`Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
Jochen Katz
This text was not written by me, but it was contributed to
the "Answering Islam" site and is placed in the category
"Sources of the Qur'an" at
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/
After the invitation is now expressed by Zaharuddin Fikri
that it is allowed to ask questions and to examine the
life of Muhammad let us begin with some examination on
this one.
The below seems to me the reasonable interpretation of
the sources. But I am willing to be presented with a
better explanation. What do you think of it?
Note again: If anything is factually inaccurate, I am most
willing to change the file. I have the author's permission
to do so and already have changed a few small things in it.
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
Muhammad and `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
Abstract
Muhammad had scribes write his revelations down for him. One
scribe was `Abdullah Ibn Sa'd Ibn Abi Sarh. As Sarh wrote these
revelations down, he frequently made suggestions on improving
their wording. Muhammad often agreed and allowed the changes to be
made. Eventually, Sarh left Islam, knowing it could not be from
God if a mere scribe were allowed to change God's word. Later,
after the conquest of Mecca, Muhammad ordered Sarh's death.
Introduction
During Muhammad's 23 years of prophetic ministry, Muhammad claimed to
receive revelations from God, given to him by an angel. Muhammad used many
men, functioning as scribes, to write down these assumed revelations.
Different scribes wrote down different revelations. `Abdullah Sarh was one
of Muhammad's scribes. Evidently, Sarh had some literary skills, sometimes
suggesting improvements to Muhammad in the wording of the recited Qur'an.
Muhammad often agreed with Sarh's improvements, and allowed the changes to
be made.
Sarh eventually left Islam because he knew that no mere scribe should be
allowed to change something that was proclaimed to be the word of God. The
changes were frequent enough that it caused Sarh to realize that something
was amiss. Upon leaving Islam, Sarh became a threat to the credibility of
the Qur'an. It would no longer be believed to be the word of God if a man
had been allowed to edit and change it. Sarh's threat to the credibility of
the Qur'an was also a threat to Muhammad's credibility. No real prophet
would allow the word of God to be changed.
Sarh left Islam and lived in Mecca. Some time later, Muhammad and his army
moved on Mecca and took it without a fight. On that day, Muhammad ordered
the murder of 10 people living in Mecca. Muhammad said "God forbid killing
in Mecca, except for this one day." Sarh was one of the people Muhammad
ordered to be murdered. His crime? He had left Islam, and he constituted a
threat to the credibility of the Qur'an and the prophethood of Muhammad. No
wonder then that Muhammad wanted him dead.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESENTATION OF ISLAMIC SOURCES
#1 SIRAT RASUL ALLAH
Quoting from "The Life of Muhammad", A Guillaume's a translation of Ibn
Hisham's "Sirat Rasul Allah", from page 550: [words in brackets [ ] are
mine]
The apostle had instructed his commanders when they entered Mecca
only to fight those who resisted them except a small number who
were to be killed even if they were found beneath the curtains of
the Ka`ba. Among them was `Abdullah b. Sa`d, brother of the B.
`Amir b. Lu'ayy. The reason he ordered him to be killed was that
he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he
apostatized and returned to Qurahysh [Mecca] and fled to `Uthman
b. `Affan whose foster brother he was. [`Uthman was one of
Muhammad's closest friends, and later became the Caliph of Islam].
The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the
situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be
granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for
a long time till finally he said yes, [granting `Abdullah immunity
from the execution order]. When `Uthman had left he [Muhammad]
said to his companions who were sitting around him, "I kept silent
so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!" One of
the Ansar [Muhammad's helpers from Medina] said, then why didn't
you give me a sign, O apostle of God?" He [Muhammad] answered that
a prophet does not kill by pointing.
NOTE: the Sirat Rasul Allah is the earliest and most authentic biography of
Muhammad. It was even written before the Hadith were compiled.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2 KITAB AL-TABAQAT AL-KABIR
[Note: words in [ ] brackets are mine]. I have also added ( ) brackets to
associate numbers with the people in the list.
Muhammad ordered the execution of 10 people when he took Mecca. Here is the
list of names found in Ibn Sa`d "Tabaqat", Vol 2, page 168.
The apostle of Allah entered through Adhakhir, [into Mecca], and
prohibited fighting. He ordered six men and four women to be
killed, they were (1) Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, (2) Habbar Ibn
al-Aswad, (3) Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, (4) Miqyas Ibn
Sababah al-Laythi, (5) al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, (6) Abd Abbah Ibn
Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, (7) Hind Bint Utbah, (8) Sarah, the
mawlat (enfranchised girl) of Amr Ibn Hashim, (9) Fartana and (10)
Qaribah.
Occasionally, the Sirat, and the Tabaqat use a different name for the same
person. #3 in the list given above is such a case. The differences in the
name is due to the amount of family lineage given for the man's name, and
the english translation.
Ibn Sa`d corroborates Ibn Ishaq and says on page 174:
A person of al-Ansar had taken a vow to kill Ibn Abi Sarh [the
already mentioned Abdallah] if he saw him. `Uthman whose foster
brother he (Ibn Abi Sarh) was, came and interceded for him with
the prophet. The Ansari was waiting for the signal of the prophet
to kill him. `Uthman interceded and he [Muhammad] let him go. The
the apostle of Allah said to the Ansari, "Why did you not fulfil
your vow?" He said, "O apostle of Allah! I had my hand on the hilt
of the sword waiting for your signal to kill him." The prophet
said signalling would have been a breach of faith. "It does not
behave the prophet to make signal."
NOTE ON THE TABAQAT:
The Tabaqat was translated into English by Moinul Haq, a Pakistani. His work
was published by the Pakistan Historical Society. It is published in English
in two volumes. The title means "Book of the Major Classes". It is basically
a biography of Muhammad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#3 From Al-Sira by al-'Iraqi
The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. `Abdallah Ibn Sarh
al-`Amiri was one of them, and he was the first Quraishite among
those who wrote in Mecca before he turned away from Islam. He
started saying, "I used to direct Muhammad wherever I willed. He
would dictate to me 'Most High, All-Wise', and I would write down
'All-Wise' only. Then he would say, 'Yes it is all the same'. On a
certain occasion he said, 'Write such and such', but I wrote
'Write' only, and he said, 'Write whatever you like.'" So when
this scribe exposed Muhammad, he wrote in the Qur'an, "And who
does greater evil than he who forges against God a lie, or says,
'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to
him." So on the day Muhammad conquered Mecca, he commanded his
scribe to be killed. But the scribe fled to `Uthman Ibn `Affan,
because `Uthman was his foster brother (his mother suckled
`Uthman). `Uthman, therefore, kept him away from Muhammad. After
the people calmed down, `Uthman brought the scribe to Muhammad and
sought protection for him. Muhammad kept silent for a long time,
after which he said yes. When `Uthman had left, Muhammad said "I
only kept silent so that you (the people) should kill him."
Al-Iraqi refers to Sura 6:93 above. From Dawud's translation Sura 6:93
reads:
Who is more wicked than the man who invents a falsehood about God,
or says: "This was revealed to me", when nothing was revealed to
him? Or the man who says, "I can reveal the like of what God has
revealed"?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#4 Al-Baidawi[1] commenting on the Qur'an, Sura al-An`am 6:93
[Image of the Arabic text from al-Baidawi visible on the
web page http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/sarh.html ]
"'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to
him" refers to `Abdallah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write
for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man
of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached
the part that says, "... thereafter We produced him as another
creature (23:14), `Abdallah said, "So blessed be God the fairest
of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The
prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed."
`Abdallah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I
receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar,
what I said is a good as what he said."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSSION
Above I presented the details and the context behind the order to murder
`Abdullah ibn Sarh. He was a threat to the credibility of the Qur'an. He was
a Muslim, worked with Muhammad in writing down the Qur'an, and, from time to
time he suggested some minor changes, or made deliberate omissions or
additions. `Abdullah eventually realized that if this Qur'an were truly from
God, no changes would be made at his suggestion. Sarh realized Islam and the
Qur'an were false and went back to Mecca.
After Muhammad took Mecca, and issued the order to kill him, he hid out with
`Uthman who was one of Muhammad's closest companions. Later Sarh pled for
amnesty. Muhammad wanted one of his men to kill him on the spot, but they
didn't know if they should, because they couldn't read Muhammad's mind. So,
finally, Muhammad gave him amnesty.
We see here that Muhammad really wanted Sarh dead. But Muhammad handled this
in a very irrational way. Muhammad issues an edict to have a man executed,
but fails to have it carried out because he doesn't want to make a signal
with his hand, or wink with his eye??? Why didn't Muhammad kill him himself?
If this man had committed such a crime as to cost him his life, why didn't
Muhammad see that his death sentence be carried out? What kind of law is
that? "You committed a major crime, punishable by death, but I'm going to
let you live because I am too proud to signal with my hand."???
Note here that the Qur'an itself, revealed in regard to Sarh in 6:93, calls
Sarh extremely wicked.
This shows that Muhammad gave orders willy-nilly. This man committed no
major crime, he just exposed Muhammad and the Qur'an. Muhammad just wanted
this man killed for personal reasons. People lived or died based on
Muhammad's frame of mind, not based on law and justice.
Many Muslims today proclaim that,
"the Qur'an is the speech from Allah, revealed in its precise
meaning and wording through the angel Gabriel, transmitted by
many, inimitable, unique and protected by Allah Himself against
any corruption".
Ahmad von Deffer "Ulum al-Qur'an", p21.
Yet we find that the Qur'an has suffered corruption. Remember, all of the
sources I presented are from early, sincere, dedicated, Muslim writers.
There were devout Muslims, not moderates or liberals who would change real
Islam for their own ease.
So, even in the historical writings of Islam, we find proof of the Qur'an's
corruption. Note: These additions by `Abdullah ibn Sarh are still part of
the Qur'an today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUESTIONS
1) Why did Muhammad so readily accept Sarh's fragrant addition to his
"revelations"?
2) If Muhammad so easily accepted the input of Sarh, could he not have
accepted the input of his other scribes and spliced them into the Qur'an?
Modern scholars have shown that the Qur'an's style has been broken, and
re-combined together, (see Bell's "Introduction to the Qur'an" for
additional details on textual and stylistic flaws within the Qur'an).
3) Since Muhammad liked Sarh's addition, could he not have also added other
stories to embellish the Qur'an? Examining the composition of the Qur'an, we
find that there are many stories borrowed from other religious sources: the
Old Testament, the New Testament, other works of Judaism (the Mishnah,
midrashic commentaries like they are found in Rabbi Pirke Eliezer, etc.,
pre-Islamic religious stories, Sabeanism, other pagan religion, etc.. Could
these also have been borrowed?
4) If this story about Sarh were a fabrication, why did so many early Muslim
writers document it? Certainly devout Muslims would not document a lie that
serves to undermine their faith.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
Proof has been presented that the Qur'an has been tainted. Early Muslim
writers have showed that there is corruption in the Qur'an. They have also
displayed Muhammad's real motives. Sarh did add to the Qur'an; he realized
that and left Islam. Muhammad then knew another threat to his credibility
existed. After Muhammad took Mecca he ordered Sarh's death to erase the
threat. Because of his vanity Muhammad did not have Sarh murdered but had to
pardon him. To this day, this corruption in the Qur'an exists. Further, we
have seen upon what principles Muhammad really operated on; principles of
mood, not of law.
Note:
1. From the famous Tafsir Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta'wil by `Abdallah
Ibn `Umar al-Baidawi, in loco.
-------------
P.S. After Muhammad's death Ibn Abi Sarh rose to prominence
again and even became the governor of Egypt due to his closeness
to Uthman. However, that he again became an esteemed Muslim later
has no bearing on the issue of Muhammad's order of his death nor
the issue if his suggestions are to this day part of the Qur'an.
Those are the topic of this investigation.
Dr. M S M Saifullah
On 10 Mar 1998, Jochen Katz wrote:
assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> The below seems to me the reasonable interpretation of
> the sources. But I am willing to be presented with a
> better explanation. What do you think of it?
think of it? well, it is a missionary interpretation, that is all.
> Quoting from "The Life of Muhammad", A Guillaume's a translation of Ibn
> Hisham's "Sirat Rasul Allah",
> NOTE: the Sirat Rasul Allah is the earliest and most authentic biography of
> Muhammad. It was even written before the Hadith were compiled.
well, if it is the authentic biography why do not you quote the chain of
narration of the report? someone will, inshallah, take care of its
authenticity.
> "'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to
> him" refers to `Abdallah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write
> for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man
> of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached
> the part that says, "... thereafter We produced him as another
> creature (23:14), `Abdallah said, "So blessed be God the fairest
> of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The
> prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed."
> `Abdallah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I
> receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar,
> what I said is a good as what he said."
why do not you quote what is on top of this report and what is in the
bottom of this report? it is quite revealing sometimes. anyway, brother
ghoneim sent me the following:
>From al-Itqaan fi 3Uloom il-qur'an by Jalaaluddeen aS-SuyooTy (page 74), I
quote the following:
#########################################################################
WHAT WAS REVEALED THROUGH THE TONGUE OF SOME SAHAABAH
It is actually a kind of asbaab annuzool (the reasons of the revelation), and
in the first place it is about "muwaafaqaat Omar" ("agreements with Omar", do
you have a better translation for muwaafaqaat to suggest? thanks.), and many
people made separate collections of them.
at-Tirmidhy reported from Ibn Omar that the Prophet (S) said " Allah made the
truth come from the tongue of Omar and his heart"
Ibn Omar said whenever the people were concerned by an issue and they gave
their opinion and Omar gave his, the Qur'an was revealed according to what
Omar said.
Mardaweih reported from Mujaahid that: Omar used to opine and the Qur'an
confirmed.
Albukhary and others reported from Anas that Omar said "I agreed with my Lord
on three occasions: I said ' O Prophet of Allah what if we prayed in Maqaam
Ibrahim' (i.e. the station of Abraham) and the revelation came with:" and take
ye the Station of Abraham as a place of prayer;" (2:125) and I said: ' O
Prophet of Allah both the Wicked and the Righteous are allowed to enter at
your wives' places, may you tell them to wear Hijaab" and consequently the
verse of Hijaab was revealed, and when the wives of the Prophet stood against
him because of jealousy I told them: ' It may be, if he divorced you (all),
that Allah will give him in exchange consorts better than you' (65:5), and so
the verse was revealed.
Muslim reported from Ibn Omar from Omar who said: " I agreed with my Lord
three times: concerning the veil, the prisoners of Badr, and the station of
Abraham."
Ibn Abi Haatim reported from Anas that Omar said: "I agreed with my Lord, or
my Lord agreed with me, four times: when the verse: "We created man of an
extraction of clay" was revealed ..." (23:12), I said "So blessed be Allah the
fairest of creators!" and then it was revealed "So blessed be Allah the
fairest of creators!"
#########################################################################
so katz, why do not you tell us the whole story from baidawi. it will be
quite interesting again to see the whole argument in that book. suyuti says
the last part of 23:14 "So blessed be Allah the fairest of creators!" was
revealed through the tongue of 'umar (RA).
so, katz homework for you:
1. show to us the chain of narration from sirat and its authenticity.
2. quote the whole argument (which could mean quoting two pages!) from baidawi.
and then inshallah, we will decide what is going on.
> Yet we find that the Qur'an has suffered corruption. Remember, all of the
> sources I presented are from early, sincere, dedicated, Muslim writers.
> There were devout Muslims, not moderates or liberals who would change real
> Islam for their own ease.
well, if the muslim writers were sincere and dedicated what makes you not
trust them? in sarh suits your purpose, is it?
> So, even in the historical writings of Islam, we find proof of the Qur'an's
> corruption. Note: These additions by `Abdullah ibn Sarh are still part of
> the Qur'an today.
oh! is that a proof? i have already derailed your argument now,
alhamdulillah. even al-hajjaj's "changes" are also the part of the qur'an
today. gilchrist's as well as katz's ignorance missed it.
> Modern scholars have shown that the Qur'an's style has been broken, and
> re-combined together, (see Bell's "Introduction to the Qur'an" for
> additional details on textual and stylistic flaws within the Qur'an).
modern scholars like mustansir mir also says that a surah has unity and
coherent as a whole. or bint shaati's conclusion regarding the qur'an is:
Her conclusion is that the Qur'an, being neither prose nor verse, is a
literary genre of its own that is of THE HIGHEST ELOQUENCE AND OF
MATCHLESS STYLISTIC PERFECTION.
[Approaches of The History of Interpretation of The Qur'an: 1988, edited by
Andrew Rippin, Clarendon Press, Oxford. pp.154]
why not check what modern scholars like arberry says? scared to quote them
lest your arguments falls apart!!
> 3) Since Muhammad liked Sarh's addition, could he not have also added other
> stories to embellish the Qur'an? Examining the composition of the Qur'an, we
> find that there are many stories borrowed from other religious sources: the
> Old Testament, the New Testament, other works of Judaism (the Mishnah,
> midrashic commentaries like they are found in Rabbi Pirke Eliezer, etc.,
> pre-Islamic religious stories, Sabeanism, other pagan religion, etc.. Could
> these also have been borrowed?
okay, back to the rehashing the borrowing theories. missionaries like to
recycle the trash every now and then.
> 4) If this story about Sarh were a fabrication, why did so many early Muslim
> writers document it? Certainly devout Muslims would not document a lie that
> serves to undermine their faith.
well, to prove that people like ibn sarh existed to change the qur'an but
were unable to do so. we do not have to hide the facts.
wassalam
saifullah
AltWay
In article <6e475i$rr7$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, Jochen Katz
<jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
" Yet we find that the Qur'an has suffered corruption. Remember, all of
the sources I presented are from early, sincere, dedicated, Muslim
writers. There were devout Muslims, not moderates or liberals who would
change real Islam for their own ease.
"So, even in the historical writings of Islam, we find proof of the
Qur'an's corruption. Note: These additions by `Abdullah ibn Sarh are
still part of the Qur'an today.
Comment:-
(1) Many Muslims, including myself, have been aware of the fact that the
actual Arabic wording has been influenced by people other than Muhammad.
There is, for instance, the story of the Blind Man whose protest caused a
change in Quran 4:97 from "Those of the believers who remain at home and
those who fight in the way of Allah are not alike." to "Those of the
believers who remain at home, except those who have a defect..."
Since the Quran is regarded as part of the Preserved Tablet, it is
understood that in essence it refers to a transforming force and to the
significance rather than the particular words. It has been rendered into
Arabic just as any any universal principle is given a particular form by the
needs of a particular time and place. It is also in this sense that Islam is
the Universal Religion, though its various dispensations through the
different Prophets are adapted to the times, place and people among whom it
comes.
(2) It is also necessary to understand that most of the Hadith are isolated
reports by people who have seen or heard something without necessarily
understanding what was going on. It is perfectly possible for the Prophet to
say one thing to one person and seemingly the opposite to another depending
on how the recipient understood the words and still produce the same
effects. It is for instance possible to say "Yes" to someone who says that
Jesus is the "son of God" if the person understands it as meaning he has the
Divine spirit to guide him, or to say "No" if he takes it literally. And so
on. The reports are seldom in depth expositions or lectures given by the
Prophet to his closest companions. These as Zaid tells us were kept hidden
or Esoteric.
(3) Note that the reports were made by devout Muslims. They were obviously
not reluctant to record the truth and did not reach the conclusions which
J.Katz has reached after an elapse of more than a thousand years. Even Ibn
Abi Sarh, as J.Katz notes became an esteemed Muslim and a governer of Egypt.
