarah 2:30-32] And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am
about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place
therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we
hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee ? He said: Surely I know that which ye
know not. And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the
angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful.
They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou
hast taught us. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower, the Wise.
Midrash Rabbah on Numbers and Genesis, as well as Sanhedrin 38 pull
together the following story from the commentaries on the Torah: "When
HaShem, blessed be His name, created man, He took counsel with the
angels. When the angels were told of the creation of Adam they said
'What is man that thou art mindful of him? What will be his
peculiarity?' HaShem, blessed be His name, said 'His wisdom is greater
than yours.' Then He brought beasts, cattle, and birds before them, and
asked for their names, but they knew them not. But when He had created
man, He caused the animals to pass before him and asked him for their
names and he replied 'This is an ox, that is an ass, this is a horse,
and that a camel.' 'But what art thou called?' 'It is fitting that I
should be called earthly, for I am formed of the earth.' 'And I?' 'Thou
art called Lord, for thou rulest all creatures, and knowest all
things.'"
The above was oral tradition pulling together different aspects of the
Tanach (or Old Testament). This is how scriptures from Genesis, and
Psalms are commented on together, and taught to the Jews learning in the
Synagogue. Obviously the Jews took this ancient oral tradition to
Muhammad, and he incorporated it into his own revelation after hearing
it from them. Furthermore, notice according to this tradition, man was
fashioned from earth (mud, clay, et cetera). In the Koran man is
fashioned from clay. Where did such an absurd idea come from? Obviously
it was taken from the Jewish folklore.
For another example, consider the story of Cain and Abel as told in the
Koran (al-Ma'idah 5:30-35). This is very different from the story given
in the Torah, however, it is nearly identical to the version found in
such Jewish oral traditions as Targum of Yochanon Brn Uzziah, an Targum
of Jerusalem. This can also be found in the commentaries titled "Pirke
Rabbi Eleazer" complete with the whole bit about the Raven showing them
how to burry their dead.
There are numerous other examples, which I will be happy to go over
another time if people choose to debate this issue further. Before I
respond to Mahdi's points directly, I want to also mention something I
have touched on in previous posts: the words found in the Koran. For any
Arabic speaker, why is the word for Hell Jahannam? What is the
significance or root of this word? Is there any, or is it just an
adaptation of the Hebrew "Gehinnom" (which is hebrew for "The Valley of
Hinnom" a place of extreme idol worship)? What does the name Isra'il
mean? Does it mean anything, or is it merely taken from the Hebrew
"Israel"? What about Ibrahim? What does this name mean? I'm legitemately
curious. Does it have a meaning in Arabic, or was it taken from the
Hebrew Abraham ('father of a great multitude')? My favorite is the word
Sabt. Why is the seventh day called al-Sabt in Arabic? In Hebrew the
seventh day is also written SBT (only with a shin, rather than a sin)
which gives us Shabat, which means "He Rested", corresponding to the
story from Jewish folklore that on the seventh day God rested. What does
Sabt mean in Arabic? Why was the sabbath called Sabt? What is the
significance or root of this word? Especially when one considers that,
according to Islam, God did *NOT* rest on the seventh day. What is the
significance of calling the seventh day "sabt"?
Okay, now on to Mahdi's points:
> I wonder when will any Christian or
> non-Christian for that matter answer my
> arguments concerning "Pharaoh's magicians"
> and even "Noah's Flood?" I keep hearing
> from Christian and Zionist missionaries
> that the Quran copied off of their books,
> then why can't any of you answer my arguments?
Fair enough, which do you prefer I answer first? I'll save the best for
last, and leave the Pharaoh's magicians argument for my finale. The
Noah's flood issue I'm not that familiar with, however, I'll touch on
it. Okay, the claim here is that the Torah claims that the flood covered
the whole earth, while the flood from the Koran says it was not. One
does not get this impression however from reading the Koran. One only
comes to such a conclusion when one is reading the writings of Maurice
Bucaille. The truth is, there is not a shred of evidence for the claim
of a global flood as found in the Torah. Thus the Torah is false.
Maurice Bucaille touched on this, and claimed that the Koran talks of
only local floods. The reality is, Bucaille was not a Muslim (never
was), and was merely just another Western Scholar using Islam as a stick
with which to beat Christianity (now some scholars, such as Gore Vidal,
Auther Schopenhauer, Francois Gautier, use Buddhism and Hinduism as a
stick with which to beat Islam). Bucaille was just shooting off steam,
and unfortunately many Muslims actually believed what he wrote. Let's
see what the Koran actually says:
[Hud 11:40 & 44] At length, behold! there came Our command, and the
fountains of the earth gushed forth! We said: "Embark therein, of each
kind two, male and female, and your family - except those against whom
the word has already gone forth,- and the Believers." but only a few
believed with him. (44) Then the word went forth: "O earth! swallow up
thy water, and O sky! Withhold (thy rain)!" and the water abated, and
the matter was ended. The Ark rested on Mount Judi, and the word went
forth: "Away with those who do wrong!"
Now, first of all it says the fountains of earth gushed forth, and Noah
was told to take "of each kind, two" in otherwords two of each animal.
Why? Surely if the floods were local, the animals in other areas would
be okay (more on this in a second). These verses state that the earth
gushed forth with water, implying that the flood was universal. It
does not say that only the land where Noah lived gushed forth with flood
waters. Also, Noah landed on Mount Judi, so did he only handle one
flood? Where is Mount Judi, and how high was the water that his ark
rested up there, yet this high water effected no one else? (This can
also be seen in Koran 54:11-14 & Koran 71:26-27). Let's look at one more
verse from the Koran which touches on the flood:
[al-Mu'minun 23:27] So We inspired him (with this message): "Construct
the Ark within Our sight and under Our guidance: then when comes Our
Command, and the fountains of the earth gush forth, take thou on board
pairs of every species, male and female....
As Jochen Katz put it in a previous post, "One might ask that if the
flood was merely local, why the need to take two kinds of every species
seeing that a local flood would not wipe out the entire animal life
globally? This again implicitly affirms the universality of Noah's
flood."
Speaking of Jochen Katz, since you demanded a Christian Missionary also
answer your questions, it should be noted that he himself answered such
questions in previous posts, when he recomended a book titled "The
History of al-Tabari, vol. 1, General Introduction and From the Creation
to the Flood", as translated by Franz Rosenthal. I'd like to use some of
the excerpts from the book that Katz originally offered.
"According to Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Isahq- al-Hassan b. Dinar- Ali b.
Zayd- Yusuf b. Mihran- Ibn Abbas: I [Yusuf b. Mihran] heard him [Ibn
Abbas] say: ... The water increased wildly, and, as is assumed by the
people of the Torah, rose fifteen cubits over the mountain tops. All
creatures on the face the earth, every inspirited being or tree,
disappeared. No creature remained except Noah and those with him in the
boat, as well as Og b. Anak, as is assumed by the people of the Book.
The time between God's sending the Flood and the receding of the water
in six months and ten nights." (History of al-Tabari [State University
of New York Press; Albany, NY 1989], pp. 360-361)
Clearly the above is talking about a GLOBAL flood, and I doubt anyone
would argue that Maurice Bucaille, a non-Muslim, is more competant at
interpreting the Koran than the above scholars. Also consider the
following tradition from the same book:
"Abu Ja'far (al-Tabari) says: (Noah) and his family became (muslims),
whereupon God revealed to him that he would never bring another Flood to
the earth." (Ibid., p. 367)
Jochen Katz cited the above tradition, and said "This cannot be speaking
of a local flood since these types of floods are common even till this
day. Yet, a universal flood has not occurred since." And this final
comment from Islam's premiere Muslim commentator, Ibn Abbas:
"According to Ali b. Dawud- Abu Salih (`Abdallah b. Salih)- Mu'awiyah
(b. Salih)- `Ali (b. Abi Talhah)- Ibn Abbas commenting on God's word:
`And We made offspring the survivors,' as follows: Only the offspring of
Noah remains." (Ibid, p. 370)
I could say alot more about the flood, but I now want to go to Mahdi's
question about Pharaoh's magicians. I actually agree with Mahdi, that
it seems that the Christian commentators that are regulars at
soc.religion.islam have yet to answer this question. As it goes, Mahdi
has brought it up several times. In the Torah, Moses and Aaron bring
their message to the Pharaoh, and Aaron casts his staff onto the ground,
and it becomes a snake. Pharaoh's magicians cast their staffs on the
ground and they too become snakes (which are swallowed by Aaron's
snake). Mahdi correctly points out that in the Koran it states that
Pharaoh's magicians use rope. Mahdi's basic question is "[W]hy would the
Quran say that what the magicians did was a magic trick while the Bible
said that the magicians transformed the sticks into snakes? Why didn't
the Quran conform with the mythological beliefs of the time where people
believed that magicians can actually transmute a stick to a snake?"
(taken from a post from Sept 15th).
Now, if a critic mentions any inconsistency in the Koran, Muslims such
as Mahdi will demand that this person go to the traditions, the Tafseer,
et cetera. However, Mahdi does not ever think of going to the oral
traditions or commentaries of the Christians and Jews when criticizing
their text. I want to assure Mahdi that the fact that ropes are
mentioned *PROVES* the theory that Islam was borrowed from Judaism. The
theory has always been that Muhammad recieved his biblical knowledge
>from the Jewish oral traditions, not the actual Torah. Let's see what
the Jewish tradtions say about the verse from the seventh chapter of
Exodus, where Moses and Aaron confront the Pharaoh.
I would like to point Mahdi to Hil. Avodas Kochavim 11:16 and Moreh
Nevuchim 3:37. These two Rabbinic commentaries point out that *ALL*
magic done by non-believers in the Torah was nothing more than sleight
of hand. The famous Jewish philosopher, and highly regarded commentator
HaRav Moshe Ben Maimon touched on the above commentaries, and pointed
out that previous Rabbis from the Talmudic age had insinuated that in
the case of Pharaoh's magicians, mere sleight of hand was used, and
instead of real snakes they were *ROPES*. R'Bachya also argued that the
snakes created by Pharaoh's magicians were not real snakes, but was
instead a trick done either with vines or *ROPE*. R'Bachya went on to
state that this was actually a prophecy, just as God's real power
(snakes) swallowed up Pharaoh's false power (a mere trick), God would
later show his real power by having the sea swallow up Pharaoh's power
(army) which could not compare to the power of God. Also, as Rabbi
Nissan Wilson put it:
"There are two explanations in the commentaries explaining how the
Egyptian magicians perfomed their acts. Rashi and Ramban (Shemos 7:11)
say that it was done through sourcery and incantations. Ibn Ezrah, and
other Rabbis explains that it was only an optical illusion, as no enemy
of G-d can produce true magic. It appears that these two explanations
may well go together. The Torah mentions 'Sourcerers and Magicians'.
