Singh boasts, "the superiority that Muslims
feel over the people of other faiths comes from ... delusion".
I will prove that
Islam is a false religion.
Have they (the disbelievers) not considered the
Qur'an with deep deliberation? Had it been from anyone other than
Allaah, then indeed they would have found in it many contradictions.
And so they did,
the Qur'an is so rife with contradictions it has a
verse explaining how to deal with them.
(Qur'an 2:106) None
of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We
substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath
power over all things?
In the context of an
all-powerful God sending divine revelations this is not only
unacceptable but complete nonsense. We expect God to send the better
revelation in the first place! Abrogating, substituting, causing
revelations to be forgotten and replacing them with better ones, sounds
much more human than divine.
Determining the divine origin of something
based on how "human" it sounds is hardly an objective method. It is
entirely subjective to use this approach in attempting to disprove the
divine origin of the process where verses and/ or rulings can abrogate
and supersede injunctions established by earlier ones.
Given that Roudh has failed to provide a
single objection to, what we can call, The Law of Abrogation, his
contention that contradictions would exist in the Qur'an if not for this
law are baseless. Just dismissing things out of hand is neither an
argument nor a proof.
Although this is not the subject of
discussion, we intend to pre-empt any objections raised or arguments
posed that may contend that an authentic case of abrogation is an
example of a contradiction.
A contradiction is defined as follows:
Where A is a given
proposition:
(A and ¬A) = false.
However, in the case of abrogation, the
abrogated verse and/ or ruling is always different to its replacement
verse and/ or ruling; to claim otherwise is a contradiction of the very
definition of The Law of Abrogation. Hence, in order for the universal
law of non-contradiction to be correctly applied in this case, no more
than a single proposition is applicable. In regards to an-Nasikh
wal-Mansukh (the Abrogating and the Abrogated), with the abrogated
verse, by definition, being wholly different and distinct to the
abrogating verse, two propositions exist and the law of
non-contradiction is inapplicable.
Roudh, in fact, inadvertently recognises this crucial distinction when
he states that "[w]e expect God to send the better revelation in the
first place" (bold ours). If the argument is exclusively over
whether these pair of verses vis-á-vis The Law of Abrogation are
contradictory or not, then the notion of a verse being better or worse
is irrelevant. And since Roudh accedes that a past revelatory verse has
been replaced by a more current one, they cannot be one and the same
thing and, therefore, cannot be represented as a single proposition.
Hence, in the absence of a credible reason for rejecting The Law of
Abrogation, genuine examples of abrogated verses can never be a
contradiction.
Ironically, the correct interpretation of the
verse Roudh quotes as evidence turns out to be a proof against him:
"And when We
change a verse in place of another - and Allah knows best what He
reveals - they (the disbelievers) say: "You (O Muhammad) are but a
forger.'' Rather, most of them know not."
(Qur'an 6:101)
The famous interpreter, Ibn Kathir, cites
Mujahid (d.102 AH), the erudite student of the famous companion of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), Ibn 'Abbaas - upon
whom the Prophet conferred the noble agnomen: The Commentator of the
Qur'an (at-Tarjumaan al-Qur'an), as understanding this verse to
mean:
We remove one and
put another in its place.
In other words, the replacement is other than
what it replaced.
Muhammad was saying
one thing one day and another thing the next. To extricate himself from
this difficulty the author of the Quran tries to convince the Meccans
that the contradictory nature of his revelations is actually evidence of
his omnipotence!
Ibid.
All the 'proofs'
offered by the Quran in support of its divine credentials are similarly
absurd.
Unsubstantiated claims are just as absurd and
no more credible than the one who claims that the moon is made out of
cheese!
The Meccans were not
impressed and they knew that the contradictions in his recitals were a
sure sign that he was bogus.