We must conclude that the interpretation J.Katz gives are certainly false
and arise only because he has a negativistic mind. This attitude is also
likely to falsify everything else he says.
What a shame that he has made so much effort in investigating a subject he
does not believe in, cannot understand, and has no intention of
understanding.
H.S.Aziz
--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way"
_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz
______________________/ ... ha...@argonet.co.uk
seeb...@hatespam.com.au
Salaams all,
I posted this first on MCD, but since Jochen has brought it up here:
Well I FINALLY got some spare time at Uni and spent two and a half
hours looking Abdullah Ibn Sa'd up. The chap doesn't get that much of
a mention, although I did note Karen Armstrong's reference to his
inclusion in the Satanic Verses as part of Rushdie's portreyal of
Muhammad (alayhisalaam) as a cruel, heartless, dictator. I guess it's
his fifteen minutes of fame.
BTW Jochen you have Hind on your list, and yet according to every
source I read, she was forgiven on her entry into Islam. They also
name only four people that the Prophet listed as their lives being
forfeit. What is your list again so I can look them up?
At anyrate, from there is very little apart from passing reference to
Abdullah Ibn Sa'd. _Muhammad: Encyclopedia of Seerah_ Volume VIII.
ed. Afzalur Rahman. (London: Seerah Foundation) p482 says that
"The Prophet forgave all the enemies of the people of Makkah after his
victorious entry into the city and, with the exception of four
persons, did not take revenge on their people, who had persecuted and
tortured him and his followers for thirteen years and then waged war
against him for eight years. These four persons were: Huwairith b.
Nuqaiah b. Wahb b. Qursayy; Niqyas b. Hubaba; Abdullah b. Khattal and
Abdullah b. Sa'd. There were killed* for their criminal offences
against individuals. (Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah pp 550-551 English
translation)
*Abdullah b. Sa'd sought and was granted amnesty
I also found the quote you mentioned in Guillaume's translation of Ibn
Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah. I will re-quote a snippit:
"The reason he ordered him [Abdullah ibn Sa'd] to be killed was that
he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation, then he
apostatized and returned to Quraysh and fled to Uthman b. Affan whose
foster brother he was. The latter hid him until he brought him to the
Apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he
might be granted immunity. THEY ALLEGE that the apostle remained
silend for a long time till finally he said yes. When Uthman had left
he said to his companions sitting around him "I kept silent so that
one of you might get up and strike off his head". One of the Ansar
said "Then why didn't you give me a sign, O Apostle of God?" He
answered that a Prophet does not kill by pointing".
Now there is a reason why I emphasised *they allege*. In reading the
introduction of Guilliame's translation he makes the note that "A word
that very frequently precedes a statement is za'ama or za'amu, "he
(they) alleged". It carries with it more than a hint that the
statement may not be true, though on the other hand it may be
sound...very seldom does [Ibn Ishaq] make any comment of his own on
the traditions he records apart from the mental reservation implied in
these terms." (pxix).
That being said I found practically nothing on Abdullah Sa'd's claims
of changing revelation and so I approached one of my lecturers (who
takes one of the subjects I am doing for Islamic Studies) and asked
him where I might find resources on early Islamic history around the
time of the Prophet. He gave me a few authors and titles to look up
including Muhammad Shaban _Islamic History_, Fisher and Ochesenwald,
and Lindholm. I couldn't find anything in Lings' _Muhammad: His life
based on the earlist sources_ (London: George Allen & Unwin
(Publishers) Ltd & The Islamic Texts Society, 1983) so it will be
interesting to see what srb digs up.
Frankly I think it is a red herring. Abdullah ibn Sa'd seems to be a
duplicitous character who took an opportunity to try and have a hand
at revelation writing. When he was caught he fled the scene and then
made pretentious claims about it. I have yet to see any evidence from
source texts (not secondary interpretations) that suggests anything
other.
Regards as always
Maryam
"Luke, you're going to find that many of
the truths we cling to depend greatly on our
point of view."
- Ben Kenobi, from The Return of the Jedi
***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.
**** Say (O Muhammad to mankind):
**** _|_ "If ye love Allah, follow me;
**** / \ Allah will love you and
**** forgive you your sins. Allah
**** is Forgiving, Merciful."(3:31)
***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.
Adnan
On 10 Mar 1998 12:17:54 -0800, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
>This text was not written by me, but it was contributed to
>the "Answering Islam" site and is placed in the category
>"Sources of the Qur'an" at
>
> http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/
>
>After the invitation is now expressed by Zaharuddin Fikri
>that it is allowed to ask questions and to examine the
>life of Muhammad let us begin with some examination on
>this one.
This article was also discussed on MCD. The article is written by such
a low quality polemicist that he does not even mentions in the
introduction that Abdullah ibn Sa'd was forgiven, and he later
converted to Islam. Instead, the introduction is filled with rhetoric
that Muhammad was a despicable man.. Also, none of the quoted sources,
including Baydawi, actually say that the modern Quran has added verses
by Ibn Sad. Neither does any secular biography, that I read, say that.
I only heard this from missionaries, such as Jochen Katz. I have
debated Jochen all year on his MCD list, and that further confirmed
that apologists must resort to hypocritical arguments in order to
attack other faiths. Arguments that they use against other faiths can
also be used against their own. I have seen Jochen whinning about
Muslims who do not link to his site. He was implying that Muslims on
the Internet are afraid and cowards. However, it turned out that
reality is opposite. Jochen himself lacks the courage to link to
material that is harmful to his agenda. To see examples, have a look
at "Comments on Jochen Katz's page."
http://idt.net/~balboa19/jkatz/comments.htm
Also, notice, no Christian site but one links to my page. They don't
have the confidence. For example, I asked Jay Smith's site to link to
my page and to MCAD, but they didn't do it. I wish they would have
shown a little more respect for honesty. I also invited Jay Smith to
MCAD and defend his double standard against informed opposition, but
he too didn't do it, neither did Jochen Katz, Glenn Miller, Newton
etc., This further confirms that they can not defended the double
standard against informed opposition on open forum. Instead, they
removed me from MCD which is owned by Hyde Park Christian Fellowship.
Charlie, supervisor of MCD, informed me that I was removed from the
list because the list is only for believing Muslims and Christians.
Interestingly, a Buddhist, named Metta, is allowed on MCD because she
only attacks Islam. She is helpful to Jochen Katz and Christian agenda
of that list. Also, Christians on MCD, including JR, Jochen Katz,
Walid, and David Lim, posted many personal attacks. None of them was
ever removed because of personal attacks. I save all e-mails, and I
can post their posts.
I have set up MCAD list, because, unlike them, I have the confidence.
http://idt.net/~balboa19/lion/
MCAD has a web archive, so hundreds will read the debates on the web.
That's why Jochen Katz, Jay Smith, Glenn Miller, Newton, etc., are
afraid to take the risk.
As for Abdullah Ibn Sa'd, as I said, this issue was discussed on MCD,
but Jochen Katz simply regurgitated it on SRI. It's obvious that
Abdullah Ibn Sa'd was a scriber who apostatized and went back to
Mecca. He propagated against Muhammad. He was ordered to be killed.
After the conquest of Mecca, he was forgiven. He converted back to
Islam.
Muhammad Elrabaa
>(1) Many Muslims, including myself, have been aware of the fact that the
>actual Arabic wording has been influenced by people other than Muhammad.
The above should be corrected to:
Many NON-Muslims (it is up to AltWay to include himself or not), have
been falsely claiming that the Arabic wording of the Qur'an has been
influenced by people other than Muhammad.
All muslims believe that the Qur'an was completely preserved, and what
we have today is what Angel Gebriel (alihi assalam) conveyed to the
prophet (salla Allahu alihi wassalam) who in turn conveyed it to us.
No muslim can claim corruption of the Qur'an (and still remain a muslim).
The Qur'an is preserved in both, meaning and text.
Muhammad Elrabaa
SIDD1
In article <6e9lsf$q5f$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, Adnan <balb...@idt.net> wrote:
>
>On 10 Mar 1998 12:17:54 -0800, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
>wrote:
>
I propose to remove MCD and create JMCD. We do not want the muslim
christian doalogue, but Jewish Muslim Christian Dialoge.
This has the advantage of consistency.
It is the dialogue of the Abrahamic faiths.
We will see in this group, how christians explain the trinity to
the Jews. We will see in this how the Jews Explain their persecution
to the Christians.
It will lead to a greater consistency!
Jochen Katz
} I posted this first on MCD, but since Jochen has brought it up here:
...
I don't really want to make SRI a forum to repost my contributions
to the Muslim Christian Dialog mailing list. Therefore, I will not
repost my answer here but instead point you to the archive where
you can read it if you want to:
http://debate.org.uk/mcd/html/13686.htm
Let us keep our discussions focussed and not confuse the
two forums.
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
kh5...@usa.net
[2nd time without the X-No-Archive header hopefully]
On 10 Mar 1998 12:17:54 -0800, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
> Muhammad and `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
Who is Abdullah Bin Sa"d? the answer to this question is enough
response to the whole article posted by Jochen. Abdullah Bin Sa'ad
was not just an apostate who claimed to have *dictated* his own words
into the Quran, he was more than this<g>
All what came in Jochen's message was the claims made by Abdullah Bin
Sa'ad after his apostasy, these are only *claims* he made to the
people of mecca [his own people] as will be explained in this short
message.
To make things short Abdullah Bin Sa"ad after returning back to Islam
became one of the great leaders of Islam he led the army that
conquered Egypt along with Amro Bin Ala'as, he was the leader of what
was known as the right wing of the Army "almaymanh" in all of the
battles under the leadership of Amro Bin Ala'as.
Then Sarh was the **governor** of Egypt after Amro Bin Ala'as on the
year (25 h.). On his hands **Africa** was conquered with great
victories, these victories were attended by some of prophet's
companions like Abdullah Bin Omar, Abdullah Bin Alzubair,
and Abdullah Bin Amro Bin Ala"s. On Sarh's hands Islam reached the
horizons of Africa. He also conquered the land of Noubah in the year
31 H. above All he lead the army in the sea in the battle of "zat
alswari" toward the **Romans**.!!!
Isn't that enough answer? to the whole misrepresentation of this
leader and to speak about him in such a way that only shows <I don't
want to use the word>
Abdullah first became a Moslem before the return of Moslems to Mecca
from Madinah, he wrote the revelation to the prophet PBUH, then became
an apostate and escaped to Mecca where he *claimed* to the people of
Mecca that he had changed the words of Allah
Now if a person thinks that the words the prophet PBUH received were
not inspired and claimed to have made changes to it, why would he put
his life on the line with all the other moslems and even lead Moslem
armies to spread the word of the Allah contained in the Quran??
Abdullah Bin Sa'ad was among the leaders of Islam and his contribution
to Islam cannot be ignored, So Moslems should be proud of his
contributions to Islam and his success of spreading Islam in Africa
and his role in the famous battle of zat alsawri.
But the blame should be directed towards these hate mongers who are
<.....> in the history of Islam and are proud and arrogant about it
as if it is the way that will make them win our respect!.
Many Moslem didn't know who is Abdullah Bin Sa'ad, now they know him
and inshallah they will be proud of him and let those hate mongers be
ashamed. So I call my brother Moslems to read Jochen's message again
and see the deception used by the author (his own words) while
comparing what he said to the quoted resources. and pray tell me isn't
it pathetic? Alhamdulilah.
=====
"Thus doth Allah (by parables) show forth Truth and Vanity: for the
scum disappears like froth cast out; while that which is for the good
of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables"
[13:17]
--
Salam
Khalid...
Jochen Katz
In article <6e7463$a57$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
} (1) Many Muslims, including myself, have been aware of the fact that the
} actual Arabic wording has been influenced by people other than Muhammad.
That is surely not very often discussed on this newsgroup.
How many Muslims nearly know this? I have not read this
ever in any Muslim books explaining Islam, nor have I been
told this in any classes titled "Introduction to Islam".
Your formulation itself is rather 'unorthodox'. Even to say that
the formulation of the Qur'an is from Muhammad is not acceptable
to most Muslims. Muhammad had no influence, they are purely the
words of God and nothing else, or so is usually claimed. Now you
seem to even admit that not only Muhammmad but also other human
beings had a hand in the formulations? Don't tell me this is
common Muslim knowledge or understanding or I have never known
what Muslims think about the Qur'an. Your reaction is highly
surprising to me.
} There is, for instance, the story of the Blind Man whose protest caused a
} change in Quran 4:97 from "Those of the believers who remain at home and
} those who fight in the way of Allah are not alike." to "Those of the
} believers who remain at home, except those who have a defect..."
This is different though from the passage I was quoting.
In your example, the blind man protests that the verse doesn't
really do justice to his situation and then Muhammad amends his
revelation with an "except".
If it were from God, wouldn't he have known the need of exception
beforehand? This looks like Muhammad has to repair since he didn't
think of that the first time. This looks "unlike" the All-Wise
and All-Knowing Lord.
But in the case of the blind man, the new 'revelation' is only
in reaction to the new need, the formulation of the revelation
itself is not given by him, that still comes from the author of
the Qur'an itself (whether you consider that God or Muhammad).
But in the case of Ibn Abi Sarh it is the very formulation
that is suggested by him and then accepted by Muhammad as
a replacement of what he originally dictated. It is the words
of ibn abi Sarh that were accepted into the Qur'an by Muhammad.
Ibn Abi Sarh was certainly not God, nor was he a prophet, ...
This certainly does not square with the usual claims about the
Qur'an.
} (3) Note that the reports were made by devout Muslims. They were obviously
} not reluctant to record the truth and did not reach the conclusions which
} J.Katz has reached after an elapse of more than a thousand years.
We can talk about that. I am glad you agree that the narrations
are trustworthy and not invented by people who were enemies of
Islam, but some of the most respected commentators and biographers.
That gives us at least a common ground on which to discuss the
meaning instead of the issue whether we want to accept the sources.
The fact that others reach different conclusions from the same
sources is no problem. That happens all the time in theology and
history. So, we have to discuss whose conclusions have the most
merit. We are all influenced by our environment and our desires
and our worldview. Maybe I am blinded by my goals, or maybe they
were blinded for the full implications of what they faithfully
reported. Everyone is invited to judge the evidence for himself
and decide which explanation is more logical. I don't expect that
everyone will vote for my view on it. I only present the sources
and one way of looking at them. You can present your view and
then all can decide for themselves what they find logical and
coherent.
That is why we have a discussion forum called SRI.
} Even Ibn
} Abi Sarh, as J.Katz notes became an esteemed Muslim and a governer of Egypt.
I have commented on this in my response to Khalid, not need to
repeat. Please read my other posting.
} We must conclude that the interpretation J.Katz gives are certainly false
} and arise only because he has a negativistic mind. This attitude is also
} likely to falsify everything else he says.
}
} What a shame that he has made so much effort in investigating a subject he
} does not believe in, cannot understand, and has no intention of
} understanding.
This is purely an ad hominem argument and does not contribute
anything to the actual discussion of the issue. However, I have
to at least compliment you that even in ad hominem you are still
a lot more polite than Saifullah.
May the peace of the Lord be with you
and may He guide you into all truth.
Jochen Katz
Jochen Katz
In article <6e746g$a6g$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
kh5...@usa.net writes:
} > Muhammad and `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
} Will I read the sources of the article and my answer to it is simply
} by this small sentence:
}
} Abdullah Bin Sa'ad turned to Islam and later became a good Moslem, if
} all what you brought forward in the Article like:
}
} > Eventually, Sarh left Islam, knowing it could not be from
} > God if a mere scribe were allowed to change God's word.
}
}
} If that is true then why did he return back to Islam?? isn't' it
} written in your quoted resources that Abdullah had returned to Islam?
} but of course it is not important to mention his return to Islam and
} to remain a moslem even after the life of Mohammed PBUH.
}
}
} End of the my response to the article for now.
1. He became a Muslim, even had a trusted position of a scribe
of Muhammad. ... but
2. his experiences in this position caused him to abandon Islam
and go back home to Mecca.
3. Muhammad's power increases and at the end of his life he is
more or less Lord over Arabia, most tribes having sworn allegience
to him. His main triumph is the march on Mecca and her surrender
to the former refugee. De facto, Muhammad is the Arabian sovereign.
He has the power.
4. `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh arranges himself with the reality.
He is not a suicidal man. If you can't beat them (he never was
interested in that anyway it seems - he was a scribe, and
administrator) join them. People became Muslims by the thousands
because that was where the power was. Abdullah was just realistic.
He rejoined Islam as there was nowhere else to turn. And he then
makes a good career again, being of the family of Uthman, he rises
fast again after Muhammad and becomes a successful governor of
Egypt. Millions of Muslims arrange themselves and live in the
non-Muslim society of America, not always being strict with the
Islamic rules of life because it is just not easy to be a Muslim
in a non-Muslim society. So they compromise. I think that is what
Ibn Abi Sa`d did just as well. He saw what the realities were and
that was absolute power in the hands of Muslims and he joined them
again.
Yes, he remained a Muslim from what we can tell from the outside.
But does that mean it doesn't matter what made him abandon Islam
in between?
And does it in particular not matter for what reasons Muhammad
ordered his death? The issue is less what Abdullah ibn Sa`d did
after Muhammad died, but it is what Muhammad did and whether
this is consistent with his claim of being a prophet of God.
I wonder how you could miss this?
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
seeb...@hatespam.com.au
Salaams all,
I posted this first on MCD, but since Jochen has brought it up here:
Well I FINALLY got some spare time at Uni and spent two and a half
Adnan
On 10 Mar 1998 12:17:54 -0800, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
>This text was not written by me, but it was contributed to
>the "Answering Islam" site and is placed in the category
>"Sources of the Qur'an" at
>
> http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/
>
>After the invitation is now expressed by Zaharuddin Fikri
>that it is allowed to ask questions and to examine the
>life of Muhammad let us begin with some examination on
>this one.
This article was also discussed on MCD. The article is written by such
Muhammad Elrabaa
>(1) Many Muslims, including myself, have been aware of the fact that the
>actual Arabic wording has been influenced by people other than Muhammad.
The above should be corrected to:
Many NON-Muslims (it is up to AltWay to include himself or not), have
been falsely claiming that the Arabic wording of the Qur'an has been
influenced by people other than Muhammad.
All muslims believe that the Qur'an was completely preserved, and what
Jochen Katz
Well, second attempt. Adnan didn't have anything relevant
to reply in his article, so my resonse was not relevant...
He can at least have the satisfaction that Catherine approved
his and rejected my response. Here we go again with numerous
additions.
In article <6e9lsf$q5f$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, balb...@idt.net (Adnan)
reacted regarding the article about `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
that is also placed at
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/sarh.html
The web version has been updated with more Arabic text
since I posted the article on SRI. Baidawi's commentary
and al-Iraqi's passage from Al-Sira can now be seen in
the original language.
} This article was also discussed on MCD.
Correction, the discussion is not over.
It is still discussed on the Muslim-Christian-Dialog list.
Everyone is most welcome to follow the discussion on the
archive http://debate.org.uk/mcd/
If you do not just want to watch the debate, but join in,
a link to a subscription form to the discussion list is
also found on that web page.
} The article is written by such
} a low quality polemicist that he does not even mentions in the
} introduction that Abdullah ibn Sa'd was forgiven, and he later
} converted to Islam.
All issues relevant to the topic are mentioned in the article.
When you have no answers just call it "low quality polemicist".