Perhaps the Sourcers used sourcery whilst the magicians performed
optical illusions. The Malbim explains that even through sourcery they
were unable to really turn a stick into a real live snake. Only G-d has
the ability to give life. G-d gave life to Moshe and Aharon's stick,
causing it to turn into a snake. The Egyptian Magicians/sourcers could
only cause the stick to look and act like like a snake."
This is not hard to find. One can go to the Judaica section of any book
store, or ask any Rabbi about commentaries on Shemos 7 (the seventh
chapter of Exodus). This shows that ancient commentary and oral
traditions of the Torah had Rabbis asserting that it was a parlour
trick (also see commentary in the 'Stone Chumash' now sold at Barnes
and Nobles). As has been stated numerous times, Islam borrowed much from
the Jewish oral traditions (which itself is mere folklore).
Please visit the Secular Web!
http://www.infidels.org
Fariduddien Rice
On 11 Jan 2000, Free Thought wrote:
[...lots of stuff I'm not all that interested in deleted....]
> In otherwords, there's no proof Moses, or Abraham, or Isaac, ever
> existed!
Claiming that "there's no proof Moses etc. ever existed" is NOT the same
thing as saying "Moses etc. never existed," however Free Thought (and
others) often seem to confuse the two statements. They say the first
statement, but they seem to think that it means the second statement.
For example, let's assume (for the sake of argument) that there was no
proof (outside of the Bible or Qur'an) that Moses (peace be with him) ever
existed. Does that mean that Moses *never* existed? Not necessarily, of
course.
To take an example, there was no evidence, prior to the discovery of his
tomb, that the ancient Egyptian King Tutankhamen ever existed. However,
the absence of proof (before the discovery of his tomb) did not mean that
King Tut never existed. To imply that saying there is "no proof that
Moses etc. ever existed" means that "Moses etc. never existed" is a simple
misunderstanding of language, and an elementary mistake in logic.
So, lack of evidence for the existence of Moses etc. is quite insufficient
to disprove either the Qur'an or the Bible. The only reason I can see why
Free Thought and others like him might continually bring it up is to try
to bamboozle their readers with weak and logically flawed arguments.
> So, did Islam borrow things from Judaism?
> Absolutely! Consider Nuh. This is an obvious play on the Hebrew Noah
> (Noach) character (I'll get to the flood issue later).
Obviously, the "Nuh" of the Qur'an is the same person as the "Noah" of the
Hebrew Bible. However, does that mean that the Qur'an "borrowed" from the
Bible? To assert that this is *necessarily* so is flawed logic.
Let's think of another example.... The example which comes to mind, for
me, is from physics. There is an interesting effect in physics, known as
"Berry's phase," discovered by the British physicist Michael Berry, if I
remember correctly in the early 1980s. However, after the discovery of
Berry's phase, it was found out that an Indian physicist, Pancharatnam,
had discovered and published a paper on the same effect many years
earlier, but that Berry was not aware of Pancharatnam's work when he made
his discovery.
Now, because Pancharatnam was in fact the first discoverer of "Berry's
phase," does that mean that Berry necessarily copied Pancharatnam in his
work? Of course not! What most likely happened was both of them
discovered this effect independently of each other. Just because one came
later in time than the other, does *not* mean that the later one copied
the earlier one.
Now, regarding the Qur'an and various Biblical stories, even though the
Qur'an comes later in time than the Bible, it does not necessarily mean
that the Qur'an *copied* the Bible. In fact, evidence that this is *not*
the case arises due to various *differences* in the stories in the Qur'an
and the Bible. Anyone who wishes to hold to the theory that the Qur'an
copied the Bible should explain the source of these differences. However,
usually these differences in the stories are glossed over and generally
ignored, which to me seems to demonstrate a profound weakness in the
"copying" theory, which is upheld by Free Thought and others.
[...]
> Now
> here's the catch... as Farid Rice, J. Katz, Josh, C. Heger, myself and
> a few others have pointed out, some Muslims believe Buddha might have
> been a prophet of Islam. However, Buddha is never mentioned in the
> Koran. Farid Rice and Fad have both talked of there possibly being
> 124,000 prophets, yet the Koran hardly mentions 1% of them. The prophets
> that are mentioned just happen to be prophets already found in the
> folklore of the religions present in Arabia in that time.
If you have a message, it is common sense that you state your message in a
form that is understandable to the audience. That is, you mention what is
familiar to them. I don't see any problem if the Qur'an does this. This
may be a factor in how, within a couple of decades, the Qur'an managed to
unite Arabia as a single world force, which had never been previously
united in history.
Your criticism, Free Thought, seems to be made from a lack of
understanding of the basic principles of good communication and
persuasion.
As for the Qur'an only mentioning a few of the 124,000 Prophets, I don't
really see the great value in a long list of names. Much more important
than that are the eternal principles of the true religion, which the
Qur'an does give us. The exact name of every single Prophet does not seem
to be to be an important component of worship, and I don't see why it
should be. Why do you, Free Thought, think that this is so important?
The fact is, even *if* the Qur'an gave us a long list of 124,000 Prophets,
you would probably criticize the Qur'an exactly for doing that!
Anyhow, that's enough for now. Free Thought writes quite a lot of stuff,
all of which is generally easy to refute, but it takes time away from more
important things.
__________________________________________________________________________
Fariduddien Rice Email : farid @ stormcity.com
Australian web site http://homepages.haqq.com.au/salam/
US mirror site http://www.stormcity.com/salam/
"And how many Signs in the heavens and the earth do they pass by?
Yet they turn (their faces) away from them!" - Qur'an 12:105
__________________________________________________________________________
Andy Bannister
> I guess when the Quran correct the myth in the Bible where it says
Pharaoh's
> magicians turned the sticks to snakes or Noah's flood covered the whole
earth,
> it was trying to be popular. No Christian can ever answer these arguments
I
> raise, what makes people think that they can answer these questions?
Hello, I hope that you are well.
You seem to have made a slight slip in your paragraph above, where you claim
that "no Christian can ever answer these questions". Way back in March 1999
you brought up this very same issue (Pharoah's magicians) and tried to claim
that the Biblical account is mythical/magical and that the Quran's account
is logical/scientific.
> I wonder when will any Christian or non-Christian for that matter answer
my
> arguments concerning "Pharaoh's magicians" and even "Noah's Flood?"
Well, since you asked so nicely, I will repeat my thorough rebuttal for you
here:
Now first of all, you need to be careful here. You are arguing that the
version of a story given in the Qu'ran (in the example above, that of
Pharoah and his magicians) must be the true one - rather than the Bible -
because the version in the Qu'ran is "scientifically and logically accurate"
(words you used back in March). Now I am afraid you are guilty of invoking
"science" and "logic" where they suit you and dropping them where they
don't. I agree that a scientist would say that the idea of rods becoming
snakes is illogical and unscientific. The scientist would agree with you.
But then, the same scientist would have a great problem with the idea of,
for example:
* A man wandering into a cave and seeing an angel who dictates to him words
>from God.
So can I assume that you discount Muhammad's revelation because it does not
make logical or scientific sense?
* A woman being miraculously supplied with food.
So can I assume that you reject Sura 3:37?
* Moses' rod becoming a serpent?
So can I assume that you reject Sura 7:107?
Do you see the problem? You have really only two positions here. Either, you
need to reject miracles outright, in which case you cannot be a Muslim! Or
two, you can admit that you're wrong, and that logic and science cannot be
invoked like you have done to try to resolve this contradiction between the
Qu'ran and the Torah.
Now let's see what the Quran actually says about this incident. Here is Sura
20:66:
"[Moses] said: "Nay, throw ye first!" Then behold their ropes and their
rods--so it seemed to him on account of their magic--began to be in lively
motion!"
Now the Quran does not refer to "logic" or "science" here -- it says
"magic". Interesting, eh? Given that you claimed the Quran "corrects myths",
why do we have references to "magic"? Would a scientist agree with you? I
think not. Back in March you claimed that:
"the Quran ... says that it was a magicians' trick in a time where myths and
superstitions were widely accepted"
But it doesn't say that. It says "magic". What would be nice for you would
be if it said "they jiggled their ropes and made it look like they were
snakes." The verse says "magic". Which means any appeals to "science" or
"logic" are pointless.
And at the end of the day, the Quran is clear that rods can become serpents:
"Then (Moses) threw his rod, and behold! It was a serpent, plain (for all to
see)!" (Sura 7:107)
So then, according to the Qu'ran: can rods become serpents, or can't they?
"Scientific and logic accuracy"? Oh dear. Let's look at everything the Quran
has to say about this run-in between Moses and the magicians of Pharoah:
1) The magicians used "magic" to make their rods move (Sura 20:66) --- ask
your average scientist if he believes in magic.
2) Moses' rod became a serpent (Sura 7:107) --- when was the last time you
saw a rod turn into a snake?
3) Moses' snake ate the rods of the magicians (Sura 20:6) --- check out an
encyclopedia to find out for yourself the dietary habits of serpents.
4) Moses' hand turned white and amazed those watching (Sura 26:32) --- how
often do hands change colour instantly?
If you trying to suggest that the Qu'ran is LOGICAL and SCIENTIFIC then
please enlighten us how to how points 1-4 above can be reconciled to the
physical world of science in a manner that is both logical and consistent.
And finally, you also talked about the flood and Noah. And I think you're
about to fall into a similar trap again. If the ONLY interpretation of the
Biblical account of Noah was a world-wide flood, and the ONLY interpretation
of the Qu'ran's account was a local flood, then you would have a point. But
does the Quran talk about a local or world-wide flood? Consider:
"At length, behold! There came Our Command, and the fountains of the earth
gushed forth! We said: "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female,
and your family--except those against whom the Word has already gone
forth, --and the Believers." But only a few believed with him." (Sura 11:4)
This verse raises a number of problems for your theory, including:
1) Why did Noah need to take on the Ark two of each kind of animal if the
flood was only local? This would be a pointless exercise.