Firstly, it simply does not follow that the
reaction of some of the people of Mecca against The Law of
Abrogation is a proof of its contradictory nature. There is, as far as
we can tell, nothing in the annals of history to suggest that they
accused Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) of being
contradictory (Arabic: mutanaqqid) in this respect. But even if,
for arguments sake, such a charge had been levelled against him, it does
not necessarily entail a contradiction.
Secondly, Roudh's apparent inability in
understanding and, more importantly, applying the universal law of
non-contradiction begs us to demand that he demonstratively prove, and
not just emptily claim, the alleged contradictory nature of any evidence
he is prepared to cite.
(Qur'an 16:101) When
We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He
reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of
them understand not.
Muhammad's chopping
and changing resulted in the charge of fabrication. Allah's response to
this "but most of them understand not" is so lame and feeble that it is
difficult to believe that these are the words of an all-knowing God.
Unable to defend this charge Allah simply blames the Meccans for their
lack of understanding.
To the contrary, Allaah's response could not
have been better put. If the charge against The Law of Abrogation was
evidence of an internal contradiction in the Qur'an, as Roudh contends,
then as we have clearly demonstrated, it is indeed Roudh and those like
him that "understand not". Alas, both he and the pagan Meccan's of that
time were incapable, or perhaps more accurately, unwilling to heed the
warning issued by Allaah that only those who lack correct understanding
would end up forwarding such a "lame and feeble" charge.
The significant part of the verse reads: "...the
Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written of with
them in the Torah and the Gospel ..." Hence, it includes both
the Torah and the Gospel; though Roudh intends to restrict it to the
Torah only.
It is natural that I should mention only
that part of the verse upon which I intended to comment.
The problem with this argument is that it is
too vague; what does Roudh mean by "mentioned" and "found" in the Torah
vis-á-vis his interpretation of this ayah
What is vague is the
evidence that Muslims present in their efforts to prove that Muhammad is
mentioned in the Bible.
We have no reason to argue for or against the
arguments of some Muslims vis-á-vis the verse 7:157; thus, this
point is neither here nor there.
However what I said
was that according to the Quran Muhammad is mentioned in
the Torah. So what we need to determine is not what I but what
the Quran means by this word.
Then Roudh should not have presupposed that we
knew what he meant by the words "mentioned" and "found" in this context,
but should have included this explanation in his initial correspondence,
which he failed to do.
The word "mentioned"
is used by some translators of the Quran i.e.
Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find
mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;-
(Yusuf Ali)
Those who follow the
messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will
find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them.
(Pickthall).
(So. now mercy has
been assigned to those) who follow this Messenger, the Ummi Prophet
whose mention they shall find in the Torah and the Gospel with
them. (Mawdudi)
The word "mentioned"
is understood by many Muslims themselves as being a reference to at
least one prophecy of Muhammad in the Torah. I believe that the majority
of Muslims believe that this verse is a reference to the prophecy in
Deuteronomy 18 (and perhaps to other verses of the Torah too).
"I believe"?! On what grounds does Roudh's
belief represent a valid argument? People believe in all sorts of
nonsensical things; mere belief, gut feelings, strong suspicions have
never been the basis for a valid argument. We certainly are not going to
roll over and accept Roudh's argument simply because he believes.
Worse still, Roudh has repeated the fallacious
approach from his previous response by again appealing to numbers in
support of his argument. Assuming that "majority of Muslims" do hold
this view, is the sheer force of numbers going to somehow miraculously
prove his point?
In his initial correspondence, he said that
"Muslims claim that they have found prophecies of Muhammad in the Torah.
The most frequently quoted 'prophecy' is in Deuteronomy 18:17-20". In
response we directed him to the fallacy of "appealing to authority, in
this case: a number of unknown Muslims". Even after all that, however,
he has the temerity to again appeal to both numbers and these unknown
authorities!
The word "found" is
used in reference to Muslims identifying verse/s of the Torah in
response to Quran 7:157
Ibid.