But it doesn't work, Adnan.
} Instead, the introduction is filled with rhetoric
} that Muhammad was a despicable man.
All conclusions are based on the presented sources.
And "despicable" was not used. That is your vocabulary
not ours.
} Also, none of the quoted sources,
} including Baydawi, actually say that the modern Quran has added verses
} by Ibn Sad.
For those who close their eyes, it doesn't say what they don't
want it to say. But if you read it with open eyes, it clearly
does say so. And it doesn't say verses, but it documents some
such phrases.
Let me quote the passage from Baidawi again for your convenience:
#4 Al-Baidawi in his famous famous Tafsir
Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta'wil commenting on the Qur'an,
Sura al-An`am 6:93 writes:
"'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to
him" refers to `Abdallah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write
for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man
of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached
the part that says, "... thereafter We produced him as another
creature (23:14), `Abdallah said, "So blessed be God the fairest
of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The
prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed."
`Abdallah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I
receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar,
what I said is a good as what he said."
This is to the best of my knowledge al-Baidawi's complete comment
on this verse. To me this tells that Muhammad accepts formulations
of Abdullah into the Qur'an. Abdullah was a scribe, and intelligent
man and obviously had a feel for literature. He had some insights
as to great reformulations/additions and he suggested them to
Muhammad. And Muhammad liked them and asked him to add it to the
text. Isn't that exactly what al-Baidawi said? Would Adnan explain
how he reads this passage? I can't read it any other way currently.
But with a little help of our master interpreter, we will soon
all understand this better.
} Neither does any secular biography, that I read, say that.
Well, maybe they didn't know any better. Do they discuss
the passage from al-Baidawi? Let's see Adnan quote their
discussion.
But I predict it will be just as on MCD, Adnan makes many
words and when asked for the sources that is deafening silence.
} I only heard this from missionaries, such as Jochen Katz. I have
} debated Jochen all year on his MCD list,
You have never debated me. You have posted tons of material
from other people but I have yet to see a genuine argument
from yourself.
All that you write in this posting is just as it always was.
Ad hominem and no substance, just as you do here again:
} and that further confirmed
} that apologists must resort to hypocritical arguments in order to
} attack other faiths.
If I quote one of the greatest Muslim commentators on the
Qur'an then I am a hypocrite? Could you explain that to me
as well? I find your logic hard to follow.
} Jochen himself lacks the courage to link to
} material that is harmful to his agenda. To see examples, have a look
} at "Comments on Jochen Katz's page."
}
} http://idt.net/~balboa19/jkatz/comments.htm
}
} Also, notice, no Christian site but one links to my page.
Guess which page that is. Mine. :->
I think that needs to be stated, don't you agree?
Kind of destroys your main argument here.
} They don't
} have the confidence. For example, I asked Jay Smith's site to link to
} my page and to MCAD, but they didn't do it.
This is typical. You only use the posting on Ibn Abi Sarh to
vent again your usual diatribe about me, about Jay Smith, about
the Christians in general.
May I ask you to instead contribute some substance to the
topic? You called it low quality and many more names, but
have you realized that you did not present _any_ argument
against those evidences given in the article? If you could,
why don't you make your argument? Bring your sources, then
draw your conclusions from actual sources.
That is what a true discussion would be. But you only vent your
anger against each and every Christian and how low they are.
But you have nothing to say in content.
[lots of blah blah snipped.]
} This further confirms that they can not defended the double
} standard against informed opposition on open forum.
I would suggest that you inform yourself so that you can
become an informed opposition. Isn't that a good idea?
I am most happy to discusss the topic with you.
But I don't think I will ever see the day when you
contribute substance instead of diatribes.
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
-----
Since light travels faster than sound, isn't that why some people
appear bright until you hear them speak?
From ar...@shell3.ba.best.com Thu Mar 12 21:47:47 1998
Message-Id: <1998031305...@math108.math.gatech.edu>
From: Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
X-Original-Message-ID: <1998031305...@math108.math.gatech.edu>
Approved: ar...@best.com
Moderator: ar...@best.com (Catherine Hampton)
X-Folder: SRI
Status: RO
In article <6eab2k$9be$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, kh5...@usa.net writes:
} > Muhammad and `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
I did write a little more than that!
} Who is Abdullah Bin Sa"d? the answer to this question is enough
} response to the whole article posted by Jochen. Abdullah Bin Sa'ad
} was not just an apostate who claimed to have *dictated* his own words
} into the Quran, he was more than this<g>
I never said otherwise.
In fact, the end of my posted article had this paragraph:
P.S. After Muhammad's death Ibn Abi Sarh rose to prominence
again and even became the governor of Egypt due to his closeness
to Uthman. However, that he again became an esteemed Muslim later
has no bearing on the issue of Muhammad's order of his death nor
the issue if his suggestions are to this day part of the Qur'an.
Those are the topic of this investigation.
But the topic of the article was NOT a full biography of `Abdullah
but two other issues connected to his life:
1. His words are taken over into the Qur'an, i.e. not all is from God.
2. When `Abdullah realized that this means Muhammad is no prophet
himself and he left Islam, Muhammad's reaction is to order his
assassination.
The topic was the integrity of the Qur'an and the character of
Muhammad, not the full history of `Abdullah ibn Sa`d's later life
after the death of Muhammad.
But I am glad you recognize and acknowledge this:
} Abdullah Bin Sa'ad
} was not just an apostate who claimed to have *dictated* his own words
} into the Quran, he was more than this<g>
Yes, he was more. But he was this too as your words admit.
I wonder that you can pass over that so lightly and it doesn't
bother you the least bit. I do not understand that.
} All what came in Jochen's message was the claims made by Abdullah Bin
} Sa'ad after his apostasy, these are only *claims* he made to the
} people of mecca [his own people] as will be explained in this short
} message.
}
} To make things short Abdullah Bin Sa"ad after returning back to Islam
} became one of the great leaders of Islam he led the army that
} conquered Egypt along with Amro Bin Ala'as, he was the leader of what
} was known as the right wing of the Army "almaymanh" in all of the
} battles under the leadership of Amro Bin Ala'as.
}
} Then Sarh was the **governor** of Egypt after Amro Bin Ala'as on the
} year (25 h.). On his hands **Africa** was conquered with great
} victories, ..
All of this is true but without relevance for the integrity of
the text of the Qur'an and that Muhammad tried to silence
`Abdullah originally by giving the order to execute him.
All those great victories testify to the talent of `Abdullah
but do not undo the earlier issues.
} Isn't that enough answer?
hardly.
} to the whole misrepresentation of this
} leader and to speak about him in such a way that only shows <I don't
} want to use the word>
It was not about Abdullah, but about the Qur'an and Muhammad.
How could you miss this?
} Abdullah first became a Moslem before the return of Moslems to Mecca
} from Madinah, he wrote the revelation to the prophet PBUH, then became
} an apostate and escaped to Mecca where he *claimed* to the people of
} Mecca that he had changed the words of Allah
}
} Now if a person thinks that the words the prophet PBUH received were
} not inspired and claimed to have made changes to it, why would he put
} his life on the line with all the other moslems and even lead Moslem
} armies to spread the word of the Allah contained in the Quran??
Hey, he made quite a career as general and governor of Egypt.
It isn't that he put his life on the line for pure idealistic
reasons. His foster brother was Khalifa and `Abdallah was making
a good life and got into influential positions. But that could
hardly have been a reason.
You might want to ask this question: If he never did anything
of what he claimed [making changes to the Qur'an], WHY would he
have apostacized originally? What was his motivation as an orginal
true believer and trusted companion of Muhammad?
His rejoining the ones who have the power is easily explained,
but leaving the Muslims if that wasn't true is a bit more difficult
to explain.
And, if that was not true, how come that Baidawi reports it as true?
} Abdullah Bin Sa'ad was among the leaders of Islam and his contribution
} to Islam cannot be ignored,
His contribution of spreading Islam by military conquest, you mean.
His contribution to the Arabic imperialism. That is not the same
as contributing to the religion. That contribution was made earlier
with his words that are to this day in the Qur'an.
} So Moslems should be proud of his
} contributions to Islam and his success of spreading Islam in Africa
} and his role in the famous battle of zat alsawri.
Hm, does that sound like Islam was spread by military force
after all?
Somebody else just denied this today on this newsgroup.
In article <6e9lmk$p2h$1...@waltz.rahul.net> titled
"Re: THe Myth: No Islamic State !!!???", Saoudy Saoudy
<ssa...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> writes:
> Islam spread by attrcting people through sometimes burks and money
> (see lawful spending of zakat money by the state).
> Forcing islam by the sword is centuries old lie which has no proof
> at all.
We have some interesting postings these days. Saoudy seems more
at ease with buying converts with money than with the concept of
the spread of Islam by the sword. But in fact, taking Saoudy and
Khalid's postings together, it looks like both was reality.
Not something Muslims usually admit easily.
} But the blame should be directed towards these hate mongers who are
} <.....> in the history of Islam and are proud and arrogant about it
} as if it is the way that will make them win our respect!.
}
} Many Moslem didn't know who is Abdullah Bin Sa'ad, now they know him
} and inshallah they will be proud of him
I just had to requote this part. It is so telling.
} and let those hate mongers be
} ashamed. So I call my brother Moslems to read Jochen's message again
Thanks. Please do. I still hold it to be true from A-Z. Nobody
has refuted even a small part of it.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/sarh.html
is the place to look for it.
} and see the deception used by the author (his own words) while
} comparing what he said to the quoted resources. and pray tell me isn't
} it pathetic? Alhamdulilah.
So different can the impression be.
} =====
} "Thus doth Allah (by parables) show forth Truth and Vanity: for the
} scum disappears like froth cast out; while that which is for the good
} of mankind remains on the earth. Thus doth Allah set forth parables"
} [13:17]
Somehow that was fitting too. We only differ on what might be the
truth and what the vanity.
It is at least very interesting to see how people look at the
same data and see the totally opposite in it. Absolutely
astonishing.
We have had three very different responses so far:
1. It is all a lie. We are twisting the sources.
The sources are inauthentic. ....
2. Who cares about that? Look at all the other good things
this man did. We should be proud of him.
3. "Abdullah ibn Sa'd seems to be a duplicitous character who
took an opportunity to try and have a hand at revelation
writing. When he was caught he fled the scene and then made
pretentious claims about it." (Maryam Butson's claim on the
newsgroup yesterday) "To us, the scribe was not only a hypocrite,
but nuts as well - to my understanding, he himself claimed to
be the recipient of revelation." [The second one was private
communication about the same topic some weeks ago.] But whether
he was nuts or not (Khalid would protest against that) is not
the issue. The issue is whether it happened and what the sources
say and what this incident means for the Qur'anic integrity and
the character of Muhammad. Who cares about Abdullah? He is
not the topic.
He certainly was not nuts. He was highly talented or he wouldn't
have made the successful governor of Egypt and general of the
military campaigns into Africa. No, he was a very intelligent
man with administrative and military abilities.
That is for certain, and it is not the topic. The topic is
the text of the Qur'an and the way Muhammad ordered him
eliminated and the strange way he got pardoned.
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
Basem Mesbah Temraz
Assalamu Alikum,
Jochen Katz (jk...@math.gatech.edu) wrote:
: } If that is true then why did he return back to Islam?? isn't' it
: } written in your quoted resources that Abdullah had returned to Islam?
: } but of course it is not important to mention his return to Islam and
: } to remain a moslem even after the life of Mohammed PBUH.
: }
: }
: } End of the my response to the article for now.
: 1. He became a Muslim, even had a trusted position of a scribe
: of Muhammad. ... but
: 2. his experiences in this position caused him to abandon Islam
: and go back home to Mecca.
Or perhaps it was the difficult life in Madinah that prompted him
go back to Mecca. No no no... wait a minute, perphaps there was
an alien ship that sent him signals and told him that Muhammed
was a false prophet... no no no.. maybe Jesus (AS) came to him in
a dream and told him to go shopping in Mecca and buy a gift for
muhammed, but he liked the stay there so he left Islam....
No no.. thats not it.. perhaps he heard that there was an Elvis
sighting in Makkah and that the Moon God Allah told him to come
to the true prophet of God, Elvis.... or perhaps ...
So, we can perphas like our friend Jochen does until the
universes collapses on itself again.. but that would be a waste
of time, just like Jochen wasted 3 years of his life.
Tell us missionary. Do you think that the sahabah of the prophet
are stupid? or do they like to be tortured and killed for no good
reason? The prophet (AS) had many scribes, even during his time
in Makkah, and many of them were tortured and killed. Tell us, O
wise master, if they had the slightest suspesion that he was a
liar, if they had the slightest suspesion that he was devil
possessed, if they had the slightest suspesion that he was a
false prophet, would they have followed him? They had nothing to
gain, and everything to lose. You could say, "Oh yeah.. but you
know he promised them this and that and this and that". If a
poor man comes to your door, and tells you "Joe, I am the prophet
of God, give me all your money for my cause" Would you have done
it? These people gave their lives, their fourtunes, and
everything they posses.
Now, tell us O wise master, was Jesus (AS) a liar, because one of
his closest apostles/displies apostated and consipred to kill
him? I mean, according to your logic that would be the only
explaination, wouldn't be O wise master?
The penalty for leaving Islam is death. The guy left Islam after
joining it willingly and then left Islam and started spreading
lies about how he influenced the Quran's wording. It was
unfortunate that Uthman (may Allah forgive him) disobeyed the
prophet on this matter.
As for Sa'd. If he had returned to Islam, and later became a
true believer, then May God forgive him. If he had not, then God
(SWT) knows about it. As for his reasons to leave Islam, many
people have different reasons to take drungs and commit
adultery. He is no different, and no amount of perhaps on the
part of our missionary will reveal the reason behind it.
Now of course, the enemy of his own soul, will start arguing.
"That is not what I mean... the fact that Muhammed wanted him
dead is not the way of a prophet".
Tell us O wise master. Moses stoned a man to death of because he
was caught breaking the sabbath? For collecting wood? Is that
the action of a God's prophet? If Jesus (AS) had power, I could
think of a few people he would have wanted dead too... by the
permission of God of course.
Wassalam,
Basem.
: Sincerely,
I wonder how true this is.
ri...@innocent.anti-spam.org
On 13 Mar 1998 09:03:42 -0800, seeb...@hatespam.com.au <seeb...@hatespam.com.au> wrote:
>That being said I found practically nothing on Abdullah Sa'd's claims
>of changing revelation and so I approached one of my lecturers (who
Salam. have you tried ibn kathir "al bidaya wa al nihaya" ? Have you also
tried the history books of al tabari ? There are a lot of things there.
I also remember reading things about this guy in "al islamiyat" by 'taah
housayn" (before he got his mind mingled). I remember that sometime during
the califat of uthman (ra), some people from egypt or kouffa (don't
remember) complained about him, as some sahabas (ra) didn't like the way
uthman (ra) was protecting and rising abdullah in sa'ad.
Anyway, as someone said, abdullah ibn sa'ad may have done bad or very bad
things, but who knows how he repented and how god forgave his sins ?
People you should question your self if death takes you right now, would
you be better than this abdullah in sa'ad ? Subhanna allah, these people
and the sahabas (including, and yes, mu3aawiya ibn abi soufian and aamr
ibn al 3aass) were sometimes doing mistakes, but they always end up
regreting what they have done (like mu3aawiya (ra) when he kept repeating,
in the bed while he was dying, the name of one of the followers of ali
(ra) that he killed with his friends). This in islam is called
"repentence". And there is an aya which says that for people who repented
from what they have done sincerely, allah would change their sins to
"hassannat" (how do you translate that?).
Anyway, after all, allah blessed us with abdallah who opened with amr ibn
al 3aass africa were I live and am happy to be a muslim :)
Wasalam. Riad
----------------------------------------------
To email, replace the "ANTI-SPAM.ORG" by "com"
----------------------------------------------
AltWay
In article <6e9lsj$q5r$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, melr...@ptdcs2.intel.com
(Muhammad Elrabaa) wrote:
" All muslims believe that the Qur'an was completely preserved, and what
we have today is what Angel Gebriel (alihi assalam) conveyed to the
prophet (salla Allahu alihi wassalam) who in turn conveyed it to us.
No muslim can claim corruption of the Qur'an (and still remain a muslim).
The Qur'an is preserved in both, meaning and text.
You appear to have misunderstood.
Certainly, the Quran has been preserved in meaning and text since the
Prophet (S.A.W) approved it.
But we cannot simply dismiss reports such as the one I quoted. Either it is
true or not. And it is Truth which is supreme in Islam, for Allah speaks
Truth. If it is true then it is a mistake to suppose that the Quran should
be identified with a particular series of words in Arabic. People have
experiences and they do translate these into words in different ways.
Nevertheless, since it is the Prophet himself who approved the changes
they must still be literally compatible with the Arabic context, and it is
he who knows the truth.
I do not claim corruption of the Quran and I do not accept your definition
of a Muslim. Such definitions reduce to an assertion that a Muslim is one
who conforms to your ideas. A Muslim submits to Allah and does not make
an idol of a book, but takes its meaning.
seeb...@hatespam.com.au
On 12 Mar 1998 20:01:36 -0800, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
>Let us keep our discussions focussed and not confuse the
>two forums.
Well Jochen, all due respect, you did post your initial post to both
forums, prompting me to reply to both. Why didn't you show a pointer
to the archive on SRI the first time?
Regards
Dr. M S M Saifullah
On 12 Mar 1998 kh5...@usa.net wrote:
Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
Indeed the Day of Judgement is a promised day when Allah, the Almighty, the
Just and Wise will take mankind to task for what they uttered concerning
Him, His Prophets and His revelation. He knows all that is secret and
hidden, and is fully aware of those who gather to plot against the Truth.
And verily they plot and plan, and Allah is the best of planners, and the
plans of the disbelievers will come to naught, and for sure Allah will
gather the criminals all together in hell. What an evil end!!
> Many Moslem didn't know who is Abdullah Bin Sa'ad, now they know him
> and inshallah they will be proud of him and let those hate mongers be
> ashamed. So I call my brother Moslems to read Jochen's message again
> and see the deception used by the author (his own words) while
> comparing what he said to the quoted resources. and pray tell me isn't
> it pathetic? Alhamdulilah.
I must thank brother Khalid to end the arguments of this thread in a rather
fashionable way i.e., no quotations from any book, just simple commonsense.
Jazakum-allahu khairan! With this Katz's stuff about the 'Sources of the
Qur'an' (If one can call them!) at
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/
I am quite impressed! Let me add another nail to coffin (the nail were sent
to me by brother Ghoniem some 5 days ago :)
---------------
>From kitaab al-maSaHif by Ibn Abi Daawood !!, page 3 (see the photocopies you
sent to me Saifullah) :
Abdullah said Yunos Ibn Habib said Abu Daawood said Hammaad Ibn Salamah
reported from Thaabit from Anas Ibn Maalik that "a man used to write (the
revelation) for the Prophet (S) and when the Prophet dictated to him
'All-Hearing, All-Seeing' (Samme3an BaSeeran) he would write 'All-Hearing,
All-Knowing' (Samee3an 3aleeman) and when he dictated to him 'All-Hearing,
All-Knowing' he would write 'All-Hearing, All-Seeing'. And he had read as much
as surat albaqarah and Aal-3Imraan and the people who read as much have
actually read a big amount of the Qur'an. Then the man became a Christian and
said: " I used to write whatever I willed at Muhammad's" then that man died
and was burried but the earth rejected him, so he was burried again and the
earth rejected him again, and Anas (Ibn Maalik) said Abu TalHah said "I saw
him thrown on the face of the ground"
Here are some notes taken from a Ph.d study made on kitaab almaSaaHif by Dr
MoHibbiddeen AbdussubHaan Waa3iDh:
###########################
(*) this report is conveyed by Imaam al-bukhary in his SaHiH in his book
kitaab almanaaqib, in the section "the signs of prophethood in Islam" and by
SaHiH Muslim. this report was worded differently in fatH albaary from
alIsma3ily according to Ibn Hajar: the man used to say (after his apostacy)
"the best produced by Muhammad is what I wrote for him", in this version the
manipulation is underlying (or it seems so) but in the above report it is
worded clearly.