2) Why need an Ark at all if it was a local flood? Noah would have been
better off wandering up a nearby mountain than engaging in large scale
ship-building exercises.
And then there is this verse:
"And Noah said: "O my Lord! Leave not of the Unbelievers, a single one on
earth! For, if Thou dost leave (any of) them, they will but mislead Thy
devotees, and they will breed none but wicked ungrateful ones."" (Sura
71:26-27)
This poses the problem that Noah clearly believed in a world-wide flood,
even if you don't. How could a local flood not leave a single unbeliever?
You need also to bear in mind that many Christians believe the flood in
Genesis to be a local flood. The difficulties of intepretation for that
position are no more than for your trying to argue for a local flood in the
Qu'ran given the verses above.
At the end of the day, you can debate to what extent Muhammad copied from
the Torah and other Jewish sources. But trying to make out the Torah is
mythical and the Quran is a corrective to this is a fruitless exercise.
Laying aside the issues of Moses and of Noah, simply consider how many
"mythical" incidents are related in the Quran ... I only need to mention
Solomon and the talking ants as a starter. If you are going to try to assess
the relative merits of the Quran and the Bible on scientific grounds, then
you need to explain why you happily shift goalposts every five minutes.
Many blessings in Jesus.
Andy Bannister
Saqib Virk
"Andy Bannister" <an...@bannister.screaming.net> wrote:
> Now I am afraid you are guilty of invoking "science" and "logic"
> where they suit you and dropping them where they don't. I agree
> that a scientist would say that the idea of rods becoming snakes
> is illogical and unscientific. The scientist would agree with
> you. But then, the same scientist would have a great problem with
> the idea of, for example:
>
> * A man wandering into a cave and seeing an angel who dictates to
> him words from God.
SV
There is no reason to reject the belief that God speaks to man. If the
scientist believes in God then he may quite logically assume God would
speak to man.
> * A woman being miraculously supplied with food.
>
> So can I assume that you reject Sura 3:37?
SV
Depends on how you imagine this miracle took place. Do you imagine the
food popped out of thin air? Sure, you can reject that interpretation.
> * Moses' rod becoming a serpent?
>
> So can I assume that you reject Sura 7:107?
SV
I will refer to this in a response to one of Freethoughts posts, later
this week.
> Do you see the problem? You have really only two positions here.
> Either, you need to reject miracles outright, in which case you
> cannot be a Muslim! Or two, you can admit that you're wrong, and
> that logic and science cannot be invoked like you have done to try
> to resolve this contradiction between the Qu'ran and the Torah.
SV
In a sense you are right. Miracle mongers should not accept the
so-called miracles of their own faith while rejecting the miracles of
others. For example, if the Christian imagines Jesus(as) came back from
the dead and rose to heaven, he should not reject the equally fantastic
miracles of the Hindus.
> Now let's see what the Quran actually says about this incident.
> Here is Sura 20:66:
>
> "[Moses] said: "Nay, throw ye first!" Then behold their ropes and
> their rods--so it seemed to him on account of their magic--began
> to be in lively motion!"
>
> Now the Quran does not refer to "logic" or "science" here -- it
> says "magic". Interesting, eh? Given that you claimed the Quran
> "corrects myths", why do we have references to "magic"? Would a
> scientist agree with you? I think not.
SV
Why not? We see magic all the time. I saw a woman get sawed in half once
and later she was walking around whole.
> And finally, you also talked about the flood and Noah. And I think
> you're about to fall into a similar trap again. If the ONLY
> interpretation of the Biblical account of Noah was a world-wide
> flood, and the ONLY interpretation of the Qu'ran's account was a
> local flood, then you would have a point.
SV
It is not just a question of what are the possible interpretations. The
entire Christian faith is built on a miracle for which there is no proof
and so the Christian is dependant on miracles; miracles which often
amount to little more than nonsense. Most Christians want to believe the
flood covered the entire earth. Muslims have no real need to believe it
was world wide. I have seen Christians argue that the Biblical story of
the flood can be interpreted as just a local flood but when I asked them
what they personally believed they either would not answer or admit they
believe it was world wide. I have yet to meet a Christian who believed
the flood was local. Will you be the first Andy? Believing the flood was
local could be seen as a first step towards rejecting the whole
death/resurrection/ascension/sonship of Jesus, as believed by
Christians.
> You need also to bear in mind that many Christians believe the flood
> in Genesis to be a local flood. The difficulties of intepretation for
> that position are no more than for your trying to argue for a local
> flood in the Qu'ran given the verses above.
SV
Who are you trying to fool? Yourself? The arguments you used were
childish and weak at best. Regardless, before we continue I will say
that I believe the flood was local. What is your belief?
> simply consider how many "mythical" incidents are related in the
> Quran ...
SV
Consider how these incidents are turned into the mythical by those who
wish to see such things.
> I only need to mention Solomon and the talking ants as a starter.
SV
No such thing happened, at least not in the way you imagine.
> If you are going to try to assess the relative merits of the Quran
> and the Bible on scientific grounds, then you need to explain why
> you happily shift goalposts every five minutes.
SV
I haven't followed your discussion with Mr. Mahdi but if he wants to
believe Solomon(as) talked to ants or that food popped out of thin air
he should accept the fantastic miracles of other faiths as well.
--
Wasalaam,
Saqib Virk
Mr Mahdi
>
> Hello, I hope that you are well.
As long as I have Islam, I will do fine Insha' Allah in this life and the
Hereafter.
Now I am afraid you are guilty of invoking
> "science" and "logic" where they suit you and dropping them where they
> don't. I agree that a scientist would say that the idea of rods becoming
> snakes is illogical and unscientific. The scientist would agree with you.
> But then, the same scientist would have a great problem with the idea
of,
> for example:
>
I can't believe that he is repeating this, then again, I can. I said so many
times that prophets can do miracles because first of all, prophets are
given the power by Allah to do miracles, and second, miracles are used to
prove their prophethood. Now I also said NUMEROUS TIMES that
magicians who are not prophets or messengers are not inspired by God,
thus, they cannot defy the laws of Allah that is found in nature. Now being
inspired by the devil through things like black magic is definitely a fact, as
the Quran and Sunnah confirms this. But magicians cannot do miracles,
and why don't you see any magicians today literally turning sticks to
snakes. Moses literally turned sticks to snakes because he was inspired by
Allah, all the miracles found in the Quran are completely true because
Allah gives prophets the power to do things that defy "reality."
I have decided to snip the rest of the post, and I hate when I have to
repeat myself and refute something AGAIN when I did a while back. If
some people have the impressions that Muslims or people here on SRI
have a short memory, then that's their thing, but I do not want to be a
part of this.
For the record, and of course I am repeating myself, I believe in the
miracles Allah allowed the prophets to do. I believe this miracles are
literal, as Allah and Muhammad (saaw) made it very clear. I believe that
people can be inspired by the devil, but I do not believe that people who
are inspired by the devil could make miracles like the prophets who are
inspired by Allah. I believe that the devil decieves people not give
miracles. Miracles are a sign of prophethood not a sign of the devil.
The Quran being from Allah or course corrected the myths and falsehoods
found in the Bible. The Quran is pure, and Allah gives pure true Guidance
through the system of life (not just "religion") of Islam, because like the
rest of Allah's Creation, they are given true Guidance, and Allah will not
leave His Creation including mankind astray without any Guidance
whatsoever. Allah guides whom He will, and leaves astray whom He wills,
and for those He guides, none can lead them astray, and for those whom
He leaves astray, none can guide.
Now I really hope that this is the last time Andy Bannister will repeat this,
because no, I and others here do not have a short memory, and no,
repeating things I already refuted won't help anyone, no matter how many
times you rehash the same thing.
Andy Bannister
> I can't believe that he is repeating this
Do you know, that's almost exactly what I said to myself upon reading your
last post. Simply claiming an argument has been refuted does not mean that
it has been. As we shall see from your reply here, the central failing of
your arguments last time are still there
> I said so many times that prophets can do miracles because first of all,
> prophets are given the power by Allah to do miracles, and second,
> miracles are used to prove their prophethood.
I would agree with your first statement, that God can give prophets (and
others) power to do miracles if He should so choose, that much is clear from
the Bible and the Quran. However, I have a question concerning your second
point. If miracles are used to prove prophethood, why do you believe
Muhammad to be a prophet. I ask this because:
i) He claimed that he did not perform miracles. In Sura 17:90-93, when
challenged to produce miracles to prove himself, Muhammad declines,
explaining he is no more than a man:
'They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush
forth for us from the earth,
Or (until) thou have a garden of date trees and vines, and cause rivers to
gush forth in their midst, carrying abundant water;
Or thou cause the sky to fall in pieces, as thou sayest (will happen),
against us; or thou bring Allah and the angels before (us) face to face:
Or thou have a house adorned with gold, or thou mount a ladder right into
the skies. No, we shall not even believe in thy mounting until thou send
down to us a book that we could read."
Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?" '
ii) Some Muslims claim that the Quran was Muhammad's miracle; however, this
is very questionable, as a) it was not compiled until after Muhammad and did
not reach the form it is in today until over a hundred years later, and b)
if the purpose of miracles is to prove prophethood, to prove that the
'message' of a prophet is from God, then to claim that the 'message' itself
is a miracle is to argue in a circle.
> Now I also said NUMEROUS TIMES that magicians who are not prophets or
> messengers are not inspired by God, thus, they cannot defy the laws of
> Allah that is found in nature. Now being inspired by the devil through
things
> like black magic is definitely a fact, as the Quran and Sunnah confirms
this.
What is the "black magic" of which you speak?
> But magicians cannot do miracles, and why don't you see any magicians
> today literally turning sticks to snakes.
But yet go to the right places and black magic and occult activities still
go on. I have a friend at church who Jesus delivered from all kinds of
practices in her youth that would make your skin creep --- to deny that
there is power in these things is to be naive. However, God's power
overcomes all others.
> Moses literally turned sticks to snakes because he was inspired by
> Allah, all the miracles found in the Quran are completely true because
> Allah gives prophets the power to do things that defy "reality."