##########################
-------------------
I do not think the above needs any special elaboration. Regarding Katz's
deception, I am speechless! I have been refuting his stuff for quite some
time and I know how the missionary works.
On 12 Mar 1998, Adnan wrote:
> This article was also discussed on MCD. The article is written by such
> a low quality polemicist that he does not even mentions in the
> introduction that Abdullah ibn Sa'd was forgiven, and he later
> converted to Islam. Instead, the introduction is filled with rhetoric
> that Muhammad was a despicable man.. Also, none of the quoted sources,
> including Baydawi, actually say that the modern Quran has added verses
> by Ibn Sad. Neither does any secular biography, that I read, say that.
> I only heard this from missionaries, such as Jochen Katz.
Adnan! let me just quote one author on this issue of extremely low quality
polemics. Norman Daniel tells us in his work Islam and the West:
"The use of false evidence to attack Islam was all but universal ... " (p. 267)
False evidence to attack Islam, the Prophet (SAW) by the Christians in
Europe was (or is) quite common. Why not check out:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5603/lie.html
So, Muhammad (P) was a immoral, fraud and despicable man! I take refuge in
Allah! I think we muslims should turn back and say the same thing to the
person who said that.
As for the quotations from Baidawi, Katz has not worked on it yet. So, rest
assured, they would not be checked, inshallah. If checked we would come to
a different conclusion, f Allah wills. This is the problem when one
involves in "borrowing" blindly from a source and adapting it, without
verifying it.
On 12 Mar 1998 seeb...@hatespam.com.au wrote:
> I posted this first on MCD, but since Jochen has brought it up here:
Lastly, repeating the false arguments twice does not make it authentic.
Wassalam
Saifullah
ps: As for the linking of websites, Smith inc. and Katz inc. would be
rather scared to do it at proper places because it shows their scholarship
that has hit the nadir. So, do not get too concerned about it. It is all
natural. One has to understand that the truth has a habit of manifesting
itself however hard one may try against it.
Dr. M S M Saifullah
Post-Doctoral Researcher
Nanostructure Technology Research Group
Device Physics Research Laboratory
NTT Basic Research Laboratories
3-1, Morinosato Wakamiya, Atsugi-shi
Kanagawa Pref., 243-0198, Japan
Phone: +81 462 40 2634 Fax: +81 462 40 4317
Email: sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp
za...@ibm.net
> After the invitation is now expressed by Zaharuddin Fikri
> that it is allowed to ask questions and to examine the
> life of Muhammad let us begin with some examination on
> this one.
Sorry for the delay in replying, but a few worldly matters had to be taken
care of. In the interval I see that you have been kept "entertained" by
several of my more distinguished colleagues, so it appears there is nothing
substantially worthwhile to add except to note that though you have added
some sort of disclaimer in the footnote of this message, none appears on the
web address you referred to. Were you expecting different people to visit
there? Suspiciously so, it looks to me.
And not even the courtesy of a pointer to the answers received long ago on
this topic, which would have balanced the somewhat negative conclusions the
author was leading up to. That you already have received an answer and still
re-posted the same question is highly suspicious on the motivations for
doing so.
> The below seems to me the reasonable interpretation of
> the sources. But I am willing to be presented with a
> better explanation. What do you think of it?
Almost like an honest searcher for truth, but in light of the fact that
someone had already replied to this charge earlier, plus the fact that there
was no acknowledgement on that reply, plus no request for additional
information, only "what do you think of it?" seems almost like the actions of
someone with ulterior motives. I said almost, for only God knows the hearts
of men (though if you read comics, you'd say the Shadow does too, but that's
for children like myself).
> Note again: If anything is factually inaccurate, I am most
> willing to change the file.
The whole story is factually inaccurate. According to the standards of Muslim
hadith science, that is. And since we are supposed to be discussing Islam, it
would only be respectful to apply these sciences to that report. According to
al-bazzar, this report comes through the chain of humayd and thabit who are
not accepted by any hadith narrator for flaws in their reports.
There is another flaw in this report, which is, it is the words of the then
apostate and according to the science of truthfulness of the narrator,
narrators disregard the report of one who at the time of reporting something
was an unbeliever. Common sense shows that if even reports by Muslims
considered doubtful can be rejected by narrators, what more that of someone
who is anti-Islam, or while that person was in a state of anti-Islam. Is it
not explicit enough "Those who disbelieved in the signs of Allah forge lies.
These, they are the liars". (16:105)
Persistence is a virtue in most instances. But bull-headedness for the sake
of advancing what goes against common sense is the antithesis of virtue.
As for 6:93, if it was said to be related to this ibn sarh then it only shows
that it was he himself who was telling lies by these words, not the Prophet
(pbuh & hf).
wassalam,
Zaharuddin Fikri
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
mar...@vom.com
as-salamu 'alaykum.
seeb...@hatespam.com.au wrote:
>Well I FINALLY got some spare time at Uni and spent two and a half
>hours looking Abdullah Ibn Sa'd up. The chap doesn't get that much of
>a mention, although I did note Karen Armstrong's reference to his
>inclusion in the Satanic Verses as part of Rushdie's portreyal of
>Muhammad (alayhisalaam) as a cruel, heartless, dictator. I guess it's
>his fifteen minutes of fame.
Just a comment on the common misrepresentation of what is actually in
Rushdie's novel. First of all, the novel is not about Muhammad, and
Muhammad does not appear as a character in the book. However, there
*is* a character who is a figure in the dreams of a lunatic, a man who
imagines that he is the Angel Gabriel, and that he is revealing a
message to a prophet whose description is clearly based on that of the
Prophet. Now, dreams always have *some* basis in reality, but the
actions of a figure in a dream are not the actions of the figure on
whom that dream-figure is based.
Further, Mahound, the name given to the dream-prophet (and he *is* a
prophet in the dream), is a complex character himself. He is not the
same as the Muhammad we know and love, SAS, but he is not entirely
different, either. For the most part, he is one of the few really good
people in the book, but Rushdie is pretty cynical, and no character is
unblemished in the book. But whatever faults Mahound might have, they
existed solely in the imagination of the lunatic. It's completely
explicit in the book: this is not a portrayal of Muhammad.
There is a saying: if the shoe fits, wear it. Does this Mahound
character match Muhammad? If he doesn't, then why claim that the book
is about Muhammad? And if he does, then what is the problem?
What Muslims have consistently missed about the book is that the
narrator of the book is Satan. One might suspect that from the title,
but, of course, there is the red herring of the well-known "Satanic
Verses." Now, here comes a book and it says in big type on the cover,
"Satanic Verses." What is our response as Muslims?
The book itself casts *no* aspersions on Muhammad, his wives, or his
companions, for these do not appear in the book, even though there are
characters in the book with the same names. Satan is clever indeed,
for he leads *us* to cast aspersions on Islam. Had Muslims remained
silent about the book, it would have caused no harm to Islam whatever.
No person would have turned away from Islam because of it, no Muslim
would have suffered because of it. But I suspect that there are
thousands of people in the United States alone who became convinced
that Islam means fanaticism and intolerance, and who have as a result
failed to investigate the truth about it, because of the actual
response of Muslims to Satanic Verses.
Suppose someone writes a book, and it says, "Satan says that
Abdulrahman is a child molester." Has the writer of the book insulted
me? Hardly. I'd be laughed out of court if I tried to sue for injury
to my reputation.
So what did the Muslims who so loudly protested against this book
succeed in showing? That they could not read with understanding. And
this, indeed, has caused a great deal of harm to Islam.
Now, as to the other matter. It is alleged that Abdullah Ibn Sa'd
suggested amendations of the Qur'anic text to the Prophet, and the
Prophet, SAS, accepted some of these. This apparently caused a crisis
of faith for Abdullah, and he defected to the Quraysh over it. This is
the basis of a story in Satanic Verses, though it is, there, ascribed
to Salman Farsi, or, more accurately, to the dream-Salman. All these
stories are the dreams of a lunatic, reported on the tongue of Satan.
In a work of *fiction.*
Anyway, is it possible that the scribe of a prophet could suggest
corrections, and have them accepted?
Let me put it this way. It would not reduce my faith if it happened.
The Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet, SAS, but it is not an article
of faith that the Prophet did not in some way affect its language. I
tend to the view that he did not, that it is pure revelation *in
Arabic*, but we must note that he *rehearsed it* with the angel before
his death, and the need for rehearsal implies the possibility of
forgetfulness or error, at least in transit, so to speak. Suppose a
phrase seemed oddly worded to the scribe, and the scribe asked the
Prophet, SAS, about it, and the Prophet then corrected the phrase,
supposing that he had suffered from a slip of the tongue. The scribe
might actually be restoring the original revelation, but it might
appear otherwise.
Further, it is well-known that the Qur'an is replete with repetition
with small variations in each repetition. It is *very* difficult to
keep all of these straight, except for a few people with unusual
powers of memory (perhaps like what are known as idiots savant in
western psychology, because people with immediate and perfect recall
are often unable to *understand* what they can recall in perfection).
The rest of us must struggle until we have the recitation perfect.
So it is not impossible that the Prophet himself, SAS, varied in his
recitation from time to time. Maa nansakh min ayaatin aw nunsihaa,
naati bi khayrin minhaa aw mithlihaa. (2:106) Since he also thoroughly
understood the Qur'an -- and this is what made him a prophet as well
as a messenger --, he would not have changed anything that altered the
meaning away from the truth. Further, we may assume that all these
variations were ironed out in the final rehearsal. Or perhaps some of
them survive in the various readings.
But one who has a fixed and rigid understanding of what revelation
means might well be offended by a report like that of Abdullah bin
Sa'd, just as it appears that Abdullah himself, when he reflected on
it in his youth, was offended. But the mature Sa'd was able to see
beyond these immature impressions. And Allah is the Best Knower.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@vom.com
P.O. Box 423
Sonoma, CA 95476
USA
Jochen Katz
Greetings.
I forwarded various of the Muslim responses to the original author
of the article who enjoyed them so much that he liked to answer. I
don't want to deprive you of that. In the below is his response.
Whenever I have some additional thoughts of my own, mine is
initialled with JK.
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
============================================================================
[I will be breaking the response up in parts,
taking one argument at a time.]
MUSLIM RESPONSE #1, Part A:
In article <6e746g$a6g$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, kh5...@usa.net writes:
<<<Will I read the sources of the article and my answer to it is simply
by this small sentence:
Abdullah Bin Sa'ad turned to Islam and later became a good Moslem, if
all what you brought forward in the Article like:
> Eventually, Sarh left Islam, knowing it could not be from
> God if a mere scribe were allowed to change God's word.
If that is true then why did he return back to Islam?? isn't' it
written in your quoted resources that Abdullah had returned to Islam?
but of course it is not important to mention his return to Islam and
to remain a moslem even after the life of Mohammed PBUH.>>>
MY RESPONSE TO A
Yes, I didn't mention that Ibn Sarh returned to Islam. The reason I didn't
mention it was that he returned under duress. Muhammad had put out the word
that he was to be killed on sight. Ibn Sarh came and asked for Muhammad's
forgiveness only to avoid not being killed. It's a case of "if you can't beat
them, join them".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSLIM RESPONSE #1, Part B:
<<<Bin Alzubair was followed by Aban Bin Othman Bin Afan, then Wahb bin
Munbih, followed by many, most of them died before the first qurater
of the second century on the Islamic calendar like Shurahbeel (died
123 H.) Ibn Shiahb alzuhry (died 124 h.) Aasim Bin Omar Bin Qtadah
(died 120 h.) Abdullah Bin Abi Bakr (Died 135 h.)
Other who followed them were Mousa Bin Uqabh (died 141h.) Muamar Bin
Rashid ( died 150h.) And Ibn Isaq (152 h.)
So what do you mean by saying??
>NOTE: the Sirat Rasul Allah is the earliest and most authentic biography of
>Muhammad.
There are many books of sirah that are more nearer to the life of the
prophet PBUH than the one made by Ibn Isaq or Ibn Hisham's book. I
think there is a little misunderstanding here. let me put it this way
Ibn Isaq was not the first nor the last. and of course the same
applies to Ibn Hisham.>>>
MY RESPONSE TO B
If there are any other available Sirat literature in existance, I am not
aware of it. Everthing I have read about it says Ibn Hisham is the most
authentic. Most of Waqidi's work has been lost. Ibn Ishaq's original is
lost. I've never heard of the other Muslim writings. You could very well
be right, but I am not aware of them.
----
JK: I went to the Encyclopaedia of Islam and what I could understand
from the entry under SIRA only Wahb bin Munbih is mentioned as from
his work there exists a large papyrus fragment. All the others are not
even mentioned and it seems that they might have written biographies
but they do no longer exist.
So, Khalid, what is the point? Of Wahb there only exists a fragment
and nothing of the others as far as I can tell. The statement is
correct when read as meant:
NOTE: the Sirat Rasul Allah is the earliest and most authentic
EXTANT (available) biography of Muhammad.
Works that do not exist can hardly be the basis of our evaluation
of Muhammad as you will readily agree.
Should the Encyclopaedia not be up to date, maybe Khalid would like
to give a bibliography where the works of these people can be found?
What publishers? Or if not recently published, what Museums and
libraries have manuscripts of their works? We would indeed appreciate
such information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSLIM RESPONSE #1, Part C:
<<<The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. They were many indeed and non
of them claimed what Abdullah did here are some of their names:
The collection of the Quran in the hearts of believers.>>>
MY RESPONSE TO C
At first he says the scribes numbered 42... then he goes on to say that it
was orally transmitted? What gives? If Muhammad had scribes, then they
were writing it down. And, since the Quran was not finished until the
time of Muhammad's death, then no one had the entire thing memorized.
Further, other Hadith say the amount of "revelations" that were occuring
were greater in Muhammad's last days than in his earlier days.
Most of the rest of his response deals with the compilation of the Quran.
It isn't the topic of discussion, whether or not I agree with it. So,
I won't respond to that portion of his response that is not related to
the topic. I did find some things I could argue against, but not on
this topic.
============================================================================
MUSLIM RESPONSE #2 [I've broken this up into several parts again.]
In article <6e6k0d$fui$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
"Dr. M S M Saifullah" <sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp> writes:
PART A
<<<well, if it is the authentic biography why do not you quote the chain of
narration of the report? someone will, inshallah, take care of its
authenticity.
why do not you quote what is on top of this report and what is in the
bottom of this report? it is quite revealing sometimes.>>>
RESPONSE TO PART A
I don't follow his arguement here. He could check out the chain for
himself.
And note that Sai didn't deal with:
"He started saying, "I used to direct Muhammad wherever I willed.
He would dictate to me "Most High, All-Wise", and I would write
down "All-Wise" only. Then he would say, "Yes it is all the same".
On a certain occasion he said, "Write such and such", but I wrote
"Write" only, and he said, "Write whatever you like."
In which Ibn Sarh deleted some of Muhammad's comments. Is Sai saying
that Ibn Sarh also received "revelation" to abrogate Muhammad's words?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSLIM RESPONSE PART B
<<<From al-Itqaan fi 3Uloom il-qur'an by Jalaaluddeen aS-SuyooTy (page 74), I
quote the following:
#########################################################################
WHAT WAS REVEALED THROUGH THE TONGUE OF SOME SAHAABAH
It is actually a kind of asbaab annuzool (the reasons of the revelation), and
in the first place it is about "muwaafaqaat Omar" ("agreements with Omar", do
you have a better translation for muwaafaqaat to suggest? thanks.), and many
people made separate collections of them.
at-Tirmidhy reported from Ibn Omar that the Prophet (S) said " Allah made the
truth come from the tongue of Omar and his heart"
Ibn Omar said whenever the people were concerned by an issue and they gave
their opinion and Omar gave his, the Qur'an was revealed according to what
Omar said.... etc.>>>
RESPONSE TO PART B
Correct me if I am wrong, but Sai's arguement here says that
"the Qur'an was revealed according to what Omar said"
Well, I think that this supports my case. Other people than Muhammad
contributed to the Quran. Ibn Sarh realized this and promptly left Islam,
knowing it was not "divine revelation", but just talent.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSLIM RESPONSE PART C
<<<Muslim reported from Ibn Omar from Omar who said: " I agreed with my Lord
three times: concerning the veil, the prisoners of Badr, and the station of
Abraham."
Ibn Abi Haatim reported from Anas that Omar said: "I agreed with my Lord,
or my Lord agreed with me, four times: when the verse: "We created man of an
extraction of clay" was revealed ..." (23:12), I said "So blessed be Allah
the fairest of creators!" and then it was revealed "So blessed be Allah the
fairest of creators!"
1. show to us the chain of narration from sirat and its authenticity.
2. quote the whole argument (which could mean quoting two pages!) from
baidawi. and then inshallah, we will decide what is going on.>>>
MY RESPONSE TO C
The other Hadith say three times, Haatim says 4. In this case, dealing with
the compilation of the Quran, it is a noticable difference. I don't know who
Ibn Abi Haatim is. Is his saying reliable? And if Soyuti quoted from an
unreliable narrator, then, it is still not well supported.
I leave it as an excercise for Sai to type out all the text from these books.
I have Ibn Hisham, he should too. But I don't have Baidawi in English or
Arabic.
-------
JK: Actually, Saifullah wrote a little more, to which I like to respond.
} so katz, why do not you tell us the whole story from baidawi. it will be
} quite interesting again to see the whole argument in that book. suyuti says
} the last part of 23:14 "So blessed be Allah the fairest of creators!" was
} revealed through the tongue of 'umar (RA).
According to an Arab friend of mine who supplied the Arabic text of
Baidawi's quote, this is the complete comment by Baidawi on this aya.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/sarh.html
He typed it up for me directly out of the Tafsir by Baidawi.
I can only trust him on that. I don't read Arabic and have no
access to the work. If you disagree, then it is for you to bring
more of the quotation. I have no responsibility to invent for you
a longer quotation.
But I want to ask back to you. Is that ALL that Suyuti says?
Suyuti lived AFTER Baidawi and used his works. So, does he not
quote Baidawi and discuss it? What does he say about the issue
that Baidawi says it was `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh and that
Ibn Abi Haatim says it was Omar? I can hardly believe that YOUR
quote from Suyuti is complete. Now it is your turn.
My Arab friend says in response to Saifullah's quotes from Suyuti:
I could not find it in Baidawi Q.23:15 nor in the original
quotation that I have wrote in Arabic. Ask him to give you
the refrence from Baidawi. He will not be able to do so.
What is famous and motawater is that this other guy said it
and not Omar. This must be a later fabrication for obvious
reasons. Too much for the words of an infidle to be part of
the Qur'an! Even if Omar said it, did Gabriel inspire him?
Will that make him a prophet? Are they the words of Omar? etc.