The important thing is that the power of God is infinitely greater than
"black magic" or any other supernatural power. The story in both the Quran
and the Bible is essentially the same:
1) The magicians of Pharoah make their sticks become snakes by magic
2) Moses makes his stick become a snake by the power and command of God
3) The snake (stick) of Moses swallows up the snakes (sticks) of the
magicians, demonstrating the superiority of the power of God over the powers
available to man, supernatural or otherwise.
Your argument that the magicians could not have turned their sticks into
snakes is a nice sounding idea, but is not supported by the Quran. The Quran
is utterly clear how the magicians made their sticks into snakes ... not by
a trick, nor an optical illusion, but by magic. (I have used three different
translations here to show how clearly this is demonstrated):
YUSUFALI: He [Moses] said, "Nay, throw ye first!" Then behold their ropes
and their rods - so it seemed to him ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR MAGIC - began to be
in lively motion!
PICKTHALL: He said: Nay, do ye throw! Then lo! their cords and their staves,
BY THEIR MAGIC, appeared to him as though they ran.
SHAKIR: He said: Nay! cast down. Then lo! their cords and their rods-- it
was imaged to him ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR MAGIC as if they were running.
> I have decided to snip the rest of the post, and I hate when I have to
> repeat myself and refute something AGAIN when I did a while back.
I am afraid that last time you failed to explain away the Quran's definition
of "magic" in 20:66, and you have failed again this time. The Quran is very
clear on the subject.
> if some people have the impressions that Muslims or people here on SRI
> have a short memory, then that's their thing,
Actually you ought to try accessing SRI through www.deja.com; they have a
search facility dating back up to two years in the archives, so it is easy
to find out what someone has said, or refuted, or not.
<snip>
> The Quran being from Allah or course corrected the myths and falsehoods
> found in the Bible.
The basic problem I believe is that you BELIEVE the Quran, and DISBELIEVE
the Bible, and are bringing those presuppositions to the debate. In the case
of the story of Moses and Pharoah's magicians, the basic story is virtually
identical, and the supernatural element certainly is.
May God bless you and guide you.
Regards.
Andy Bannister
Mr Mahdi
I felt sort of relunctant responding to Andy. Some people think that people
here on SRI have a short memory and if they rehash the same thing they did a
while back, maybe this can cause people to talk about again, in order of course
for the Christian missionary to "save" his religion from further embarassment
in front of those like me who do not believe that his religion is what God
wants His Creation to follow.
I must point out Andy's lack of knowledge of Islam, because many of the points
he made are pitifully easy to refute:
>I have a question concerning your second
>point. If miracles are used to prove prophethood, why do you believe
>Muhammad to be a prophet. I ask this because:
>
>i) He claimed that he did not perform miracles. In Sura 17:90-93, when
>challenged to produce miracles to prove himself, Muhammad declines,
>explaining he is no more than a man:
>
Now the ayaat Andy misquotes does not say that Muhammad declined to produce a
miracle. What it says is the mentality of the disbelievers asking prophets
like Muhammad (saaw) for tangible evidence. The issue here is not if miracles
came from Muhammad (saaw), the issue here is what disbelievers want from
Muhammad (saaw) and the stipulation they decided to put in believing in Allah
and His Messenger (saaw). Belief in Allah is not just from miracles, it is
>from irrefutable truth. What Andy is trying to do by misquoting these ayaat is
trying to saying that Muhammad (saaw) was not able to provide miracles when
asked by the Kuffar to do so. This is extremely ignorant for the fact that
many miracles existed at the time of Muhammad (saaw). From the splitting of
the moon to the many miracles confirmed in authentic and mutawaatir Ahadith,
this proves that Muhammad (saaw) performed miracles. Anybody that does not
know about the other miracles of Muhammad (saaw) mentioned in the Quran and
Hadith is someone who known nothing about Islam.
>ii) Some Muslims claim that the Quran was Muhammad's miracle; however, this
>is very questionable, as a) it was not compiled until after Muhammad and did
>not reach the form it is in today until over a hundred years later,
(Sigh) You all wonder why I am relunctant in responding to him? The Quran we
have now today was compiled in its present form during the time of caliph
'Uthmaan (ra), who was a Sahabi of Muhammad (saaw). Now anybody who says that
the Quran in its present form was compiled hundreds years after is totally
ignorant of the most basic and rudimentary facts about Islamic history.
Furthermore, the Quran is recording the the mutawaatir transmission, meaning
that so many people in each generation narrated the Quran that all of them
agreeing on an error is impossible.
>Now being inspired by the devil through
>things
>> like black magic is definitely a fact, as the Quran and Sunnah confirms
>this.
>
>What is the "black magic" of which you speak?
Many Ahadith talk about black magic, and the Quran talks about black magic in
2:102. Please do your homework and at least learn something about Islam before
you even try to challenge anybody, okay?
(snip)
>Your argument that the magicians could not have turned their sticks into
>snakes is a nice sounding idea, but is not supported by the Quran.
Allah said that the magicians used their ropes and sticks to make them appear
like snakes. This is what the Quran says and this is what I believe. What the
interesting part is that Andy left out 20:69 where it clearly said that it was
a magic trick! Now I wonder why Andy left that verse out??? Hmmm...
>The Quran
>is utterly clear how the magicians made their sticks into snakes ... not by
>a trick, nor an optical illusion, but by magic. (I have used three different
>translations here to show how clearly this is demonstrated):
>
>YUSUFALI: He [Moses] said, "Nay, throw ye first!" Then behold their ropes
>and their rods - so it seemed to him ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR MAGIC - began to be
>in lively motion!
>
>PICKTHALL: He said: Nay, do ye throw! Then lo! their cords and their staves,
>BY THEIR MAGIC, appeared to him as though they ran.
>
>SHAKIR: He said: Nay! cast down. Then lo! their cords and their rods-- it
>was imaged to him ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR MAGIC as if they were running.
I wonder when Andy Bannister is going to learn Arabic and learn the real
meaning of these verses. At any rate, each "translation" said that ropes and
sticks were used to make it appear they were snakes. Now it seems Andy does
not know the meaning of magic. Many magic tricks are optical illusions. Now
what the magicians did was use their sticks and ropes to make it appear like
snakes. What Andy is trying to do is try to make a magic TRICK seem only
something supernatural, so a magic trick can never be to Andy an optical
illusion. Now I am not saying what the magicians did was an optical illusion,
I am saying what they did was make it appear as if the sticks and ropes were
snakes.
To make things clearly let's translate the Arabic words used in the verse to.
Allah said in 20:66 "...Fa-idhaa Hibaaluhum wa 'ASiyyuhum..." Which means "Then
when their ropes and rods..." "...yukhayyalu ilaihi min siHrihim innahaa
tas'aa" which means "APPEARED to them from their magic to be moving fast." The
word APPEARED to them to be moving fast means what it says, that it "APPEARED"
to be moving fast, and does not say that it is a snake moving fast, because it
was their magic NOT THE SNAKE that appeared to be moving fast.
Now here is the most important verse that of course Andy left out, and that
verse is 20:69:
"...maa Sana'oo innamaa Sana'oo kaidu saaHirin..." which means "what they made
is only a magic trick (kaidu saaHirin literally means a devised plan or idea of
a magician)." Now Allah in this ayah clearly says that it was a magic trick
not a transmutation of sticks and ropes to a snake. Now Allah continues to
say in the same verse "wa laa yufliHu s-saaHiru Haithu ataa" which means "and
the magician will never be sucessful what ever amount (of skills) he attains."
Now since I done with the easy part, I must conclude with the commentary on
this whole situation of Christian missionaries and their attacks on Islam.
>From a person with even a little ensight, it makes you wonder why would a
Christian missionary spend his time trying to "refute" and attack Islam when he
own Christian community is suffering from a crisis of its own? Hundreds of
millions of Christian and people claiming to be Christian are not going to
church every Sunday, not following the laws of Christianity, etc. Also so many
people who were once Christians left Christianity. Now it strikes me that a
Christian that lives in this world and sees all the problems his own Christian
community is going through will try to be some "Christian Hope" by trying to
convert Muslims to his religion when Christians are not even following their
own religion.
I believe they are many simple answers to these questions. First, many
Christian missionaries truly believe that since it *appears* to them that the
non-Muslim world is ignorant of Christianity, then they believe that if they
heard the "message of Christ," then they will flock in droves to Christianity.
Now living in any country with a majority Christian population you see droves
of people leaving Christianity, because they realized its reality and legacy
and feel like they cannot be decieved. So many Christian missionaries believe
that it is much harder to bring Christians who are not practicing their
religion back to Christianity than it is trying to convert non-Christians to
Christianity. So to ignore their own Christian community and focus on "what's
easier" seem to show how convert-hungry these missionaries are that they will
disregard their own people and focus (naively of course) on people they believe
are "easier" to convert. It is Allah that guides people not deceptive
missionary tactics, and whom Allah guides none can lead astray, even the
missionaries that use deceptive missionary tactics can't lead the guided
astray, and whom Allah leaves astray none can guide.
>May God bless you and guide you.
>
May Allah guide you to the True Path and that path is called Islam.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
Sorry folks, mistakes do happen, especially if you do not proofread.
I said:
>First, many
>Christian missionaries truly believe that since it *appears* to them that the
>non-Muslim world is ignorant of Christianity, then they believe that if they
>heard the "message of Christ," then they will flock in droves to
>Christianity.
I meant to say:
"First, many Christian missionaries truly believe that since it *appears* to
them that the NON-CHRISTIAN world is ignorant of Christianity, then they
believe that if they heard the "message of Christ," they will flock in droves
to Christianity."
Sorry for the inconvience.
Mahdi
Andy Bannister
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I would like to pick up
briefly on some of the points you made in your reply.
> I felt sort of relunctant responding to Andy. Some people think that
people
> here on SRI have a short memory and if they rehash the same thing they did
a
> while back, maybe this can cause people to talk about again
Of course some people feel that an issue has never been dealt with properly
in the first place. I am well aware that you raised the Moses and Magicians
Pharoah's story as a brief aside some months ago, and probably never
realised that somebody would pick you up on it. I also notice that when
Islam is challenged, you call the challenger a ...
> Christian missionary
.... whereas you seem to consider that it is perfectly all right for you to
attack Christianity on a whim, and woe betide anyone who feels that they
ought to disagree with you.
> in front of those like me who do not believe that his religion is what God
> wants His Creation to follow.
Of course I could say the same about Islam --- I do not believe it is a
religion which God wants us to follow. Not least because I believe Jesus
demonstrated that "religion" actually holds men back from God. To adapt a
quote you are fond of using; "Christianity is not a religion ... indeed not
merely a system of life, but a relationship." The differences between Islam
and Christianity are fundamental, and stretch right back to the relationship
between God and His Creation set out at the beginning of Genesis chapter 3.
Anyway, on to the rest of the points that you made.
> I must point out Andy's lack of knowledge of Islam, because many of the
points
> he made are pitifully easy to refute:
I am glad that you found them so easy. My knowledge of Islam is at an early
stage, I will happily admit that; I have only been studying it for a little
under a year. However I have already gained a fair idea of the main streams
of thought, and the main flaws in the arguments of many of its proponents.
> >i) He claimed that he did not perform miracles. In Sura 17:90-93, when
> >challenged to produce miracles to prove himself, Muhammad declines,
> >explaining he is no more than a man:
>
> Now the ayaat Andy misquotes
I apologise if you did not like my quotation. Alas, you must take issue with
Mr. Yusuf Ali who provided the English translation that I used in my post.
Whilst I am aware that attacking the translator is a common defense, I do
not yet read Arabic, so I have to rely on Messrs Ali, Picthall, Shakir, and
Arberry ... who come highly recommended from many Muslims.
> does not say that Muhammad declined to produce a
> miracle.
I agree, it does not say that Muhammad +declined+ to produce a miracle.
However, what would you say the meaning of verse 93 is? :-
""Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?""
Is this or is this not Muhammad replying to the request of the
unbelievers --- 'Am I any more than a man, just a messenger?' Yet other
prophets had no problem provided miracles ... Moses, Elijah, etc. Why did
Muhammad seem to have this problem?
<snip>
> From the splitting of the moon to the many miracles confirmed in authentic
and mutawaatir Ahadith,
I am well aware of some of the miracles listed in the hadith. All I would
ask you is this: do you believe ALL of the Hadith? Please explain how you
define "authentic" ... do you except all of Al Bukhari for instance?
And at the end of the day, you know as well as I do that for a Muslim the
Qur'an over-rules the hadith ... and in Sura 17:93 above we have Muhammad
saying "Why do you ask me to perform miracles, am I any more than a man,
just a messenger?"
> >ii) Some Muslims claim that the Quran was Muhammad's miracle; however,
this
> >is very questionable, as a) it was not compiled until after Muhammad and
did
> >not reach the form it is in today until over a hundred years later,
> (Sigh) You all wonder why I am relunctant in responding to him? The Quran
we
> have now today was compiled in its present form during the time of caliph
> 'Uthmaan (ra), who was a Sahabi of Muhammad (saaw). Now anybody who says
that
> the Quran in its present form was compiled hundreds years after is totally
> ignorant of the most basic and rudimentary facts about Islamic history.
> Furthermore, the Quran is recording the the mutawaatir transmission,
meaning
> that so many people in each generation narrated the Quran that all of them
> agreeing on an error is impossible.
I have written extensively in a post a couple of days ago on this very
issue. I am afraid that trying to label as ignorant anyone who claims "that
the Quran in its present form was compiled hundreds years after [Muhammad]"
is simply putting up a smokescreen. The problem you are faced with is not so
much the accusations from outside, but the testimony of a) your own
traditions and b) the archaelogical and historical evidence weighed against
you. To summarise here the lengthy information I have posted in my other
thread:
(1) The Quran was not yet compiled come the death of Muhammad; during his
lifetime it was written on bits of bone, wood, skin and whatever could be
found to hand. Some verses were memorised by Muhammad's disciples, a
practice which led to a panic when, at the Battle of Yamama, it seemed that
some verses of the Quran had been lost when the only people who had
memorised them were killed.
(2) Muhammad's secretary, Zaid ibn Thabit, was commissioned by the Caliph,
Abu Bakr, to collect the Quran together. He told the Caliph that it would be
easier to shift a mountain than to do such a task; tracking down the various
materials (see above) on which the verses had been written, as well as
trying to find the people who had memorised portions. In fact, Zaid's
response tells us something else; he did not know of anybody who had
memorised the entire Quran, or else this would have been an easy task. Zaid
could not find a single person who knew the entire book. In fact the last
verse he found had been memorised by ++just one man++.
(3) Come the time of Caliph Uthman, competing Qurans had arisen, and so
Uthman gave the order to collect and then burn all the codices other than
one. Copies were then to be made of this authorative Quran, and dispatched
to the centres of Islam (the Uthmanic recension). The question we need to
ask is, why did the other codices have to be burnt? Given that Arabic was
written without vowel points, it could not have simply been a matter of
dialect or pronounciation, but a difference in the consonants themselves,
sufficient enough to commit these other codices to the flames.
(4) When we come to manuscript evidence, we have a complete lack of any
Quranic materials before 100 years after Muhammad's death, and the earliest
complete Quran has been dated to circa 790AD --- a 150 year gap.
(5) From the point of view of archaelogy, inscriptions of Quranic verses at
the Dome of the Rock (built 691AD) (and on coins stamped in this time
period) differ from the Quran we have today.
>>> Now being inspired by the devil through things
>>> like black magic is definitely a fact, as the Quran and Sunnah confirms
>>>this.
>>What is the "black magic" of which you speak?
> Many Ahadith talk about black magic, and the Quran talks about black magic
in
> 2:102. Please do your homework and at least learn something about Islam
before
> you even try to challenge anybody, okay?
Actually I was rather hoping you were going to bring up Sura 2:102 --- I am
glad that you have introduced it now. Let me quote it here in its entireity:
"And follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of
Solomon. Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved, teaching
mankind magic and that which was revealed to the two angels in Babel, Harut
and Marut"
This hangs rather badly with your claim --- in fact your central claim about
the differences between the Quran and the Bible --- that there is no such
thing as "magic". Yet here we find Sura 2:102 claiming the devils (or jinn)
taught mankind magic. Perhaps you would care to explain what this means. (It
is interesting to note how much the idea of jinns and magic and sorcery
permeate many Muslim countries; I have visited Morocco twice, and this
belief is everywhere --- the evil eye is daubed on almost every door.)
> >Your argument that the magicians could not have turned their sticks into
> >snakes is a nice sounding idea, but is not supported by the Quran.
>
> Allah said that the magicians used their ropes and sticks to make them
appear
> like snakes. This is what the Quran says and this is what I believe. What
the
> interesting part is that Andy left out 20:69 where it clearly said that it
was
> a magic trick! Now I wonder why Andy left that verse out??? Hmmm...
I must apologise because I skim read and missed that verse out. Part of the
problem is that I was trying to follow the story of Moses and the Magicians
in both places in the Quran, and the details differ between Sura 20:65-73
and Sura 26:41-52.
However, I find it very interesting what you wrote down below when I
discussed the use of the word MAGIC in verse 66 of Sura 20. What you said
was this:
"it was their magic NOT THE SNAKE that appeared to be moving fast."
Now this is where I begin to get confused. Because you started this
discussion with the claim that:
(i) the Quran correct the myth in the Bible where it says Pharaoh's
magicians turned the sticks to snakes
Your implication (when you raised this months before) was that the Bible
must be a myth because it referred to magic.
A few days ago on SRI you then said this:
(ii) "magicians who are not prophets or messengers are not inspired by God,
thus, they cannot defy the laws of Allah that is found in nature"
And yet now we have you claiming that:
(iii) It was the magicians magic that appeared to be moving
(iv) And you have also brought up Sura 2:102 which claims that the jinn
taught magic and sorcery to men.
This discussion is getting to the stage where I no longer quite know what
you trying to argue; perhaps you could decide for yourself what you believe
and wish to put forward to debate, and post it in reply so we can all see.
At the moment you appear to be jumping from one side of the argument to the
other ... :-)
> I wonder when Andy Bannister is going to learn Arabic and learn the real
> meaning of these verses.
Thank you for your wish ... I am presently learning Greek, in the
autumn/early 2001 I start Hebrew, and then hopefully the year after that
(2002) I will learn Arabic. I am well aware that it will make this kind of
debate easier. However, given that you +do+ know Arabic, you appear to have
done a remarkably good job of throughly confusing the argument by switching
position in mid-flow. However, to summarise:
(1) The accounts of Moses' encounter with Pharoah's magicians in the Bible
and Quran differ
(2) This difference could be because:
(2a) The Quran has corrected the Bible, which is wrong
(2b) The Bible is right and the Quran is wrong --- perhaps Muhammad
misheard the story
(2c) Nether account is correct
Now we must agree to disagree --- I hold to position (2b) and you to (2a).
However, re-reading the story in both books (thanks to this debate) I did
come across another issue that intrigued me. Another small but vital
difference between the two stories lies in the account of who 'adopted'
Moses:
* According to the Bible, it was Pharoah's daughter (Exodus 2:10)
* According to the Quran, it was Pharoah's wife (Sura 28:9)
A seemingly small difference, but one that causes problems for the Quran; if
Pharoah's wife adopted Moses, that would have made him heir to the throne
(cf. the animated movie "Prince of Egypt", where this story line was adopted
thanks to the Muslims on the consulting panel). That would thus make the
idea in Sura 28:20 that Moses had to run away because he murdered an
Egyptian a ridiculous one; as heir to the throne he could more or less do
what he wanted (Pharoah exercised absolute power, remember).
> Now since I done with the easy part, I must conclude with the commentary
on
> this whole situation of Christian missionaries and their attacks on Islam.
> From a person with even a little ensight, it makes you wonder why would a
> Christian missionary spend his time trying to "refute" and attack Islam
As I have explained to you before, Mr. Mahdi, I have not started an attack,
merely defended. Who was it who decided to make such bold assertions in the
post at the start of this thread. Does that make you a "Muslim missionary"?
> own Christian community is suffering from a crisis of its own? Hundreds
of
> millions of Christian and people claiming to be Christian are not going to
> church every Sunday, not following the laws of Christianity, etc.
'Hundreds of millions'? Please, be serious. I am sure you not making the
mistake of equating Western = Christian, because I know that you are much
cleverer than that. The church in the UK (where I live) is doing quite well;
in fact the church to which I belong is growing rapidly, especially amongst
young people.