I bet that you will find that the authority of Ibn Haatim weak
one. Let him give you the refrence to see how authentic this
Hadith was.
============================================================================
MUSLIM RESPONSE #3, Part A:
In article <6e7463$a57$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> writes:
<<<(1) Many Muslims, including myself, have been aware of the fact that the
actual Arabic wording has been influenced by people other than Muhammad.
There is, for instance, the story of the Blind Man whose protest caused a
change in Quran 4:97 from "Those of the believers who remain at home and
those who fight in the way of Allah are not alike." to "Those of the
believers who remain at home, except those who have a defect...">>>
MY RESPONSE TO #3:
I love it! So, Allah can't get it straight the first time,
it had to be changed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSLIM RESPONSE PART B
<<<Since the Quran is regarded as part of the Preserved Tablet, it is
understood that in essence it refers to a transforming force and to the
significance rather than the particular words. It has been rendered into
Arabic just as any any universal principle is given a particular form by the
needs of a particular time and place. It is also in this sense that Islam is
the Universal Religion, though its various dispensations through the
different Prophets are adapted to the times, place and people among whom it
comes.>>>
MY RESPONSE TO PART B
Altway writes:
"Islam is the Universal Religion, though its various dispensations
through the different Prophets are adapted to the times, place and
people among whom it comes" "transforming force"
Well, this sure doesn't sound like Muslim orthodoxy. Sounds more like
`covering the bases' apologetic work. One only needs ask why Allah
couldn't get it consistent ever. Sort of like a mix and match religion
then.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSLIM RESPONSE C
<<<(2) It is also necessary to understand that most of the Hadith are isolated
reports by people who have seen or heard something without necessarily
understanding what was going on. It is perfectly possible for the Prophet to
say one thing to one person and seemingly the opposite to another depending
on how the recipient understood the words and still produce the same
effects.>>>
MY RESPONSE TO C
Once again, a variation of the standard Muslim response on Hadith they
don't like, say it's weak, say it's invalid, or say we don't understand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUSLIM RESPONSE D
<<<What a shame that he has made so much effort in investigating a subject he
does not believe in, cannot understand, and has no intention of
understanding.>>>
MY RESPONSE TO D
On the contrary we understand real Islam quite well. We see its fruit
thru its existence, fruit of conquest, plunder and oppression of
non-Muslims. Fruits born in the Mideast today....Algeria, Afghanistan,
Sudan, Mali, Mauritania, Iran, etc. All related to using violence to
achieve one's means. Just like Muhammad used murder to get his way, so
real Muslims today kill those who oppose their various versions of Islam.
mar...@vom.com
as-salamu 'alaykum.
melr...@ptdcs2.intel.com (Muhammad Elrabaa) wrote:
>In article <6e7463$a57$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>(1) Many Muslims, including myself, have been aware of the fact that the
>>actual Arabic wording has been influenced by people other than Muhammad.
>
>The above should be corrected to:
>
>Many NON-Muslims (it is up to AltWay to include himself or not), have
>been falsely claiming that the Arabic wording of the Qur'an has been
>influenced by people other than Muhammad.
It appears that Br. Elrabaa did not carefully read what AltWay wrote.
I'd suggest going back and looking at it. He wrote of "influence" on
another level. And he cited an ayat as evidence. If one of the
companions asked a question, and this question was answered by
revelation, this is "influence" in the meaning of AltWay.
>All muslims believe that the Qur'an was completely preserved, and what
>we have today is what Angel Gebriel (alihi assalam) conveyed to the
>prophet (salla Allahu alihi wassalam) who in turn conveyed it to us.
This is the classical position, but it is expressed, as is the habit
of Arabs, with superlative language which strays slightly beyond the
bounds of complete accuracy. There are known variations in what we
have today; to say what Elrabaa says requires that we ignore these
variations. He used the word "completely," which does not allow the
slightest variation, and thus he opens a door for the critics of Islam
to assert that we do not know what we are writing about.
>No muslim can claim corruption of the Qur'an (and still remain a muslim).
I have a Qur'an on my shelf; it is a photocopy of a very old
manuscript, in fact, a manuscript which is sometimes claimed to be one
of 'Uthman's copies, RA. It contains some variations, including one in
particular, about which I have written in the past, at 3:37, which is
not found in the ten readings. Because this variation is isolated and
is of a kind which is not uncommon in written texts, as a scribal
error, we can say that this particular text of the Qur'an is "corrupt"
at that point. It's a technical term which means that some change has
occurred from the original. On the other hand, it is possible, but
very unlikely, that this text is correct and all the others are....
Anyway, no Muslim, and certainly not AltWay, claimed that the Qur'an
was corrupt. A single text or reading does not make the book on which
it is modelled corrupt.
>The Qur'an is preserved in both, meaning and text.
As to meaning, there are passages of the Qur'an which are quite
difficult to interpret. But perhaps somewhere, someone does know what
they mean. When Elrabaa says that it is preserved in "meaning," what
does he mean? Where is this meaning preserved?
Meaning is something which appears by the contact of text and heart.
It is inherently a living thing. We say that dead (or nearly dead)
things are preserved; we use different language for the fully alive.
Shall we say that the meaning of the Qur'an *lives* in the hearts of
those who know it and who are known by it?
As to text, there are variations in text, small though they be. As
AltWay would say, we know about these; they do not lessen our faith,
and we do not equate faith and denial of truth.
AltWay
In article <6ecmk3$hiv$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, mar...@vom.com wrote:
" It appears that Br. Elrabaa did not carefully read what AltWay wrote.
I'd suggest going back and looking at it. He wrote of "influence" on
another level. And he cited an ayat as evidence. If one of the
companions asked a question, and this question was answered by
revelation, this is "influence" in the meaning of AltWay.
I thank brother Lomax for his support. I hope his clarification, which I
accept, will also be acceptable to others who might have misunderstood.
I am sorry if I am not always lucid enough to avoid all misunderstandings.
kh5...@usa.net
On 13 Mar 1998 17:30:33 -0800, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
I wrote:
>If that is true then why did he return back to Islam?? isn't' it
>written in your quoted resources that Abdullah had returned to Islam?
>but of course it is not important to mention his return to Islam and
>to remain a moslem even after the life of Mohammed PBUH.>>>
>MY RESPONSE TO A
>
>Yes, I didn't mention that Ibn Sarh returned to Islam. The reason I didn't
>mention it was that he returned under duress.
Then why didn't you say something like " but after he changed the
Quran he became a moslem fearing to be killed" and you also add that
"he even spread the word of the Quran that he had changed through
Africa risking his own life" perhaps then you would get a perfect
objective primary school essay. Isn't this laughable?
> Muhammad had put out the word
>that he was to be killed on sight. Ibn Sarh came and asked for Muhammad's
>forgiveness only to avoid not being killed. It's a case of "if you can't beat
>them, join them".
I can understand that, but Sa'd really exaggerated in joining them
don't you think so? I mean to lead the Armies and to risk himself in
the sake of Allah and the Quran for the rest of his life. Was he, when
facing the death under the swords of the unbelievers, forced to? or
was he doing it willingly? tell us from the four resources that you
had made your fable from?
>If there are any other available Sirat literature in existance, I am not
>aware of it. Everthing I have read about it says Ibn Hisham is the most
>authentic. Most of Waqidi's work has been lost.
Lost ???? Do you want me to send you a copy for alwaqidi's book of
lamaghazi (sirah) they are in every library <laughing> there are many
other books that I will give you their names later and are only
manuscripts and not have been printed yet. and I'll tell you inshallah
where they can be found exactly.
> Ibn Ishaq's original is
>lost.
I am glad that you know this. by the way I made a mistake in my last
message in which I said " ibn Hisham he lived in the second
century after "hijra" in the Islamic calendar" where I should have
said in the third century, my mistake <g>
>JK: I went to the Encyclopaedia of Islam and what I could understand
>from the entry under SIRA only Wahb bin Munbih is mentioned as from
>his work there exists a large papyrus fragment. All the others are not
>even mentioned and it seems that they might have written biographies
>but they do no longer exist.
Isn't one is enough to show you that false statement among all the
false statements found in your friend's message? what? you want all
the books to be available while yet the book of Ibn Isaq is lost?
>JK: So, Khalid, what is the point? Of Wahb there only exists a fragment
>and nothing of the others as far as I can tell.
Will I gave your pal an example of a book that fortunately he know the
name of it's author Alwaqidy, and let me tell you this if you opened
the book of Ibn Hisham you would find dozens of quotations from works
that are earlier than Ibn Isaq, as for what is available in
manuscripts I can handle that inshallah.
>JK: The statement is
>correct when read as meant:
>
> NOTE: the Sirat Rasul Allah is the earliest and most authentic
> EXTANT (available) biography of Muhammad.
I don't know about you, you are free to chose what to believe in.
>JK: Works that do not exist can hardly be the basis of our evaluation
>of Muhammad as you will readily agree.
That's the best Joke I heard today. Thank you, Can you repeat what you
have just said <g>. You friend is making a long childish baseless
essay from sources that says nothing of what he say, and you are
talking about evaluation. isn't this funny> <laughing>
>JK: Should the Encyclopaedia not be up to date, maybe Khalid would like
>to give a bibliography where the works of these people can be found?
Do you want a copy too?
>JK: What publishers? Or if not recently published, what Museums and
>libraries have manuscripts of their works? We would indeed appreciate
>such information.
Yeah, I like the plural we <g>
>At first he says the scribes numbered 42... then he goes on to say that it
>was orally transmitted? What gives?
If you read my message carefully you would know the answer, so I am
not repeating it.
> If Muhammad had scribes, then they
>were writing it down. And, since the Quran was not finished until the
>time of Muhammad's death, then no one had the entire thing memorized.
Let me quote for you this evidence again:
>>>>
One simple evidence of how many people were memorizing the Quran by
hearts is that in only two battles, Beer Mouanh, & Yamamah, Moslem
lost 140 reciters as martyrs. Alqurtubi said " 70 of Quran reciters
were martyred on the day of yamamah and a similar number during the
days of the prophet in Beer mounah".
>>>>>
Do you think loosing 140 people who memorizes the Quran in 2 days is
little, and do you know when the battle of Yamamah took place? read my
message again :-)
Do you need more evidences?
>Further, other Hadith say the amount of "revelations" that were occuring
>were greater in Muhammad's last days than in his earlier days.
It was memorized letter by letter, as it is memorized today in all
over the globe by even children. all that is required to memorize it
is to have the desire to do so. I myself memorize most of it by
heart, I sleep with it and wake up with it, I even breathe it in as I
breathe in the smooth refreshing air, alhamdulilah, mayAllah help me
in completing it before I go <g> It is like the breeze, and I really
wish you know what you are missing!!
--
Salam
Khalid...
kh5...@usa.net
Assalmau Alaikum Brothers and sisters
Just after writhing a message under the same thread inquiring about
some resources from Jochen I found that the original author had the
answres mentioned on his page, but deleted and corrupted in Jochen's
page, an act of clear deception if you asked me <sigh>. I am so sorry
for Jochen, but the subject I think has reached it's end.
one simple word for Jochen, If I made the changes I am about to speak
about or if I thought I would speak to a christian brother I would
never lie. Alhamdulilah, because simply if I did I would be a man with
no faith or religion, God forbid.
But there are people who had thrown all their ethics and morals and
claimed to be religious people, these people are the worst of men. and
they don't deserve respect from others and they would even never
respect themselves, I wouldn't respect myself If I find myself in a
similar situation as the one Jochen had put himself into.
I am saying this for all the readers what ever their religion is to
know what type of people these people are.
My question that I have just sent was in it's complete form regarding
the source #3:
{{{{{{
=================
>#3 From Al-Sira by al-'Iraqi
First It would be interesting to have the full name of the book,
because there is no such a book I know of with the name " Al-sirah".
And Aliraqi has many books he even wrote poetry called "alalfyaah fi
al seerah alnabouyiah" praisng the prophet PBUH by narrating his life
in more than a thousand line of peotry.
Secondly the scanned Image for this source and which is posted on your
page at:
http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/sarh.html
Was ****NEVER***** taken from the same book mentioned above as the
third source. it is taken from *another book* and the image start
reading; " it is mentioned in the book of Alsirah for Aliraqi".
So what book the image was taken from?
It would be interesting to know. So can you provide these information?
1- what is the name of the book of Sirah written by Aliraqi?
2- what is the name of the book from which the image was taken from?
and who is it's author?
Because if you didn't provide the answers of the above questions it
would be a waste of time discussing anonymous writers opinions this
means deception and do you want to associate yourself with deceivers
do you? <G>
So the image as I said start with:
" it is mentioned in the book of Alsirah for Aliraqi" :
> The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. `Abdallah Ibn Sarh
> al-`Amiri was one of them, and he was the first Quraishite among
> those who wrote in Mecca before he turned away from Islam. He
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The sentence reads "then he turned away from Islam and..." not "before
he turned away from Islam..."
> started saying, "I used to direct Muhammad wherever I willed. He
> would dictate to me 'Most High, All-Wise', and I would write down
> 'All-Wise' only. Then he would say, 'Yes it is all the same'. On a
> certain occasion he said, 'Write such and such', but I wrote
> 'Write' only, and he said, 'Write whatever you like.'"
The above can be found in almost every history book about islam, any
way it only speaks about claims he made to the unbelievers of Mecca,
and it doesn't say that Abdullah *changed* the Quran, it reads "he
started saying".
> So when
> this scribe exposed Muhammad, he wrote in the Qur'an, "And who
> does greater evil than he who forges against God a lie, or says,
> 'To me it has been revealed',
The above cannot be the words of Aliraqi. it looks like comments made
by someone else [[[[[[ I DARE ]]]]]]]]] the author to prove it. fair
enough? in condition that your friend give us the name of the book of
Al iraqi and the name of the book the image was taken from. is that
hard to do?
I am saying this with confidence because I have enough resources and
know what historians say about Abdullah Bin Sa'ad and all of the
arguments and it is impossible for a scholar like Aliraqi to say;
"So when this scribe exposed Muhammad, he wrote in the Qur'an"
It is impossible for a person who wrote a thousand line in poetry in
praise of Mohammed PBUH to say the Above. <laughing>
So what you say My words or your friend's words? ha Jochen?
==========
}}}}}}}}}}}}
And Guess what the answer for the above questions I found on the
author's page was??? here you go:
>The al-Iraqi quote is from "Is the Quran Infallible?" by Abd al Fadi, pages 366-367
from <http://members.tripod.com/~Islam_Unveiled/sarh.html>
A book which seem to be one of the moon god type missionaries stuff.
Where Jochen speak of it as a dirct qoute from a book called Al-Sirah
for Ibn Aliraqi.
I wold love if the author give me the name of the book of Aliraqi, so
untill then I think I am done with the issue for now, and I am really
sorry for Katz, And I'll let the readers what ever their religion is
to judge for themselves. Alahamdulilah
--
Salam
Khalid...
AltWay
In article <6ecmjp$hif$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, Jochen Katz Re:-(1) Many Muslims, including myself, have been aware of the fact that
the actual Arabic wording has been influenced by people other than
Muhammad. There is, for instance, the story of the Blind Man whose
protest caused a change in Quran 4:97 from "Those of the believers who
remain at home and those who fight in the way of Allah are not alike." to
"Those of the believers who remain at home, except those who have a
defect..."
" MY RESPONSE TO #3:
I love it! So, Allah can't get it straight the first time,
it had to be changed?
Reply :-
Do not think I do not recognise the psychological mechanisms behind this
remark. Certainly it has nothing to do with a desire to know truth. You know
very well that Muslims do not mistake Muhammad for Allah.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MUSLIM RESPONSE PART B
Re:- Since the Quran is regarded as part of the Preserved Tablet, it is
understood that in essence it refers to a transforming force and to the
significance rather than the particular words. It has been rendered into
Arabic just as any any universal principle is given a particular form by
the needs of a particular time and place. It is also in this sense that
Islam is the Universal Religion, though its various dispensations through
the different Prophets are adapted to the times, place and people among
whom it comes.
" MY RESPONSE TO PART B
Well, this sure doesn't sound like Muslim orthodoxy. Sounds more like
`covering the bases' apologetic work. One only needs ask why Allah
couldn't get it consistent ever. Sort of like a mix and match religion
then.
Reply :-
Yes, it is my understanding of the Quran and I cannot speak for others. Nor
do I accept your phrase "Muslim orthodoxy". This refers to the dogmas of an
organised Church of priests which Islam does not have.
It is not difficult to understand that we all have experiences which we
translate into a verbal form and different people do it differently in
different times and places.
We also know about the verses in the Quran which speak about the abrogation
of some revelations and their replacement by better ones (2:106). We know
also that some Mosaic teachings were superceded by those of Jesus e.g about
divorce and that the formulation of the religious doctrines is certainly
different among the various Prophets of the Old Testament and between them
and Jesus. We know also about the need for "new bottles for new wine".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MUSLIM RESPONSE C
Re:-(2) It is also necessary to understand that most of the Hadith are
isolated reports by people who have seen or heard something without
necessarily understanding what was going on. It is perfectly possible for
the Prophet to say one thing to one person and seemingly the opposite to
another depending on how the recipient understood the words and still
produce the same effects.
" MY RESPONSE TO C
Once again, a variation of the standard Muslim response on Hadith they
don't like, say it's weak, say it's invalid, or say we don't understand.
Reply :-
What is wrong with these responses? We may not like something because we
think it is inconsistent with Islam. "Not liking" is not logically
equivalent to "true" or "valid". And it is also necessary to understand the
meaning of a statement with respect to the context and references. Some
statements even have a symbolic rather than literal meaning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MUSLIM RESPONSE D
Re :-What a shame that he has made so much effort in investigating a
subject he does not believe in, cannot understand, and has no intention of
understanding.
" MY RESPONSE TO D
On the contrary we understand real Islam quite well. We see its fruit
thru its existence, fruit of conquest, plunder and oppression of
non-Muslims. Fruits born in the Mideast today....Algeria, Afghanistan,
Sudan, Mali, Mauritania, Iran, etc. All related to using violence to
achieve one's means. Just like Muhammad used murder to get his way, so
real Muslims today kill those who oppose their various versions of Islam.
Reply :-
Aha. Here come the prejudices and the motives behind your articles. The
truth of something is to be judged by how you see some selected people
behaving.
In a previous article you claimed that you wanted to stick to discussing the
teachings, and did not want to judge them by what people did on the grounds
that Christian history is also full of the misdeeds of Christians. We find
this to be so even today in the case of Serbians for instance.
I did not really believe you then, but was willing to give you the benefit
of the doubt in case you might really have difficulties in understanding
formulations and notions foreign to you.
I see clearly now, as others will, that you see yourself in an anti-islamic
war, a continuation of the crusades, where all is fair, winning is important,
and truth, goodnes etc must not just be ignored but suppressed with
distortion.
This being the case, I for one, will no longer credit or value anything
you say. It would be a waste of my time reading and responding to you.
Saad Alfoudari
Adnan wrote:
[Deleted Text]
> etc., This further confirms that they can not defended the double
> standard against informed opposition on open forum. Instead, they
> removed me from MCD which is owned by Hyde Park Christian Fellowship.
> Charlie, supervisor of MCD, informed me that I was removed from the
> list because the list is only for believing Muslims and Christians.
> Interestingly, a Buddhist, named Metta, is allowed on MCD because she
> only attacks Islam. She is helpful to Jochen Katz and Christian agenda
I would like to comment on this matter. I did notice that sometimes,
some of the arguments used by Jochen could be equally (if not more) used
against Christianity. I can't say that this happens all the time, since
the nature of the topics usually touch different aspects, but it did
hapen. Some times I wondered if the person putting these arguments is a
Christian or an Athiest.
It seems that Christians prefer a debate with muslims not just because
they are believers in God, but because Christians actually have an
advantage over the muslims in one basic and fundamental matter. A
Christian feels free to attack any thing in Islam since Islam came After
Christianity (Unless something is matching), while a muslim simply can't
(although some muslims might have steped over the line.) This is simply
due to the fact that we can't always attack something in Christianity
just because it's not in Islam (Islamically, previous religions had
different laws.)
The reason behind this is probably that Christians think it's easier to
convert Muslims to Christianity by just keeping the part of the believe
that they want, and removing the part that they don't (havn't you
noticed that some Christians use the Qur'an, although they totally
reject it to be a revalation ?.)
If some one took a muslim, and removed the elements of his faith (which
included believing in earlier prophets), then what will he get? for such
a person, it is not so difficult to acuse Jesus (as) as being a
necromancer. A muslim can not, and should not do that (although a Jew
might do it).
Peace
Saad Alfoudari
OmarAziz
Salam
Jochen's friend wrote:
>And, since the Quran was not finished until the time of Muhammad's
>death, then no one had the entire thing memorized.
Jochen's friend forgot, conveniently so, that Prophet Muhammad recited
the *WHOLE* Quran from *memory* in one session at the farwell pilgrimage.
That was done in front of all Muslims and the last verse was 5:3.
So whether Abi Sarh changed the words or drew pictures didn't matter
so much. The efforts of Jochen and his budd are flushed away easily,
isn't that sad?
I agree with Muhammad Alrabaa with regard to the text, not the meaning
though. As to the stories about the influence of Omar in the Quran, the
desert sun creates some mirage.
Peace,
seeb...@hatespam.com.au
[note to mods, I just posted a version in which I had left more quoted
material than my post in - sorry]
>as-salamu 'alaykum.
>
wa 3laykumsalaam
>Just a comment on the common misrepresentation of what is actually in
>Rushdie's novel.
<snip of an interesting post>
I have to pop in and admit I have not read Rushdie's book. I was,
however, noting what Karen Armstrong wrote in hers which was what I
had paraphrased.
That having been said, woops for Karen, and I should have read
Rushdie's book before repeating what she wrote. Somehow I don't
really have a burning zeal to though *grin*.
seeb...@hatespam.com.au
On 13 Mar 1998 17:28:59 -0800, ri...@innocent.ANTI-SPAM.ORG wrote:
>
>Salam. have you tried ibn kathir "al bidaya wa al nihaya" ?
<snip>
Salaams,
I *do* thank you for your recommendations. I don't know how many of
us out there have stood at a University library's wall of books and
gone "heck where do I start - hmmm...anything that thick MUST be
reputable!", but I get that ALL the time.
Re: if I stood before Allah right now would I be a better person than
'Abdullah ibn Sa'd. You are right, I should leave it up to Allah to
judge! jazak allahu khayran.
kh5...@usa.net
Assalmau Alaikum Brothers and sisters
I am having server problems, so forgive me if this was not posted in
it's proper place in the thread <g>
On 13 Mar 1998 17:30:33 -0800, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
>But the topic of the article was NOT a full biography of `Abdullah
>but two other issues connected to his life:
The only issue was that he changed the Quran, so let us take it step
by step, dont you remeber I have reading problems <laughing>
> His words are taken over into the Qur'an, i.e. not all is from God.
For this issue you had provided several sources shall we look at them
again?
Here are the related passages from the sources with my comments but
Allow me to advance the source number three! for a reason you will
see right now:
=================
>#3 From Al-Sira by al-'Iraqi
First It would be interesting to have the full name of the book,
because there is no such a book I know of with the name " Al-sirah".
And Ibn Aliraqi has many books he even wrote poetry called "alafyaah
fi al seerah alnabouyiah" praisng the prophet PBUH by narrating his
life in more that a thousand line of peotry.
Secondly the scanned Image for this source and which is posted on your
page at:
http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/sarh.html
Was ****NEVER***** taken from the same book mentioned above as the
third source. it is taken from *another book* and the image start
reading; " it is mentioned in the book of Alsirah for Aliraqi".
So what book the image was taken from?
It would be interesting to know. So can you provide these information?
1- what is the name of the book of Sirah written by Aliraqi?
2- what is the name of the book from which the image was taken from?
and who is it's author?
Because if you didn't provide the answers of the above questions it
would be a waste of time discussing anonyomous wirters opinions this
means deception and do you want to associate yourself with deceivers
do you? <G>
So the image as I said start with:
" it is mentioned in the book of Alsirah for Aliraqi" :
> The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. `Abdallah Ibn Sarh
> al-`Amiri was one of them, and he was the first Quraishite among
> those who wrote in Mecca before he turned away from Islam. He
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The sentence reads "then he turned away from Islam and..." not "before
he...."
==========
>#1 SIRAT RASUL ALLAH
>Quoting from "The Life of Muhammad", A Guillaume's a translation of Ibn
>Hisham's "Sirat Rasul Allah", from page 550: [words in brackets [ ] are
>mine]
> The reason he ordered him to be killed was that
> he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he
> apostatized and returned to Qurahysh [Mecca] and fled to `Uthman
> b. `Affan whose foster brother he was.
>NOTE: the Sirat Rasul Allah is the earliest and most authentic biography of
>Muhammad. It was even written before the Hadith were compiled.
Dose the above said anything about changing the text? can't your read
the above? do I need to comment on it? tell me how this proves your
point Iam quoting below:
"His words are taken over into the Qur'an, i.e. not all is from God.
========================================
>#2 KITAB AL-TABAQAT AL-KABIR
> The apostle of Allah entered through Adhakhir, [into Mecca], and
> prohibited fighting. He ordered six men and four women to be
> killed, they were (1) Ikrimah Ibn Abi Jahl, (2) Habbar Ibn
> al-Aswad, (3) Abd Allah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, (4) Miqyas Ibn
> Sababah al-Laythi, (5) al-Huwayrith Ibn Nuqaydh, (6) Abd Abbah Ibn
> Hilal Ibn Khatal al-Adrami, (7) Hind Bint Utbah, (8) Sarah, the
> mawlat (enfranchised girl) of Amr Ibn Hashim, (9) Fartana and (10)
> Qaribah.
Again can anyone see in the above where did it says what Jochen + plus
his friend are saying?? no where at all it says:
" His words are taken over into the Qur'an, i.e. not all is from God."
Does it?
>Occasionally, the Sirat, and the Tabaqat use a different name for the same
>person. #3 in the list given above is such a case. The differences in the
>name is due to the amount of family lineage given for the man's name, and
>the english translation.
<laughing>
>Ibn Sa`d corroborates Ibn Ishaq and says on page 174:
>
> A person of al-Ansar had taken a vow to kill Ibn Abi Sarh [the
> already mentioned Abdallah] if he saw him. `Uthman whose foster
> brother he (Ibn Abi Sarh) was, came and interceded for him with
> the prophet. The Ansari was waiting for the signal of the prophet
> to kill him. `Uthman interceded and he [Muhammad] let him go. The
> the apostle of Allah said to the Ansari, "Why did you not fulfil
> your vow?" He said, "O apostle of Allah! I had my hand on the hilt
> of the sword waiting for your signal to kill him." The prophet
> said signalling would have been a breach of faith. "It does not
> behave the prophet to make signal."
Shall I repeat my question again? does the above say that Abdullah
changed the Quran? or does it support you statement:
"His words are taken over into the Qur'an, i.e. not all is from God."
Nope
============================
>#4 Al-Baidawi[1] commenting on the Qur'an, Sura al-An`am 6:93
> "'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to
> him" refers to `Abdallah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write
> for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man
> of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached
> the part that says, "... thereafter We produced him as another
> creature (23:14), `Abdallah said, "So blessed be God the fairest
> of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The
> prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed."
> `Abdallah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I
> receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar,
> what I said is a good as what he said."
I don't think you exactly read or understood the above, read what Br.
Saifullah qouted from the book of Alitqan for Alsayoti to understand
what is the meaning of the above.
So until you understand it and provide me with the names of the two
books I say to you I am waiting <g>
As for your other messages I'll answer them soon when I find time
inshallah but first things first, Okay?
--
Salam
Khalid...
Jochen Katz
[This was supposedly posted on Friday, but never showed up
here or on DejaNews, even though all my other postings came
through fine.]
In article <6eab2k$9be$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, kh5...@usa.net writes:
} > Muhammad and `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
I did write a little more than that!
} Who is Abdullah Bin Sa"d? the answer to this question is enough
} response to the whole article posted by Jochen. Abdullah Bin Sa'ad
} was not just an apostate who claimed to have *dictated* his own words
} into the Quran, he was more than this<g>
I never said otherwise.
In fact, the end of my posted article had this paragraph:
P.S. After Muhammad's death Ibn Abi Sarh rose to prominence
again and even became the governor of Egypt due to his closeness
to Uthman. However, that he again became an esteemed Muslim later
has no bearing on the issue of Muhammad's order of his death nor
the issue if his suggestions are to this day part of the Qur'an.
Those are the topic of this investigation.
But the topic of the article was NOT a full biography of `Abdullah
but two other issues connected to his life:
1. His words are taken over into the Qur'an, i.e. not all is from God.
hardly.
} Many Moslem didn't know who is Abdullah Bin Sa'ad, now they know him
} and inshallah they will be proud of him
I just had to requote this part. It is so telling.
} and let those hate mongers be
} ashamed. So I call my brother Moslems to read Jochen's message again
Thanks. Please do. I still hold it to be true from A-Z. Nobody
has refuted even a small part of it.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/sarh.html
is the place to look for it.
} and see the deception used by the author (his own words) while
} comparing what he said to the quoted resources. and pray tell me isn't
} it pathetic? Alhamdulilah.
So different can the impression be.
Farid Barkat
On 11 Mar 1998 14:45:23 -0800,
AltWay <ha...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>(1) Many Muslims, including myself, have been aware of the fact that the
>actual Arabic wording has been influenced by people other than Muhammad.
>There is, for instance, the story of the Blind Man whose protest caused a
>change in Quran 4:97 from "Those of the believers who remain at home and
>those who fight in the way of Allah are not alike." to "Those of the
>believers who remain at home, except those who have a defect..."
I copied below 4 Verses, and the closest one is look like 4:95
and 4:98, beside I could not find the word ILLA, translated
"except" in 4:95 but occured in 4:98.
can you clarify it for us which is which as well as the original
wording in Arabic, if it is Ok. thanks.
I am sorry if I misunderstood you.
(All are Pickthall translation)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Those of the believers who sit still,
other than those who have a (disabling) hurt,
are not on an equality with those who strive in the way of Allah
with their wealth and lives. Allah hath conferred on those
who strive with their wealth and lives a rank above the sedentary.
Unto each Allah hath promised good,
but He hath bestowed on those who strive
a great reward above the sedentary; (QS. 4:95)
Degrees of rank from Him, and forgiveness and mercy.
Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. (QS. 4:96)
Lo! as for those whom the angels take (in death)
while they wrong themselves, (the angels) will ask:
In what were ye engaged ? They will say:
We were oppressed in the land. (The angels) will say:
Was not Allah's earth spacious that ye could have migrated therein ?
As for such, their habitation will be hell, an evil journey's end; (QS. 4:97)
EXCEPT the feeble among men, and the women, and the children,
who are unable to devise a plan and are not shown a way. (QS. 4:98)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
Was Salaam
Farid Barkat
http://www.acay.com.au/~fbarkat/
Benelyas
> >Or perhaps it was the difficult life in Madinah that prompted him
>go back to Mecca. No no no... wait a minute, perphaps there was
>an alien ship that sent him signals and told him that Muhammed
>was a false prophet... no no no.. maybe Jesus (AS) came to him in
>a dream and told him to go shopping in Mecca and buy a gift
Actually a pretty good reply. This Joachem dude is absolutely the most truth
shader i have ever seen. I think the man is obsessed with Islam. I think it
emanates from being unsure about his own man god. What is he trying to do?
convert all Muslims to a religion that worhips a man god...who according to him
was killed by a bunch of my ancestors. A god incapable of defending himself is
indeed not worthy of worship.
but may be i am too simple minded.
Peace, Shalom.
Benjamin Ben Elyaser
kh5...@usa.net
On 14 Mar 1998 17:30:30 -0800, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
I wrote:
>} > Muhammad and `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
>I did write a little more than that!
I'm sure you did write more and more than what the sources say. so if
that what you mean by more then hey I agree <g>
>But the topic of the article was NOT a full biography of `Abdullah
>but two other issues connected to his life:
>
>1. His words are taken over into the Qur'an, i.e. not all is from God.
>
>2. When `Abdullah realized that this means Muhammad is no prophet
> himself and he left Islam, Muhammad's reaction is to order his
> assassination.
>
>The topic was the integrity of the Qur'an and the character of
>Muhammad, not the full history of `Abdullah ibn Sa`d's later life
>after the death of Muhammad.
You don't seem to understand do you? the sources doesn't say Sarh
changed the Quran, The Sira for Ibn Hisham [ the oldest available
sirah according to you] didn't say this. The Book of tabakat for Ibn
Sa'd which comes next to Ibn Hisham didn't say it, Albaidawee didn't
say it. So who did say it? It's Jochen! I wonder who is have problems
in reading?
Now you claimed that the man turning away from Islam means that the
Quran is not inspired then I said the man turning to Islam again and
to fight and to to risk his life for spreading it's words means the
opposite isn't that logical.
BTW after reading many resources on the man I can tell you the man had
first embraced Islam Just before the opening of Mecca and he
immigrated to Madinah to declare his Islam to the prophet PBUH in
Madinah then shortly he left Islam and returned back to Mecca and
spoken of how he fooled Mslems. so he wasn't one of the oldest scribes
of the prophet as you wish to imagine. and this information can be
found in almost all history books that include this story.
And as I said earlier the prophet had many scribes and non of them
claimed what Sarh claimed plus the Quran was memorized in the hearts
as soon as it was revealed + it was written down on different
available Item, so the matter is not what you might think it is. the
prophet was unlettered prophet who relayed on his memory to recite the
Quran. and it is not a matter that can be controlled by a single
person who shortly embraced Islam and turned away from it.
But any I read Alawaqidi narration of the story. he said that the Sarh
might have *said* something to the prophet and the prophet answered
him saying "that's indeed God". "dhalika hoo'a Allah".
Al waqidi said Sarh when returning to Islam was not even able to look
at the prophet eye to eye until the prophet asked Uthman about him.
Uthman said that he is so ashamed of his sin, then the prophet told
uthman to tell him that Islam forgives all past sins. Only them Sarh
was able to greet the prophet and look at him.
Sarh regardless of his relation to Uthman proved for all that he was a
true Moslem and even died while praying in Asqalan.
>But I am glad you recognize and acknowledge this:
>
>} Abdullah Bin Sa'ad
>} was not just an apostate who claimed to have *dictated* his own words
>} into the Quran, he was more than this<g>
>
>Yes, he was more. But he was this too as your words admit.
>I wonder that you can pass over that so lightly and it doesn't
>bother you the least bit. I do not understand that.
Of course it doesn't bother me a bit. Do you think that you were the
person who invented this story <laughing>? do you think no body knew
it before? It might be a new toy for you. the man had made *claims*
after his short conversion. these are claims not true, there is a big
difference if you would like to take it as something true so what can
I do for you?
Someone have mentioned Judas for example read:
15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him
unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
So according to your logic then Jesus is not the Messaiah because one
his apostles betrayed him, do you accept this? of course not? do we
accept this hmmm What does Judas betrayal tell us about Jesus?
Or why you should believe Paul? wasn't he nce the worst enemies of
Jesus and his companions?? you don't have any arguments but rather
childish suggestions. do you want me to right childish stories about
Judas and Jesus. Grow up!
>All of this is true but without relevance for the integrity of
>the text of the Qur'an and that Muhammad tried to silence
>`Abdullah originally by giving the order to execute him.
Yeah and Judas also made his point clear about the personalty of Jesus
didn't he? <sigh>
>} Isn't that enough answer?
>
>hardly.
And now? but hey did Judas repent or maybe he was killed to make him
shut up and then said that he killed himslef Blah blah Blah <laughing>
>} So Moslems should be proud of his
>} contributions to Islam and his success of spreading Islam in Africa
>} and his role in the famous battle of zat alsawri.
>
>Hm, does that sound like Islam was spread by military force
>after all?
Let me tell you this; Did the tens of years of Christian colonization
of Most of the third world including the Islamic world lead to the
spread of Christianity in the Islamic countries? not an atom size! a
change took place. Algeria for example was controlled by the french
for about 100 years did Moslem convert? not an atom size of affect on
religion have been achieved? and look at Algeria today Islam want's
rule???
because religion cannot be forced but rather chosen. Moslem might have
conquered these Areas but Islam spread like fire and history proved
it. and when Islam comes it comes to stay for ever inshallah.
Countries can be qounquerd but heart cannot, and that's what we mean
by the spread of Islam.
So think about this if tens of years was not able to convert moslems
do you think that you by attaking us with your type of love and peace
wil be able to do it? what a faith do you have? I wouldn't take it for
free if you are an example for it.
--
Salam
Khalid...
Jochen Katz
In article <6emt6h$5...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
kh5...@usa.net writes:
} >But the topic of the article was NOT a full biography of `Abdullah
} >but two other issues connected to his life:
} >
} >1. His words are taken over into the Qur'an, i.e. not all is from God.
} >
} >2. When `Abdullah realized that this means Muhammad is no prophet
} > himself and he left Islam, Muhammad's reaction is to order his
} > assassination.
} >
} >The topic was the integrity of the Qur'an and the character of
} >Muhammad, not the full history of `Abdullah ibn Sa`d's later life
} >after the death of Muhammad.
}
} You don't seem to understand do you?
It seems to be debate betweenn dummies then. None understands
the other. Or maybe, we just have two different things or
priorities we look for and base our evaluations on?
} the sources doesn't say Sarh
} changed the Quran, ... Albaidawee didn't
} say it. So who did say it? It's Jochen! I wonder who is have problems
} in reading?
Let's see... I have answered this before. So let me just
cut and paste the paragraph from my earlier article
<6ecmjm$hia$1...@waltz.rahul.net> from Fri Mar 13 1998:
#4 Al-Baidawi in his famous famous Tafsir
Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta'wil commenting on the Qur'an,
Sura al-An`am 6:93 writes:
"'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to
him" refers to `Abdallah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write
for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man
of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached
the part that says, "... thereafter We produced him as another
creature (23:14), `Abdallah said, "So blessed be God the fairest
of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The
prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed."
`Abdallah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I
receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar,
what I said is a good as what he said."
This is to the best of my knowledge al-Baidawi's complete comment
on this verse. To me this tells that Muhammad accepts formulations
of Abdullah into the Qur'an. Abdullah was a scribe, and intelligent
man and obviously had a feel for literature. He had some insights
as to great reformulations/additions and he suggested them to
Muhammad. And Muhammad liked them and asked him to add it to the
text. Isn't that exactly what al-Baidawi said? Would Adnan explain
how he reads this passage? I can't read it any other way currently.
But with a little help of our master interpreter, we will soon
all understand this better.