Remember, too, that the idea that many people in so called "Christian"
countries do not follow Christian laws cuts both ways; look at the state of
many Muslim countries from this point of view (I mentioned the huge problem
of Folk Islam earlier in my post).
At the end of the day, I believe that God is more concerned about 'religion'
at a heart-level than a state-level. I try to follow God's laws not because
I live in what used to be Christian country, nor because in doing so I hope
to earn His favour, but primarily out of relationship. Whilst I was still a
sinner, God first loved me; and my response flows primarily out of that.
Whether billions of people follow or leave Islam or Christianity is
irrelevant ... it is this relationship between the man and his creator that
counts. I hope that one day you may experience it.
May God bless you and guide you.
Thank you for giving me some useful insights into Islam.
Andy Bannister
Free Thought
As salaam 'ala man ittba'a ad-daleel, who sees that there are multitudes
who wish to guide, but few who wish to offer evidence. This was an
interestig discussion between Mahdi and Andy Banister, although there
was much I disagreed with in regards to what both of them wrote (what
else is new) so I've decided to respond to what Mahdi recently wrote.
> >ii) Some Muslims claim that the Quran was
> >Muhammad's miracle; however, this is very
> >questionable, as a) it was not compiled until
> >after Muhammad and did not reach the form it
> >is in today until over a hundred years later,
> The Quran we have now today was compiled in its
> present form during the time of caliph 'Uthmaan (ra)
> who was a Sahabi of Muhammad (saaw). Now anybody who
> says that the Quran in its present form was compiled
> hundreds years after is totally ignorant of the most
> basic and rudimentary facts about Islamic history.
> Furthermore, the Quran is recording the the mutawaatir
> transmission, meaning that so many people in each
> generation narrated the Quran that all of them
> agreeing on an error is impossible.
Here we see Mahdi putting forth the orthodox position on the Koran.
Almost without exceptions, Muslims consider that the Koran we now
possess goes back in its text and in the number and order of the
chapters to the work of the commission that 'Uthman appointed. Muslim
Orthodoxy holds further that 'Uthman's Koran contains all of the
revelation delivered to the community faithfully preserved without
change or variation of any kind and that the acceptance of the 'Uthmanic
Koran was all but universal from the day of it's distribution. Mahdi's
position, which is the Orthodox position, is motivated by dogmatic
factors; it can not be supported with historical evidence. We know for a
fact there are variations. Some say these variations are great, while
others point to them as being very small. AbdulraHman Lomax has said
this in the past, talking of small variations, and Mahdi criticized him
for doing so, as if free inquiry into the truth is forbidden if it comes
anywhere near talking about the Koran rationally. Back on December 24th,
Mr. Lomax put it thus: "No, the Qur'aan is preserved, and quite well,
thank you. It is just that it is unreasonable to claim that it is
"perfectly" preserved, that is, that all copies of the Qur'aan are the
same, every letter. It simply is not true. If got a Warsh Qur'aan here,
and when I look at certain verses I can see that there are different
*letters*. I'm not just talking vowels and I'm not just talking hamza
and alif; there are *few* such variations but they exist." There is a
Christian, who posts to this group, who has put out a website that gives
detailed information on minor differences of Koran variations.
http://www.callnetuk.com/home/aperfectquran/ch9a-index.html
While modern Orthodox Muslims like Mahdi may hold so strongly to the
dogmatic belief that the Koran is perfectly preserved, Muslim scholars
of the early years of Islam were far more flexible in their position,
realizing that parts of the Koran were lost, perverted, and that there
were many variants. For example, as-Suyuti, one of the most famous and
revered of the commentators of the Koran, quotes Ibn 'Umar al-Khattab as
saying "Let no one of you say that he has aquired the entire Koran for
how does he know that it is all? Much of the Koran has been lost, thus
let him say 'I have aquired of it what is available'" (as-Suyuti,
"Iqtan", part 3, page 72). Also, in another tradition recorded by
as-Suyuti, Aisha is quoted as saying "During the time of the prophet,
the chapter of the parties used to be two hundred verses when recited.
When 'Uthman edited the copies of the Koran, only the current remained"
(i.e., it's only 73 verses long now). Furthermore 'Uthman's codex was
supposed to standardize the consonantal text, but this text was
unpointed, that is to say, the dots that distinguish, for example, a "b"
from a "t" or a "th" were missing! According to Ibn Warraq and Ali
Dashti, several other letters (f and q; j,h, and kh; s and d; r and z; s
and sh) were indistinguishable. Ibn Warraq described 'Uthman's codex of
having been written in a "scripta defectiva". Warraq, Noldeke, Ali
Dashti, Authur Jeffery, and a few others had all commented on the the
last two verses of surah al-Buruj (i.e. verses 21 and 22 of the 85th
chapter of the Koran). According to Warraq, verse 21, in Arabic, is
"huwa quranun majidun" which is saying something to the effect of "It is
a glorious Koran". All the above mentioned scholars agreed that
different texts disagree as to what the final verse says. It turns out
the last syllable is in doubt. Because of this, verses 21 & 22 combine
can created two slightly different sentences based on the last syllable
of the last verse. For example, if verse 22 is "fi lawhin mahfuzin"
(with the genitive "-in" as the last syllable) the two verses say "It is
a glorious Koran (sitting) on a preserved tablet". As Warraq and Noldeke
put it, if the last syllable is the nominative ending "-un" ("fi lawhin
mahfuzun") you get a slightly different meaning in "It is a glorious
Koran preserved on a tablet". These are minor points compared to MAJOR
variations of other holy scriptures, such as the Christian bible, but
this is none the less an example of variation. I actually could go on,
especially for great lengths of time quoting Jeffery, Warraq, Dashti,
and especially as-Suyuti. However, there was much more to Mahdi's post,
so lets move on, and we can get back to discussing the Koran, if anyone
is interested, at another time.
> I wonder when Andy Bannister is going to learn
> Arabic and learn the real meaning of these verses.
Strange. Andy Banister is criticized for discussing the Koran, without
understanding Arabic. However, Andy was only responding to Mahdi's
criticism of the Biblical account of Moses' encounter with the Pharaoh.
Can Mahdi criticize this verse without knowing the original Hebrew?
> From a person with even a little ensight, it
> makes you wonder why would a Christian missionary
> spend his time trying to "refute" and attack Islam
> when his own Christian community is suffering from
> a crisis of its own? Hundreds of millions of
> Christian and people claiming to be Christian are not
> going to church every Sunday, not following the laws
> of Christianity, etc.
Do you assume every Christian is commited to trying to disprove Islam?
As I see it, with Jochen Katz gone, there are only two Christians in
here. Most Christians don't know anything about Islam, nor do they care
to. There are also thousands of Christians trying to reform their own
religion, and win back those who are not totally connected with the
faith. Islam also has people who claim to be Muslim, yet never go to the
Mosque. In many Islamic countries, Pakistan, Morocco, et cetera, there
is drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, all of which are non-Muslim
activities. Should a Cristian ask Ahmed Deedat "why are you reading the
bible, when your own religion has people being homosexuals, drug adicts,
and prostitutes"? Neither Islam nor Christianity is monolithic, and both
have their problems. Also both have members who seek to convert others
from other faiths, while others of the faith seek to gain reform
internally.
>First, many Christian missionaries truly believe
> that since it *appears* to them that the
> NON-CHRISTIAN world is ignorant of Christianity,
> then they believe that if they heard the "message
> of Christ," they will flock in droves to Christianity.
Many Muslims also assume every non-Muslim is either totally ignorant of
Islamic truth, or knows it is the truth, but rejects it out of pure
obstinancy. I have seen Muslims openly say that all the Jewish rabbis
and Catholic priests (includding the Pope) know Islam is the truth, but
choose their way for money reasons. This is absurd. Many Muslims assume
if they mention their message a few times, the ignorant will come
running. Some have converted to Islam, but many more do not like Islam.
> Now living in any country with a majority
> Christian population you see droves
> of people leaving Christianity, because they
> realized its reality and legacy
What is Christianity's legacy? You mean crimes commited in the name of
Christianity? I assure you Islam has an equally dark legacy.
> >May God bless you and guide you.
> May Allah guide you to the True Path and
> that path is called Islam.
"And may Vishnu show you both that Hinduism is the true path." Could we
not all say something like this?
Please visit the Secular Web's page on Islam!
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/
Free Thought
"Andy Bannister" <an...@bannister.screaming.net> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Mahdi,
A very interesting post by Andy Bannister. His discussion with Mr. Mahdi
has been quite entertaining. I wanted to touch on a few things that Mr.
Banister wrote in his latest response to Mr. Mahdi.
Mahdi wrote:
> > I felt sort of relunctant responding to Andy.
> > Some people think that people here on SRI have
> > a short memory and if they rehash the same thing
> > they did a while back, maybe this can cause
> > people to talk about again
To which Andy Bannister replied:
> Of course some people feel that an issue has
> never been dealt with properly in the first
> place. I am well aware that you raised the
> Moses and Magicians Pharoah's story as a brief
> aside some months ago, and probably never
> realised that somebody would pick you up on it.
I have to agree with Andy here. First of all, I agree that certain
issues have not been dealt with properly. Certain questions have been
asked, and I feel that the answers have been somewhat unsatisfactory. In
regards to the Pharaoh's magicians topic, Mahdi has brought it up more
than once. For a while it was something he enjoyed throwing at Jochen
Katz. It is an interesting point by Mahdi, but I think I answered it
pretty thoroughly in my post from January 11th, whcih can be seen at
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?&AN=571077862
There was no response to my Pharaoh's magician points. In fact, the only
person to respond to the entire post at all was Fariduddien Rice, who
left a very good response (although it was in regards to other parts of
the post). The post was extremely long, and talked about many topics
aside from the whole Pharaoh's magician thing. So, to save people the
trouble of reading through my longwinded post just to find the Pharaoh's
magician thing, I'll just put a few of my points from that post here,
thus no one will have to sift through all the other stuff I wrote that
day.
----------------------
----------------------------
I know what I wrote was different from what Mr. Banister had written in
regards to the whole Pharaoh's magicians issue, but it was still
relevant, as Andy correctly pointed out that some assumed no one could
answer these questions, when in reality several answers have been given,
and several more await. Regardless, back to Andy's wonderful post....
On the discussion of Muhammad's miracles....
> > From the splitting of the moon to the many
> > miracles confirmed in authentic and
> > mutawaatir Ahadith,
> I am well aware of some of the miracles listed
> in the hadith. All I would ask you is this: do
> you believe ALL of the Hadith? Please explain how
> you define "authentic" ... do you except all of
> Al Bukhari for instance?
Well, I think Mahdi adheres to what he feels are "mutawaatir Ahadith".
Although what falls under that category is rather controversial. The
idea is that a hadith was spoken by so many people, that it cannot be
false. First one wonders how many people have to say it to make it fall
under this category? There are several different people who have been
quoted as saying that the Koran we have today is not the entire Koran
(as can be found in traditions recorded by as-Suyuti and Abu Ubaid).
Would hadiths that talk of pieces of the Koran being lost be considered
"mutawaatir"? The orthodox would say no, but this is for dogmatic
reasons more than anything else. Furthermore, if numerous people claim
something, does this make it authentic? Let's look at a certain
Christian "tradition": the claim that Jesus was crucified, and died for
the sins of mankind. I personally do not believe this, but almost 2
billion people claim this is true, and over the past 16 centuries
billions more have claimed this is true. With so many billions of people
reaffirming this tradition, does it make it "mutawaatir"? What about the
"isnad" to back up this claim? Allegedly all the popes lead back to the
first pope, Peter, who knew Jesus personally. So the "isnad" on this
Christian tradition is sound, and there are billions who stand by it,
thus by Islamic standards, it's true. Of course, Muslims would still say
Jesus was not crucified. So after looking at this longwinded analogy, we
must ask, what have we learned from it? Well, despite the fact that
billions of people stand by this "tradition" the Muslims still say it is
false. Thus, even a Muslim can admit that even though many people
believe something, it is not necessarily true. It is very possible that
with any story, many people just continuously heard it from other
people. Could we not say the same about so-called "mutawaatir Ahadith"?
Sure 10 or 15 people stand by it, but maybe they just heard it from
someone else.... a common tale found in that folklore.
As for so-called "authentic" hadith, those two are not worth much. The
hadiths contain all kinds of fantastic tales, that seem to be quite
tendentious. Can any of these traditions be considered accurate? We are
told that Muhammad died in 632 C.E. The earliest material written on his
life was by Ibn Ishaq in 750 C.E., some 118 years later! 118 years is
along time, and more than enough time for stories handed down by word of
mouth to become exagerated. The most "authentic" or highly regarded
traditions are those found in the Sahih Bukhari collection. However,
Bukhari died in 870 C.E.! That's 238 years after Muhammad died! When
Muhammad died, it would be more than 150 years until Bukhari was even
born, much less begin collecting information on Muhammad! And this shows
in the Sahih collection (and all other collections as well). Critics of
Islam often find much to attack with when looking through the hadiths.
The biographers of Muhammad were too far removed from his time to have
true data or notions; far from being objective, the date rested on
tendentious fiction. Furthermore, it was not their aim to know these
things as they really happened, but to construct an ideal vision of the
past, as it ought to have been.
Moving on, Mahdi stated that those who claim the Koran is not perfect
preserved are somehwhat ignorant, to which Andy replied:
> I am afraid that trying to label as ignorant anyone
> who claims "that the Quran in its present form was
> compiled hundreds years after [Muhammad]" is simply
> putting up a smokescreen. The problem you are faced
> with is not so much the accusations from outside,
> but the testimony of a) your own traditions and
> b) the archaelogical and historical evidence weighed
> against you.
Precisely. First, in regards to the traditions, there are numerous
hadiths that speak of pieces of the Koran being eaten by animals, or
lost, or edited out, et cetera... as-Suyuti's "Itqan" contains numerous
hadiths that talk of pieces of the Koran being taken out or missing.
Also, in 1938 Arthur Jeffery translated Abu Ubaid's "Kitab
Fada'il-al-Qur'aan" into english from an Arabic manuscript which is
still in Berlin to this day. Abu Ubaid's collection had many of the same
traditions as found in as-Suyuti's collection, such as Aisha claiming
Uthman took something out, or others talking of verses regarding stoning
for adultery being taken out, and so on and so forth.
Moving on, Mahdi wrote:
> > I wonder when Andy Bannister is going to
> > learn Arabic and learn the real
> > meaning of these verses.
To which Andy replied:
> Thank you for your wish ... I am presently
> learning Greek, in the autumn/early 2001 I start
> Hebrew, and then hopefully the year after that
> (2002) I will learn Arabic. I am well aware that
> it will make this kind of debate easier.
A very classy answer by Mr. Banister. My answer was not as classy, but
still relevant. I think we all agree that knowing the language a text
was originally written in will make arguments over this text slightly
easier. However, Muslims sometimes set a bit of a double standard. This
post was in regards to Mahdi's criticism of Exodus chapter 7's story
about Moses and Aaron's encounter with Pharaoh. It would seem strange
that Mahdi would freely criticize this story without understanding the
original Hebrew, and yet at the same time criticize others on the
grounds that they don't know Arabic.
Mr. Banister's summary was as follows:
> (1) The accounts of Moses' encounter with Pharoah's
> magicians in the Bible and Quran differ
>
> (2) This difference could be because:
> (2a) The Quran has corrected the Bible,
> which is wrong
> (2b) The Bible is right and the Quran is wrong
> --- perhaps Muhammad misheard the story
> (2c) Nether account is correct.
As Andy would later point out, Mahdi holds to position (2a) while Andy
himself holds to position (2b). I personally hold position (2c), but
that's irrelevant right now, so we'll remove position (2c) and focus
only on positions (2a) & (2b). We know right away that position (2a) is
incorrect. Does the Koran correct the bible? Hardly. While I do not
accept the Bible, even I must say it is the bible that corrects the
Koran. Let me give some examples. The Koran refers to Mary as "sister of
Aaron" (Koran 19:27-28). When reading the Koran, one gets the impression
that the author was unable to differentiate between Miriam the sister of
Moses and Aaron, and Mary the mother of Jesus. When Christians and Jews
point out this error, Muslims scramble to explain how it is not to be
taken literally. I have Yusuf Ali's translation at my house, and in a
footnote to such verses, he explains that it was not meant literally,
but more in a figurative sense, and he uses the bible to back up his
claim! The question is, can any of this be backed up with the Koran? If
we were to read the Koran without the bible, it would seem right away
that Moses and Aaron were uncles of Jesus. There is nothing in the Koran
that says otherwise. The only reason Muslims interpret it differently is
because the Bible says something. In otherwords, the Muslims, in this
instance, scramble to make the Koran match something that is only told
in the bible. Therefor the Bible checks and corrects the Koran, not vice
versa. As for position (2b), I would agree that the Bible is "right",
but I would sort of agree that, as Andy put it, "Muhammad misheard the
story". Actually, Muhammad seems to have got the story right, as it
seems to be taken verbatim from Jewish oral folklore. Regardless, I
feel that the position that Muhammad got his information from those
living around him has been quite strongly established.
Free Thought
Fariduddien Rice <dr...@see.text.for.email.address> wrote:
> Assalamu alaikum friends,
A well written post by on the historical aspect of the characters common
to the different Abrahamic faiths. I must apologize for taking more than
a week to respond.
> > In otherwords, there's no proof Moses, or
> > Abraham, or Isaac, ever existed!
> Claiming that "there's no proof Moses etc. ever
> existed" is NOT the same thing as saying "Moses
> etc. never existed," however Free Thought (and
> others) often seem to confuse the two statements.
I will agree with Mr. Rice that pointing out a lack of evidence is not
the same as proving something does not exist. However, I would like to
remind Mr. Rice that making his above statement in no way proves the
person does exist. This seemed to be the common thread throughout Mr.
Rice's post. I would state that there was no proof that such characters
existed, and he would reply that just because there is no proof, does
not necessarily mean they do not exist. Mr. Rice is correct, however, I
think I would have every right to question the existence of these people
on the grounds that there is not a single shred of evidence. Mr. Rice
went on to give examples of people who did in fact exist, and prior to
certain dates, there was no evidence to back up their existence. One of
the examples Mr. Rice gave was the ancient Egyptian King Tutankhamen,
and as Mr. Rice put it, "the absence of proof (before the discovery of
his tomb) did not mean that King Tut never existed." There is no
disagreement on my part, however, this does not mean other claims are
automatically right being that the claim regarding King Tut was proven.
For example, there is no solid evidence the Lochness Monster exists, and
bringing up the fact that King Tut was discovered would not change a
thing. The same applies to the characters found in the Islamic holy
writs. Until these claims can be backed up, there is no reason to
believe in them.
> So, lack of evidence for the existence of
> Moses etc. is quite insufficient to disprove
> either the Qur'an or the Bible. The only
> reason I can see why Free Thought and others
> like him might continually bring it up is to
> try to bamboozle their readers with weak and
> logically flawed arguments.
Agreed, the lack of evidence does not disprove the Koran altogether, but
it does take away some of it's strength. The Muslim wants people to
accept the Koran as absoulte truth. However, the skeptic will ask "can
you back any of this up with historical evidence?" If the Muslim fails
to prove the claims his book makes, the skeptic has every right to wave
it off as being yet another piece of ancient folklore. As far as I can
see, the Historical Moses is the same as the Historical Krishna, the
Historical Vyasa, the Historical Arjuna, and the Historical Hannuman.
This is a person whom many fantastic tales are attributed to, yet none
of these claims can be supported.
> > So, did Islam borrow things from Judaism?
> > Absolutely! Consider Nuh. This is an obvious play
> > on the Hebrew Noah (Noach) character.
> Obviously, the "Nuh" of the Qur'an is the same
> person as the "Noah" of the Hebrew Bible. However,
> does that mean that the Qur'an "borrowed" from the
> Bible?
To be quite blunt, I would say yes, this proves the Koran borrowed it's
tales from those who believed in the bible. You yourself admit that Nuh
is the same as the Noah found in the Hebrew bible. Well, we know that
Noah was *NOT* a historical character. This was a fiction taken from an
earlier folklore from Babylon known as "The Epics of Gilgamesh". We know
for a fact that the story of Noah, as found in the Hebrew Torah, was
taken directly from the Epics of Gilgamesh, and that Noah never existed.