} Now you claimed that the man turning away from Islam means that the
} Quran is not inspired
I never said that. The issue is not that he turned apostate,
the issue is WHY he turned apostate.
} then I said the man turning to Islam again and
} to fight and to to risk his life for spreading it's words means the
} opposite isn't that logical.
Again, the converion to Islam is not what is essential, the
reason WHY is important. Ibn Abi Sarh turned away when he
realized that he could change the Qur'an and Muhammad accepted
his words to be written as God's word. That is the reason for
his doubt and leaving Islam.
The reason for his re-entering is the threat of death.
Certainly a potent reason, don't you agree? But not one
from which you can derive the truth of its message.
} Sarh regardless of his relation to Uthman proved for all that he was a
} true Moslem and even died while praying in Asqalan.
This is irrelevant. That happened many years later and
he might just have gotten used to play Muslim, or, as
many are deluding and deceiving themselves, he might
have made himself go through the motions long enough
until he believed it again. But the later life is of
no importance for evaluating the earlier events.
Our earlier life and experiences influence our latter,
but our later life does not influence our earlier decisions.
So, later acts should be evaluated in light of earlier ones
but not the other way around.
} Someone have mentioned Judas for example read:
}
} 15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him
} unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
} 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
}
} So according to your logic then Jesus is not the Messaiah because one
} his apostles betrayed him, do you accept this? of course not? do we
} accept this hmmm What does Judas betrayal tell us about Jesus?
Judas probably was a political hot-head, a revolutionary. He had
hoped that Jesus as the Messiah would throw out the Romans and as
time went on Jesus would not satisfy this desire of his. Judas
probably tried to force Jesus to reveal his power by having him
arrested. After he reealized that Jesus would not even then become
political but rather suffer and die, Judas despaired and committed
suicide.
Yes, Judas had false expectations of Jesus. But that is his
problem, not ours. The treason of Judas does not in any way
implicate Jesus and his ministry.
The reason for Abdullah to leave Islam is intimately connected
with the claim that the Qur'an is word for word from God.
He realized that it couldn't be if he could make suggestions
that are accepted by Muhammad into the text. So he left. And
that strikes at the heart of the nature of the Qur'an and
of Muhammad's integrity in the matter.
} Or why you should believe Paul? wasn't he nce the worst enemies of
} Jesus and his companions?? you don't have any arguments but rather
} childish suggestions. do you want me to right childish stories about
} Judas and Jesus. Grow up!
Yes, Paul was a bad enemy of Jesus and the Christians orginally.
All the more does his conversion support the reality of the
Christian message when he becomes its most ardent defender and
apostle later.
Wasn't Umar or Uthman [forgot which] persecuting the Muslims
orginally? Isn't it a positive argument for Islam that he
later converts? I think that is a argument in support for
the Qur'an in the same way as Paul's conversion is in support
of the validity of the Christian faith.
I think I have a grown up mind. And I have no clue what you
meant to say with your comparison which are between toasted bread
and beef steak (just trying to say it is a lot more different
than apples and oranges).
Maybe you want to try explain again?
The issue is the REASON for conversion (in or out of a religion),
not the fact of conversion. There millions of conversions every
year. Some for good and some for bad reasons. A conversion in
itself is no evidence for the truth of the thing converted to.
} >All of this is true but without relevance for the integrity of
} >the text of the Qur'an and that Muhammad tried to silence
} >`Abdullah originally by giving the order to execute him.
}
} Yeah and Judas also made his point clear about the personalty of Jesus
} didn't he? <sigh>
< S I G H >
} >} Isn't that enough answer?
} >
} >hardly.
}
} And now? but hey did Judas repent or maybe he was killed to make him
} shut up and then said that he killed himslef Blah blah Blah <laughing>
Look, try to argue rational and there is no need for "sight" and
"laughing" and "blah blah" and all of that.
No, nothing has changed. YOu have not explained anything so far.
Your examples are not applicable because they have no similarity.
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
Julian Symes
Assalaamu aleikum
What seems to be agreed upon is that
1. `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh was one of the scribes of Muhammad,
may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him.
2. `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh left Islam
3. He subsequently claimed that he had suggested rewordings of the
Quran which the Prophet had accepted.
Jochen and his friend claim that the scribe's apostasy was due to the
acceptance by the Prophet of the amendments. This claim is perverse
and illogical: for it would imply that `Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi
Sarh had first suggested amendments at a time when he was yet a
committed Muslim. It is not plausible that the scribe would have even
dared to venture such suggestions had they not been within the bounds
of what one might term the 'mechanics of revelation', as understood at
the time by both prophet and scribe, regardless of how Jochen et al.
believe 'most Muslims' now think about these mechanics. Therefore,
when 'Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh did leave Islam, it was not
because of these events.
Even if we take the story at face value, the most that can be inferred
is that subsequent to the events 'Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
himself changed his mind about the nature of revelation for some other
reason, and re-evaluated the past events. That in itself, even if
true, proves nothing one way or the other about the integrity of the
Prophet and the Truth of the Qur'an.
A much more natural interpretation of the apparent events is that the
scribe left Islam for other reasons which we do not know. or was a spy
in the first place, and exploited his former position of trust to
attempt to discredit the Prophet. In anybody's book that is treason.
>Sarh eventually left Islam because he knew that no mere scribe should be
>allowed to change something that was proclaimed to be the word of God. The
>changes were frequent enough that it caused Sarh to realize that something
>was amiss.
He left Islam, agreed. The rest, which forms the substance of the
posting, is all pure and manifestly perverse conjecture for which no
evidence is offered.
All in all this is yet another example of Katz and his chums trying to
make something out of nothing. It is no wonder people doubt his
integrity when he presents material as flimsy as this. He can't
possibly think it would bother a Muslim with a good grasp of his
religion, or even one who bothered to read his posting carefully and
think it through, so we are left with the conclusion that his real
intention is to create doubt and uncertainty in the minds of Muslims
who maybe aren't so knowledgeable, or who are just passing through, or
who aren't able to see the serious flaws in his material - in other
words to pick off, predator style, the young, the weak and the lame.
If Jochen were to be shown that his efforts cause misery and confusion
among the young and impressionable, I wonder if he would feel proud.
I think it's all rather shabby and rather sad.
Wassalam, Julian
Khalid...
First of all I'd like to remind Jochen that I am still waiting for the
name of the book for Hafez Aliraqi ! I had already revised many of his
work and even his son's work and even their resources but still
couldn't find the quoted passage which you used as the third resource,
so I am still waiting. is that a hard thing to give me the book's
name?
I'll Also check Albaidawee quotation which I didn't yet checked
because I can simply see that it doesn't say what you understand of
it, but hey l'll check it anyway.
So don't forget.
On 19 Mar 1998 19:31:37 GMT, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
>Judas probably was a political hot-head, a revolutionary. He had
>hoped that Jesus as the Messiah would throw out the Romans and as
>time went on Jesus would not satisfy this desire of his. Judas
>probably tried to force Jesus to reveal his power by having him
>arrested. After he reealized that Jesus would not even then become
>political but rather suffer and die, Judas despaired and committed
>suicide.
Ok so you don't want me to laugh, I wont. but I'll be using you own
words to let you see how smart person you are. and don't come to me
saying "probably and perhaps" I am only using **your** own arguments
and words. so here we go:
The issue is not **who** is Judas but the issue is **WHY** did Judas
betrayed Jesus PBUH?? <don't you even remember your own arguments?>
As you have said it WHY did [Judas] betrayed Jesus PBUH after seeing
all the miracles that no man can deny! perhaps he saw that what Jesus
claimed was all a hoax and couldn't go on with it because he was so
truthful to himself and a very sincere person who didn't like to see
these errors to spread any further??? then was killed and claimed
later that he had committed suicide and some said that he had bursted
as in <act 1:18>: "he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels
gushed out."??? So who we should believe? these are two contradictory
statements! did he committed suicide or had bursted?
So you are saying "probably" and I am saying facts, the facts are that
Judas was close to Jesus and he knew everything about him and his work
He was not testing Jesus but he was betraying him and planing to hand
him to his enemies who wants to kill him, he knew of their intentions
and he know Jesus very will. furthermore he knew all a long about all
the teachings of his. he was closer to him than any Christian on the
globe, and he didn't wanted to continue with him, because of his
knowledge of him.
Anyway if a person so close to Jesus PBUH had betrayed him then one
really must ask WHY? isn't this an important matter for Christians to
learn about their God if one of his so close men have decided to hand
him to his enemies after all what he have seen of him [jesus] the
logical answer to this then there must be something wrong. a bright
person like Judas or any man with little brain would be able to see
that Jesus is not what Christians claim of him because if it is so
then Judas wouldn't even consider other thoughts!. But Judas didn't
see him as what do Christians today claim of him and he was a very
smart person.
So why did Judas betrayed Jesus?
Isn't this the whole argument of yours?
>Yes, Judas had false expectations of Jesus. But that is his
>problem, not ours. The treason of Judas does not in any way
>implicate Jesus and his ministry.
When a person so close to Jesus betray him or refuse to believe any
more then this by itself is a declaration of facts about the
personality of Jesus. and what do you have to support your new
"expectations" arguments? Jesus is your god and his apostle rejected
him with dtermention read:
" And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and
with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief
priests and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed him gave them a
sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him
fast."
Are these the words of aperson who is anticipating anything? no he is
so determined to have him captured. if he had any doubt that Jesus was
a god he wouldn't do it for this little doubt but the man is so sure
about it.
And hey he was chosen and ***blessed** by Jesus. If Jesus was a god
then his words and blessing shouldn't be forgotten so easily right?
" And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them
he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
[.....]
" And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said, ***Blessed**
be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God. ***Blessed*** are ye
that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. ***Blessed*** are ye that
weep now: for ye shall laugh. ***Blessed** are ye, when men shall
hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and
shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of
man's sake. **Rejoice** ye in that day, and leap for joy: for,
behold, your ****reward is great in heaven:***** for in the like
manner did their fathers unto the prophets.
All these blessing and promises of reward of heaven, what happened to
it? are these just empty words?
Was Judas when he died was rich? or full? but after all that he has
seen was enough for him to betray Jesus for a a number of silver
coins, does the cheap thirty pieces of silver means that Judas was
looking for earthly matters?
>The reason for Abdullah to leave Islam is intimately connected
>with the claim that the Qur'an is word for word from God.
>He realized that it couldn't be if he could make suggestions
>that are accepted by Muhammad into the text. So he left. And
>that strikes at the heart of the nature of the Qur'an and
>of Muhammad's integrity in the matter.
But Abdullah Bin Sa'd had repented and if he had said these claims
because he returned to Mecca where if he said that he is a Moslem he
would be killed on the spot, he was forced to say these claims in
order to prove that he is was longer a moslem. anyway all the reports
that speak of the event is talking about what Abdullah said when he
returned to mecca and they say these are what Abdullah had claimed, so
where is the problem in this? there is no problem at all and please
read how the Quran was collected again to see how worng these
statments are. a single person cannot change the word of God when
there are tens of reicters and scribes who rcite it more than five
times a day, in prayers and in their homes, see where did you go
worng?
>Yes, Paul was a bad enemy of Jesus and the Christians orginally.
>All the more does his conversion support the reality of the
>Christian message when he becomes its most ardent defender and
>apostle later.
Well some people doubt that.
>Wasn't Umar or Uthman [forgot which] persecuting the Muslims
>orginally? Isn't it a positive argument for Islam that he
>later converts? I think that is a argument in support for
>the Qur'an in the same way as Paul's conversion is in support
>of the validity of the Christian faith.
Not at all, timing is a very important in these kind of issues and the
context of their conversion are also very important esp. when the
whole faith would be established on their ideas and thoughts, Umar and
Uthman were among the first people who turned to Islam and they
converted to Islam in the presense of Mohammed PBUH they didn't see
him in a vision as Paul with Jesus. there is a big difference between
reality and vision. and also the law of Islam was not based on Umar or
Uthman opinions and Ideas while in your case is the oppsite, a great
black cloud of doubt if you asked me.
>I think I have a grown up mind. And I have no clue what you
>meant to say with your comparison which are between toasted bread
>and beef steak (just trying to say it is a lot more different
>than apples and oranges).
And I think too you have a grown up mind this is why you have SO MUCH
TROUBLE in you faith. face it this is your whole problem. because if
you are satisfied with it you wouldn't be wasting your time as an
addict to Islamic issues, don't be arrogant just say it. We are very
pleased with what we have. You will never find a person (muslim)
spamming other groups of messages to call to Islam or to prove others
wrong. because we are happy with what we have and you are not. If you
can't explain trinity then hey you are wasting your time. I am so
frank with you.
BTW many of the things I said in this message doesn't refelct my
attitude towards Christinaty or Christians but my attitudes towards
Jochen's faith which I am sure it doesn't have anything to do with
Christianty and Iam just using it to show Jochen his logic concerning
the question "why"?
>The issue is the REASON for conversion (in or out of a religion),
>not the fact of conversion. There millions of conversions every
>year. Some for good and some for bad reasons. A conversion in
>itself is no evidence for the truth of the thing converted to.
--
Salam
Khalid...
khadijah chadly
{Our earlier life and experiences influence our latter,
{but our later life does not influence our earlier decisions.
{So, later acts should be evaluated in light of earlier ones
{but not the other way around.
Jochen Katz wrote the above statement and I wonder if we could apply
this to The Apostle Paul.
This kind of logic where you keep jumping from subject to subject,
making parallels and asumptions with all your "IFS", only make us know
that you hate Mohammed* but we love Jesus*.
this situation is like somebody who has a scab and can't stop
scratching. The scab is his hatred and the arguments are the scratching
that he needs so badly to keep the wounds fresh.
The example of beni Quraiza and the Palestinians is a ridiculous
parallel . It can only be true if the Prophet is a false prophet and a
murderer, which is what you believe. That's the scab , the hate , that is in
your heart.
Yassir
Maryam Butson
Salaams,
>If Jochen were to be shown that his efforts cause misery and confusion
>among the young and impressionable, I wonder if he would feel proud.
>
>I think it's all rather shabby and rather sad.
>
My own rather emotional response mirrors what a friend of mine posted
to me on a related topic, albeit he was coming at it from a different
angle. But simply this. Actively seek to destroy a person's faith in
one Messenger of God and you destroy it in all of them. Once that
precious trust of simple loving faith is lost, a negative sceptic is
born. Jesus (alayhisalaam) never won people to his cause by degrading
another. Whilst he may have spoken out against the ills in society,
even Judas he did not spit on. This line of debate can only foster
atheism IMHO.
Farid Barkat
On 10 Mar 1998 12:17:54 -0800,
Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
As Salaamu Alaykum Brothers and Sisters in Islam.
I was reading this thread and tumble on something.
>`Abdullah eventually realized that if this Qur'an were truly from
>God, no changes would be made at his suggestion. Sarh realized Islam and the
>Qur'an were false and went back to Mecca.
>From where ?
>Note here that the Qur'an itself, revealed in regard to Sarh in 6:93, calls
>Sarh extremely wicked.
Chapter 23---MU'MINUN is M E C C A N Chapter, and
Chapter 6 'AN'AM is also M E C C A N Chapter.
You can check as many sources as you like.
So, what you say is:
`Abdullah ibn Sarh was already mentioned as "extremely wicked"
as per your wording above, while he also was STILL in MECCA,
but The Holy Prophet S.A.W did not understand what was revealed
to him, so the blunder continues all the way to Madinah.
But, since you don't believe Al Qur'an from ALLAH, than what
actually you say is, HE (S.A.W) did not know what He was saying.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Farid Barkat
http://www.acay.com.au/~fbarkat/
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu> wrote:
> "'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to
> him" refers to `Abdallah Ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write
> for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man
> of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached
> the part that says, "... thereafter We produced him as another
> creature (23:14), `Abdallah said, "So blessed be God the fairest
> of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The
> prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed."
> `Abdallah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I
> receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar,
> what I said is a good as what he said."
I previously made comments on this without benefit of access to
Baydawi's commentary. The commentary confirms what I had suspected; if
the hadith is true, it only establishes that Abdullah was able to
anticipate a revealed verse. There is nothing impossible about this.
Abdullah's conclusion, however, as reported, overstepped the bounds.
To be able to enter the mood of the Qur'an and to make a spontaneous
exclamation which anticipates a phrase is not at all the same as to
transmit reliably the revelation of Allah. I could add, "If the hadith
is true, then I receive the revelation as much as Abdullah did."
And may Allah protect me from the only real danger that can harm me:
my own arrogance.
>This is to the best of my knowledge al-Baidawi's complete comment
>on this verse. To me this tells that Muhammad accepts formulations
>of Abdullah into the Qur'an.
Mr. Katz is far too intelligent to be unable to notice that the hadith
only indicates that Abdullah anticipated a phrase. It is not possible
to tell, solely from this report, if Muhammad, as Katz charges,
thought it was a good idea and so put it in, or if he was *truthful*
in what the hadith reports he said: what Abdullah said was indeed what
Allah had revealed.
There is nothing offensive to me in the report that a man said a piece
of the Qur'an before the Prophet transmitted it.
>Abdullah was a scribe, and intelligent
>man and obviously had a feel for literature. He had some insights
>as to great reformulations/additions and he suggested them to
>Muhammad. And Muhammad liked them and asked him to add it to the
>text. Isn't that exactly what al-Baidawi said?
No. Jochen, read it again. What it says is that the Prophet, SAS,
responded to Abdullah by saying "write it down, for thus it has been
revealed."
A great deal hinges on our relation to the Prophet. If we think that
he was truthful, then this incident is not a problem at all. If we
think that he was a liar, then one can make of it whatever one wants.
>Would Adnan explain
>how he reads this passage? I can't read it any other way currently.
Read it literally. It's extremely simple. The Prophet is transmitting
revelation. His scribe spontaneously makes an exclamation, and the
Prophet confirms that this exclamation is indeed the next phrase.
Where's the beef?
>But with a little help of our master interpreter, we will soon
>all understand this better.
That was someone other than me.... This particular incidenct does not
take any great feat of interpretation.
>} Now you claimed that the man turning away from Islam means that the
>} Quran is not inspired
>
>I never said that. The issue is not that he turned apostate,
>the issue is WHY he turned apostate.
It's obvious why. His ego ran away with him. He interpreted the
incident as meaning that his own inspiration was as good as that of
the Prophet, SAS.
>} then I said the man turning to Islam again and
>} to fight and to to risk his life for spreading it's words means the
>} opposite isn't that logical.
>
>Again, the converion to Islam is not what is essential, the
>reason WHY is important. Ibn Abi Sarh turned away when he
>realized that he could change the Qur'an and Muhammad accepted
>his words to be written as God's word. That is the reason for
>his doubt and leaving Islam.
Yes, except I would change "realized" to "thought." Abdullah was tried
severely and, at first, it was too much for him. But not in the end,
al-hamdu lillah.
>The reason for his re-entering is the threat of death.
>Certainly a potent reason, don't you agree? But not one
>from which you can derive the truth of its message.
Mr. Katz should know that if he consistently places the worst
interpretation on events and reports this interpretation as if it were
truth, he will roast in the fire for the sin of false witness. I warn
him, Jesus, AS, warns him, the Qur'an warns him, his own conscience
warns him. He has been warned.
Abdullah bin abi Sarh, it appears, not only returned to Islam but
fought valiantly for the cause. If he, being brave enough to leave the
Muslims at the risk of his own life when he doubted the Prophet, as
Jochen has so readily asserted, returned in fear of death, why did he
not simply fade into obscurity?