The Koran however, seems to have this exact same character, with almost
the exact same name, and the exact same story! It is wholly obvious that
the Koranic tale of Noah was taken from the Jewish/Christian account,
and we know the Jewish/Christian account is false, a rehash of a
Babylonian myth. The story of Nuh is a myth based on a myth that was
based on an even earlier myth.
You then went on to give an example of Micheal Berry and Pancharatnam
coming up with the same scientific theory independantly. This is not
related at all. Suppose we have a primitive person in one area, and
another primitive person in a place on the other side of the earth. No
both, in their respective languages, say to themselves "when I have one
rock, and then add another rock, I get two rocks". Which one discovered
addition first is irrelevant. It was a mathematical and scientific
truth. With the story of Noah/Nuh however, there is no scientific truth
to it. In fact the story seems to contradict science and logic. Let's
see what the Koran says:
[al-Mu'minun 23:27] So We inspired him (with this message): "Construct
the Ark within Our sight and under Our guidance: then when comes Our
Command, and the fountains of the earth gush forth, take thou on board
pairs of every species, male and female....
How big was Noah's ark to hold two of every species of animal? Do you
know how many millions of species of insect there are alone? Did the Ark
contain every species of bird? of mammal? of reptile? How long did Nuh
wait for the sloth to lazily make it's way from the jungles of the
amazon? The story of Nuh mirrors the story of Noah in the Hebrew Torah,
and we know that story is false. There is no evidence that there was
ever a global flood, and please do not say the Koran speaks only of a
local flood, because it would be contradicting some of Islam's most
respected commentators in siding with Maurice Bucaille, who was a
non-Muslim.
Regarding the Koran copying from the Bible, Mr. Rice wrote:
> In fact, evidence that this is *not*
> the case arises due to various *differences*
> in the stories in the Qur'an and the Bible.
> Anyone who wishes to hold to the theory that
> the Qur'an copied the Bible should explain the
> source of these differences.
Well, I have said before that Muhammad never actually read "The Bible"
or The Torah for that matter. The theory has always been that he
recieved these stories orally, which accounts for both similarities and
differences! Have you ever played the game Telephone (sometimes called
"grapevine")? This is a children's game where one person whispers
something into the ear of another, and then that person passes it on
with a similar whisper. As the story goes from person to person, it is
badly changed by the time it reaches the end. The same can be seen in
rumors. An incident will happen, and it will be passed from person to
person by word of mouth. Within days the story will be different from
the original, yet still quite similar. As people pass on stories orally,
they often add their own slant to it. I already showed how the whole
Pharaoh's magicians story seems to have been taken from the Jewish oral
version of that story! There have also been many other examples where
the Koranic tales mirror those found in Rabbinic folklore, thus proving
that it was not taken from the Torah, but from those who believe in the
Torah, and pass it's tales on orally. Jews will not say exactly what
happens in the Torah, rather they will give you the explanation found in
their Rabbinic commentaries, or told to them by their Rabbis. The fact
that much of the Koran so closely resembles Rabbinic Oral Traditions
strongly supports the notion that Muhammad heard these stories from the
Jews, and others living within his environment.
It's also quite aparent that Abraham never existed. The Ibrahim found in
the Koran is obviously a play on this character. It seems the Abraham
legend was written and invented around 450 BCE (when the Torah was first
being written) and was very loosely based on legends in northern
Mesopotamia of the Mitanni monarch Artatama I, a Brahmin king who had
some Indian ancestry and whose daughter married the Egyptian monarch
Tuthmosis IV. This does not gve historicity to the Bible story, rather
shows how legends are derived and recycled withnew additions added to
them (special thanks to A. Dalla Rosa for this info). It has even been
argued by some that Abram and Sarai, are puns on Brahma and Sarasvati
which were originally rivers in the north of India. Scholars such as
Gary Greenberg, president of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New
York, have touched on issues of how the story of Abram/Abraham coming
from Ur of Chaldees is false for various historical and chronological
errors. So much of what the Koran says of Ibrahim closely mirrors that
found in Rabbinic literature, and we know it's a direct play as the name
"Ibrahim" means nothing. For Ibrahim's name, see Dr. Heger's post from
January 13th at http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=572006968
Please visit the Secular Web's page on Islam!
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/islam/
fad
God (swt) says in the Quran (surat al Naml) :
59. Say: Praise be to Allah, and Peace on his servants whom
He has chosen (for his Message). (Who) is better?- Allah or
the false gods they associate (with Him)?
60. Or, Who has created the heavens and the earth, and Who
sends you down rain from the sky? Yea, with it We cause to
grow well-planted orchards full of beauty of delight: it is
not
in your power to cause the growth of the trees in them. (Can
there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, they are a people
who swerve from justice.
61. Or, Who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers
in
its midst; set thereon mountains immovable; and made a
separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (can
there be another) god besides Allah. Nay, most of them know
not.
62. Or, Who listens to the (soul) distressed when it calls
on
Him, and Who relieves its suffering, and makes you (mankind)
inheritors of the earth? (Can there be another) god besides
Allah. Little it is that ye heed!
63. Or, Who guides you through the depths of darkness on
land and sea, and Who sends the winds as heralds of glad
tidings, going before His Mercy? (Can there be another) god
besides Allah.- High is Allah above what they associate with
Him!
64. Or, Who originates creation, then repeats it, and who
gives you sustenance from heaven and earth? (Can there be
another) god besides Allah. Say, "Bring forth your argument,
if ye are telling the truth!"
65. Say: None in the heavens or on earth, except Allah,
knows what is hidden: nor can they perceive when they shall
be raised up (for Judgment).
66. Still less can their knowledge comprehend the Hereafter:
Nay, they are in doubt and uncertainty thereanent; nay, they
are blind thereunto!
67. The Unbelievers say: "What! when we become dust,- we
and our fathers,- shall we really be raised (from the dead)?
68. "It is true we were promised this,- we and our fathers
before (us): these are nothing but tales of the ancients."
69. Say: "Go ye through the earth and see what has been the
end of those guilty (of sin)."
70. But grieve not over them, nor distress thyself because
of
their plots.
71. They also say: "When will this promise (come to pass)?
(Say) if ye are truthful."
72. Say: "It may be that some of the events which ye wish to
hasten on may be (close) in your pursuit!"
73. But verily thy Lord is full of grace to mankind: Yet
most of
them are ungrateful.
74. And verily thy Lord knoweth all that their hearts do
hide.
As well as all that they reveal.
75. Nor is there aught of the unseen, in heaven or earth,
but
is (recorded) in a clear record.
76. Verily this Qur'an doth explain to the Children of
Israel
most of the matters in which they disagree.
77. And it certainly is a Guide and a Mercy to those who
believe.
78. Verily thy Lord will decide between them by His Decree:
and He is Exalted in Might, All-Knowing.
79. So put thy trust in Allah. for thou art on (the path of)
manifest Truth.
80. Truly thou canst not cause the dead to listen, nor canst
thou cause the deaf to hear the call, (especially) when they
turn back in retreat.
81. Nor canst thou be a guide to the blind, (to prevent
them)
>from straying: only those wilt thou get to listen who
believe in
Our Signs, and they will bow in Islam.
82. And when the Word is fulfilled against them (the
unjust),
we shall produce from the earth a beast to (face) them: He
will speak to them, for that mankind did not believe with
assurance in Our Signs.
83. One day We shall gather together from every people a
troop of those who reject our Signs, and they shall be kept
in
ranks,-
84. Until, when they come (before the Judgment-seat),
((Allah)) will say: "Did ye reject My Signs, though ye
comprehended them not in knowledge, or what was it ye
did?"
85. And the Word will be fulfilled against them, because of
their wrong-doing, and they will be unable to speak (in
plea).
86. See they not that We have made the Night for them to
rest in and the Day to give them light? Verily in this are
Signs
for any people that believe!
87. And the Day that the Trumpet will be sounded - then will
be smitten with terror those who are in the heavens, and
those who are on earth, except such as Allah will please (to
exempt): and all shall come to His (Presence) as beings
conscious of their lowliness.
88. Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed:
but they shall pass away as the clouds pass away: (such is)
the artistry of Allah, who disposes of all things in perfect
order: for he is well acquainted with all that ye do.
89. If any do good, good will (accrue) to them therefrom;
and
they will be secure from terror that Day.
90. And if any do evil, their faces will be thrown headlong
into
the Fire: "Do ye receive a reward other than that which ye
have earned by your deeds?"
91. For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of this
city, Him Who has sanctified it and to Whom (belong) all
things: and I am commanded to be of those who bow in Islam
to Allah.s Will,-
92. And to rehearse the Qur'an: and if any accept guidance,
they do it for the good of their own souls, and if any
stray,
say: "I am only a Warner".
93. And say: "Praise be to Allah, Who will soon show you His
Signs, so that ye shall know them"; and thy Lord is not
unmindful of all that ye do.
-----------
Noah's Arc has been found(in Turkey . the same
description that the prophet (pbuh) described to us). The
fact the both Arabs and jews are ancesestors of Abraham is
enough proof that he existed (we have the full line of the
fathers of the prophet Mohammed pbuh to Abraham pbuh).
The impact that these prophet (pbut) did to humanity is
another proof.
I tell those who have sickness in their hearts to fear the
day
when thier souls depart their bodies and they meet Allah
(swt), what will they say then ? and no i'm not saying IF.
This will happen whether you believe it or not.
'I am only a Warner'
And Allah (Swt) knows best.
Wa'salam
P.S : Read the Quran for the sake of reading it.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Abu Aftab
>Assalamu alaikum friends,
>
"free thought" wrote
>> So, did Islam borrow things from Judaism?
>> Absolutely! Consider Nuh. This is an obvious play on the Hebrew Noah
>> (Noach) character (I'll get to the flood issue later).
Obviously "free thought" needs some basic linguistic lessons (among some
other basic lessons) in Arabic and Hebrew. In Arabic, "Nuh" is spelled, nun,
waw, Ha, while in Hebrew "Noach" is spelled nun, waw, Heth, ie - with the
same letters and is pronounced exactly the same way in Ancient Hebrew.
Another thing to consider. Was Noach a Jew? The word "Jew" refers to the
descendants of Yehuda, a son of Ya'qob. By extension the nation of Judea. In
either case, does Noach actually belong to one or other of these two groups?
I mean did he not precede them both in time. How can Islam copy something
>from Judaism when that very thing never belonged to Judaism in the first
place.
Where did "thought" get to?....
AA