>} Sarh regardless of his relation to Uthman proved for all that he was a
>} true Moslem and even died while praying in Asqalan.
>
>This is irrelevant. That happened many years later and
>he might just have gotten used to play Muslim, or, as
>many are deluding and deceiving themselves, he might
>have made himself go through the motions long enough
>until he believed it again. But the later life is of
>no importance for evaluating the earlier events.
The earlier events are clear, and it is also clear that Mr. Katz is
trying to twist them to suit his own agenda. He should stop and think
a bit. He has raised far more difficult issues than this; but even
then, what is the outcome he seeks?
If he succeeds in taking away the faith of a Muslim -- not that he
could do this without the permission of Allah -- does he think that
such people will automatically find what he imagines is the "true
path."
If it were proven to me that Muhammad, SAS, were a liar and the Qur'an
a hoax, a'udhu billah, I would not become a Christian; I would be far
more likely to turn away from the whole mess....
No, I would turn to Allah, for he is who he is, in his essence, even
if we can err in details. To me, *this* is islam, and my testimony
that Muhammad, SAS, is the Messenger of Allah is a *consequence* of my
islam, not a cause of it.
If Allah wanted to make me a Christian, to, a'udhu billah, worship Him
in the flesh, he knows full well how to do it, and he is Able to
effect his wish. However, even writing it puts a bad taste in my
mouth. Glory to God, who is above what is said about him.
>Our earlier life and experiences influence our latter,
>but our later life does not influence our earlier decisions.
>So, later acts should be evaluated in light of earlier ones
>but not the other way around.
A convenient rule which does not allow for the fact that people on
reflection think differently than they think, sometimes, in the
passion and hot-headedness of youth. But Jochen is young.
[...]
>The reason for Abdullah to leave Islam is intimately connected
>with the claim that the Qur'an is word for word from God.
>He realized that it couldn't be if he could make suggestions
>that are accepted by Muhammad into the text. So he left. And
>that strikes at the heart of the nature of the Qur'an and
>of Muhammad's integrity in the matter.
Yes. However, what was the basis of the conclusions of Abdullah? In
order to truly make that conclusion, he would need to know that *he*
was the cause of the "insertions." How could he know this?
The answer is that, at least with the kind of evidence we have heard,
he did not know this, he surmised it, on thin evidence. To say what he
is reported as saying, anticipating revelation, is part of the logical
and natural flow of Qur'anic speech. One who has become familiar with
such speech can *often* anticipate it. Does this make one a fountain
of revelation? No, such anticipation normally is only for very short
phrases, and especially for the, shall we say, stock phrases that
frequently end verses. They are almost like Qur'anic punctuation
marks. When I am reciting Qur'an from memory and I come to the end of
a verse, I know, from the verse itself, that there is going to be one
of these phrases, such as inna llaha 'ala kulli shay'in qadiyr (surely
Allah over all things is Powerful). Occasionally I am uncertain in my
memory as to which phrase is used in a particular place. Perhaps it
was, instead, inna llaha bi kulli shay'in 'aliym (surely Allah is the
Knower of all things). Sometimes I guess which it was. If I guess
correctly, does this mean that I have received revelation?
One who knows Qur'anic recitation, which would include all those
writing about Abdullah ibn abi Sarh, would know how fluid and
ostensibly interchangeable these phrases are. We attempt to keep them
in their places, because we dislike the idea of changing *anything*
about the Qur'an, but the meaning of the Qur'an does not shift if
these phrases shift a bit; I suspect that becoming a good hafiz is as
difficult as it is precisely because of the task of keeping these
phrases in place. (Of course, there are those who learn the Qur'an
without knowing what it means. That is a different story....)
Jochen Katz
In article <6f1id4$b...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
khadijah chadly <yas...@pacbell.net> writes:
} {Our earlier life and experiences influence our latter,
} {but our later life does not influence our earlier decisions.
} {So, later acts should be evaluated in light of earlier ones
} {but not the other way around.
}
} Jochen Katz wrote the above statement and I wonder if we could apply
} this to The Apostle Paul.
Sure. No problem.
} This kind of logic where you keep jumping from subject to subject,
} making parallels and asumptions with all your "IFS", only make us know
} that you hate Mohammed* but we love Jesus*.
Hm, I wonder ... could it be that you just "jumped to another subject"?
The subject was not Paul, and it was not your love for Jesus or my
feelings for Muhammad.
} The example of beni Quraiza and the Palestinians is a ridiculous
} parallel . It can only be true if the Prophet is a false prophet and a
} murderer, which is what you believe.
You might not believe the above to be true, but how do you explain
the source material? Saying "it can't be true" is not a solution.
You have to come up with a clear explanation. Just shutting your
eyes to reality won't do. At least it doesn't do it for me.
} That's the scab , the hate , that is in
} your heart.
No, there is no hate in my heart.
If you would warn Ahmadiayyas from following Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
because you seriously believe he is a fraud, would that be
an indication for hatred in your heart? Or could it be an
indication of concern and love for the people you see going
astray and whom you want to warn?
Think about it. The Ahmadiayya say just the same about the
Sunni who oppose them. They have lots of hate in their heart
and refuse to see the truth.
But such arguments only emotionalize the discussion and
won't help to reveal truth about what is the foundational
issue.
Sincerely,
Jochen Katz
Jochen Katz
In article <6f1icn$b...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
kh5...@usa.net (Khalid...) writes:
} First of all I'd like to remind Jochen that I am still waiting for the
} name of the book for Hafez Aliraqi !
Well, I submitted my answer:
From: Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 13:42:10 -0500 (EST)
To: soc-relig...@telerama.lm.com, s...@ariel.vip.best.com
Subject: Re: Abdullah ibn Sa`d Ibn Abi Sarh
It isn't my fault when moderation is going so slow currently.
I hope it is showing up one of these days.
} I had already revised many of his work
You revised Al-Iraqi's work? Isn't that the same
as corrupting it? Strange things happen these days
and then you are even proud of it.
} and even his son's work and even their resources but still
} couldn't find the quoted passage which you used as the third resource,
} so I am still waiting. is that a hard thing to give me the book's
} name?
No, it isn't hard, I have done it, and patience is a virtue
given to few.
} The issue is not **who** is Judas but the issue is **WHY** did Judas
} betrayed Jesus PBUH?? <don't you even remember your own arguments?>
That is why I gave the reasons/motivation of his.
It seems you couldn't find the forrest for all the trees.
} As you have said it WHY did [Judas] betrayed Jesus PBUH after seeing
} all the miracles that no man can deny!
Yes, I said why he did so. Maybe you want to go back read the
article?
} Anyway if a person so close to Jesus PBUH had betrayed him then one
} really must ask WHY?
Yes, one should, I have asked, and I told you. :-)
} So why did Judas betrayed Jesus?
See my article <6errqp$n...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> from
Thu Mar 19, 1998.
Your long discussion of Judas and Paul has sadly to be snipped
since a Christian answer to it would not be sufficiently relevant.
Best regards,
Jochen Katz
khadijah chadly
Jocken Katz writes
{If you would warn Ahmadiayyas from following
{{Mirza Ghulam Ahmad......
Here is the "ifs" that Jochen loves to always
use.He then claims that he is seeking the truth.
Billions of people are believing that Mohammed* is
a prophet and he brings every"ifs" to try to prove that he is not.
He says that Adullah Ibn Sarh is a proof for him that the Prophet*
is a false prophet.This is why jochen says that the prophet* wanted to
kill him so he wouldn't reveal this fact.The nutshell of all Jochens'
writings on SRI is to prove that Mohammed* is not a prophet
and not even a good man. He hates for anyone to believe otherwise.
Even the Ahmadiyyas believe that the Prophet* is a true one.
{No, there is no hate in my heart
If there is no hate in your heart then can you say just once
that you love Mohammed* for even ONE good thing that he did?
Did not Jesus* say that you should Love even your
enemy??
I am enjoying jumping from subject to subject
and using all the "ifs' and "supposes" just like you.
I don't personally believe you when you say that you have no
hatred in your heart. There is too much evidence to the
contrary.
Yassir
Khalid...
Was Judas driven by the devil or was he a faithful "a political
hot-head, a revolutionary" <WoW> ?
"But they have no knowledge therein. They follow nothing but
conjecture and conjecture avails nothing against Truth"
[Quran 53:28]
On 22 Mar 1998 19:05:57 GMT, Jochen Katz <jk...@math.gatech.edu>
wrote:
>It isn't my fault when moderation is going so slow currently.
>I hope it is showing up one of these days.
Ok i'll be still waiting for it. someday somewhere it might show up<g>
>} The issue is not **who** is Judas but the issue is **WHY** did Judas
>} betrayed Jesus PBUH?? <don't you even remember your own arguments?>
>
>That is why I gave the reasons/motivation of his.
>It seems you couldn't find the forrest for all the trees.
<laughing> and what evidences you have provided for these imaginative
reasons/motivations?? All you said was: "Judas probably was a
political hot-head, a revolutionary." which means that Judas even when
he was planing to betray Jesus he was still a faithful person who was
planing for a change in power balance, by other words his motives were
not bad!!. Are you sure about this? <sigh>
And here also you were answering [WHO IS JUDAS?] then you went on
saying maybe this and maybe that. And I gave you facts about Judas.
again he was a very close [[[[ friend ]]]]] eating with him walking
with him etc., he knew Jesus better than you or any other Christian he
was chosen as an apostle by Jesus if he wasn't so smart or a truthful
person he wouldn't reach this status.
Now read your own words:
" Judas *probably* tried to force Jesus to reveal his power by having
him arrested. After he realized that Jesus would not even then become
political but rather suffer and die, Judas despaired and committed
suicide."
Who is speaking here <g>? let me tell you what your scripture say. It
says:
"Then ****entered Satan into Judas**** surnamed Iscariot, being of the
number of the twelve."
And it says:
" ***the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot*****,
Simon's son, to betray him;
It didn't say that Judas *probably* wanted to do this or wanted to do
that as in your imagination but it says Judas was determined to hand
Jesus to his enemies. by other words he abandoned the faith and
according to the words of your gospels he followed the devil. This is
an evidence not yours which is based on wild illusions.
Hey don't you know what is in your scriptures?
In your statement you were saying that even when Judas tried to betray
Jesus he was still a faithful person whom according to you was "a
political hot-head, a revolutionary" !!!!!!! who wanted to push Jesus
for perhaps a political change, so by other words he wanted something
and it turned to be the opposite. I say my hair is turning gray
already. are you kidding? do you know what does this mean?
Let me tell you what does this mean; this means Judas was following
his good will and planning as you said for " Jesus as the Messiah
would throw out the Romans and as time went on Jesus would not satisfy
this desire of his" Hey the man is good isn't he? then you said he had
failed to do it!!!
I say you have nothing but conjecture. And I am not going to teach you
your religion here also, so stop this irrationality it is making you
look sooooo bad.
>Yes, I said why he did so. Maybe you want to go back read the
>article?
<???>
>Yes, one should, I have asked, and I told you. :-)
<??????>
>See my article <6errqp$n...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> from
>Thu Mar 19, 1998.
<?????>
>Your long discussion of Judas and Paul has sadly to be snipped
>since a Christian answer to it would not be sufficiently relevant.
That's alright I made my point clear, You will always be able to make
it relevant if you want to. But obviously you don't, you can post a
comparison between Abdullah and Judas this will make it pass and we
will see how it will turn out <g>
But to hide behind the moderation rules and say this will not be
relevant is a bit a <you know>
--
"By the Fig and the Olive and the Mount of Sinai
And **this** City of security.." [Quran 95]
+++++++++++
The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir
unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran" [De 33:2]
Khalid...
Dr. M S M Saifullah
On 21 Mar 1998, Farid Barkat wrote:
> As Salaamu Alaykum Brothers and Sisters in Islam.
Walaikumus-salaam wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> I was reading this thread and tumble on something.
I was reminded of what you wrote below from an email by brother Ghoniem. It
did not occur to me that we should have first checked the place of
revelation of the two surahs.
Surah (23) al-Mu'minun which is a Meccan surah as well as
Surah (6) al-An'am is also a Meccan surah.
Below is what brother Ghoniem has observed (Inshallah, we hope to stick the
stuff on the webpage when the arguments are ready!)
"After they had cited the report conveyed by 3ikrimah and As-Suddy, some
commentators said that these two reports are forged because there is no
Meccan chapter containing "All-Hearing, All Knowing" nor "All-knowing,
All-Wise" nor "All-Powerful, All-Wise" except in surat Luqman (i.e. chapter
31) about which Ibn Abbas said it was revealed after Surat Al-An3aam
(chapter 6) and that the verse ending with "All-Powerful, All-Wise" and two
following verses are Medinite according to Al-Itqaan. He said: What was
said to the effect that this verse was revealed in Medinah is useless and
the report is not correct." [Al-Meezaan fi Tafseer al-Qur'aan by Muhammad
Hussein At-TabTabaa'i, Volume 7, page 306]
Al-Iraaqi on the contrary writes:
The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. `Abdallah Ibn Sarh al-`Amiri was
one of them, and he was the first Quraishite among those who wrote in Mecca
before he turned away from Islam. He started saying, "I used to direct
Muhammad wherever I willed. He would dictate to me 'Most High, All-Wise',
and I would write down 'All-Wise' only. Then he would say, 'Yes it is all
the same'. On a certain occasion he said, 'Write such and such', but I
wrote 'Write' only, and he said, 'Write whatever you like.'"
It is interesting to see that there is *no* Meccan surah containing
"All-Hearing, All Knowing" nor "All-knowing, All-Wise" nor "All-Powerful
All-Wise". Now how can al-Iraaqi claim that 'Abdullah Ibn Sarh wrote 'Most
High, All-Wise'? Something is definitely fishy here!
Brother Ghoniem also mentions that al-Iraaqi is known for reporting many
forged reports. And we have not got the exact source of al-Iraaqi yet from
Katz. I hope he gets it so that we can start re-evaluating the reports,
inshallah.
so, there are two points worth noting:
1. Surah al-Mu'minun as well as Surah al-An'am are a Meccan surahs. It is
strange that Katz writes 'Sarh left Islam and lived in Mecca.'
2. This al-Iraaqi would be a major headache for Katz, inshallah. He did not
realize to check his sources before quoting them. The story may take the
familar turn.
There is *no* Meccan surah containing "All-Hearing, All Knowing" nor
"All-knowing, All-Wise" nor "All-Powerful All-Wise". How can al-Iraaqi
claim that 'Abdullah Ibn Sarh wrote 'Most High, All-Wise' in Mecca?
Last but not the least: Abdullah Ibn Saad Ibn Abi SarH converted back to
Islam BEFORE the Prophet conquered Mecca!! (Thanks to brother Ghoniem again
and may Allah reward him) That was at-Tabari in his commentary states.
I would rest the case for some time, inshallah.
wassalam
Saifullah
Dr. M S M Saifullah
Post-Doctoral Researcher
Nanostructure Technology Research Group
Device Physics Research Laboratory
NTT Basic Research Laboratories
3-1, Morinosato Wakamiya, Atsugi-shi
Kanagawa Pref., 243-0198, Japan
Phone: +81 462 40 2634 Fax: +81 462 40 4317
Email: sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
It is certainly pleasing to find a piece of clear evidence amidst all
the uncertainties which exist in attempts to understand the histories
involved in the issue of Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh.
However, it is so pleasing that we should beware. There is an
assumption in these arguments that the stories of Abdullah are
precisely and accurately transmitted and a further assumption that
there were no Meccan verses later "abrogated or forgotten." Neither of
these assumptions is on solid ground.
If Abdullah did what it is reported that he did, more or less, it is
entirely possible that his memory of what he had "improved" was, years
later, somewhat faulty. What he might have remembered was that he made
*some kind* of change, and that the change was approved by the
Prophet, but not necessarily exactly what that change was, so he gave
an example of what the change might have been. Since he later knew the
entire Qur'an, his example might have come from later usage.
Further, in the transmission of the report from Abdullah, a shift
might have occurred in the text of what was allegedly changed. It is
actually quite difficult to keep some of these phrases which close
verses straight. Sometimes they are clearly connected to the text of
the verse, sometimes not. So any Qur'an reciter knows many such
phrases, and if he heard the report about Abdullah, many possible
places where such a substitution could be made would come to mind;
years later, he might confuse what he had actually heard with what he
subsequently thought about it. I've seen this kind of substitution
taking place today, when people report their own experiences.
Further, it is entirely possible that there existed verses, perhaps
altered by Abdullah, which were simply replaced later, perhaps with
the original revelation. All that Abdullah reported is that he made
some changes and that the Prophet approved of them, which means that
Abdullah wrote them in the altered way. But it is not reported that
the verses were *ever* again recited in the altered way. So we cannot
dismiss the report simply because of an observation that such verses
do not exist in the received text.
"Dr. M S M Saifullah" <sa...@aecl.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>"After they had cited the report conveyed by 3ikrimah and As-Suddy, some
>commentators said that these two reports are forged because there is no
>Meccan chapter containing "All-Hearing, All Knowing" nor "All-knowing,
>All-Wise" nor "All-Powerful, All-Wise" except in surat Luqman (i.e. chapter
>31) about which Ibn Abbas said it was revealed after Surat Al-An3aam
>(chapter 6) and that the verse ending with "All-Powerful, All-Wise" and two
>following verses are Medinite according to Al-Itqaan. He said: What was
>said to the effect that this verse was revealed in Medinah is useless and
>the report is not correct." [Al-Meezaan fi Tafseer al-Qur'aan by Muhammad
>Hussein At-TabTabaa'i, Volume 7, page 306]
I read this as indicating that Al-An'am was revealed in Mecca, and
this is also what I find in Asad's comments. There is a mention of
Almighty, All-Knowing at 6:96, as well as All-Hearing, all-knowing at
6:115.
>Al-Iraaqi on the contrary writes:
>
>The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. `Abdallah Ibn Sarh al-`Amiri was
>one of them, and he was the first Quraishite among those who wrote in Mecca
>before he turned away from Islam. He started saying, "I used to direct
>Muhammad wherever I willed. He would dictate to me 'Most High, All-Wise',
>and I would write down 'All-Wise' only. Then he would say, 'Yes it is all
>the same'. On a certain occasion he said, 'Write such and such', but I
>wrote 'Write' only, and he said, 'Write whatever you like.'"
Now, this is truly fascinating. "Yes, it is all the same." Was the
Prophet, SAS, greatly concerned about the precision of the Qur'anic
text, as later Muslims came to be? We have heard that he allowed
recitation in dialect, which may well have meant that he allowed
recitation using synonyms; some of these synonymous usages have come
down to us.
>It is interesting to see that there is *no* Meccan surah containing
>"All-Hearing, All Knowing" nor "All-knowing, All-Wise" nor "All-Powerful
>All-Wise". Now how can al-Iraaqi claim that 'Abdullah Ibn Sarh wrote 'Most
>High, All-Wise'? Something is definitely fishy here!
It appears that this is not correct, as we noted above. An'am contains
such references.
>so, there are two points worth noting:
>
>1. Surah al-Mu'minun as well as Surah al-An'am are a Meccan surahs. It is
>strange that Katz writes 'Sarh left Islam and lived in Mecca.'
Yes. This is not apparently founded in the original reports, though
strictly speaking it may be true. What might be untrue is the
*implication* that Abdullah ibn Sarh left Medina to return to Mecca.
He, RA, was a Meccan scribe.