However, I have
given compelling reasons previously as to why the prophecy in
Deuteronomy 18 disqualifies Muhammad from being a true prophet. I
appreciate that if your stance on this issue diverges significantly from
the majority Muslim view then my comments on this issue may not be
relevant to yourself. I will further comment on this later.
It would be better if Roudh did not comment at
all. Firstly, it is merely conjecture to suggest that there exists a
majority unless he has some statistical proof to support this. Secondly,
the interpretation of certain Muslims that the Qur'anic verse 7:157 is a
specific reference to Deut. 18:18 does not definitively prove his point.
There would certainly be merit to his claim if he was able to furnish
evidence that this is how some of the earliest generation of Muslims,
i.e. the Pious Predecessors (as-Salaf as-Saalih), understood and
interpreted it. However, as for those who succeeded the Pious
Predecessors, then the validity of their interpretation is much more
open to question. Unfortunately for Roudh, no evidence has been
forwarded at all.
Does he mean explicitly by name, i.e. Muhammad,
and if so, then in which Semitic language: Hebrew or Arabic?
The Quran does not
specify in 7:157, how Muhammad is described in the Torah. Neither does
it specify the language in which he is described although I suspect that
the author of the Quran may have believed that this description would be
in Hebrew since that is the language in which the Torah was written.
We were not asking what the Qur'an specifies
since the Qur'an is not presenting the argument, Roudh is!
Or that he is mentioned descriptively?
This verse does not
specify.
Or both?
As above.
If Roudh had the desire of putting forth a
well researched and robust response, and God knows he's had four months
in which to do so, then turning to the various commentaries of the
Qur'an would have helped him better understand this verse rather than
employ guess work as he has successfully done thus far. The sad thing is
that we even did his work for him in our initial response:
The
first is from the angle of interpretation. According to the commentary
of Ibn Kathir, the portion of the verse in question: "...the Prophet
who can neither read nor write whom they find written of with them in
the Torah and the Gospel ..." was understood to mean:
The
characteristics and attributes (Arabic: sifah)
of Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). (bold ours)
Despite this, Roudh thick headedly reasserts
that the verse does not specify this indicating that he intends to
overlook the rules of Islamic exegesis for his own contrived
interpretations (eisegesis). If this is the case, then we as Muslims are
obliged to go by the interpretations of Prophet Muhammad's (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) companions rather than an unknown Sikh
internet contact in the twenty first century!
Perhaps the full quote from Ibn Kathir will
jog Roudh into realising how far off the mark he is:
The
characteristics and attributes of Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) are written in the Books revealed to
previous Prophets. They informed their people of the coming of Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and ordered them
to follow him. Both rabbis and priests know of his description.
Imam Ahmed narrated, on the authority of Abu Sakhr al-Aqili who said: "A
man told me: 'I brought some milk to Madinah to sell it. When I
finished, I said to myself, "I shall meet this man (The Prophet) and
hear from him." I, then, met him walking with Abu Bakr and Omar Ibn
al-Khattab. I followed them till they reached a Jew reading from the
Torah to console himself because of his son who was dying. The Prophet
said to him: "I adjure you by Allah who sent down the Torah, do you find
in your book (Torah) my description and the time of my coming?" The Jew
answered negatively. His son then said: "I swear by He Who sent down the
Torah we find in our book your description and the time of your coming,
and I testify that there is no god worthy of worship but Allah and
Muhammad is His Messenger." The Prophet told his Companions, "Take this
Jew from your brother (the Jew's son)," then, he took charge of his
funeral prayer.'" This is a Strong Hadith.
On the authority
of Ata' Ibn Yasar, al-Bukhari reported in his Sahih: "I met Abdullah Ibn
'Amr Ibn Al-'Aas and asked him, 'Tell me about the description of
Allah's Messenger which is mentioned in Torah.' He replied, 'Yes. By
Allah, he is described in Torah with some of the qualities attributed to
him in the Qur'an as follows: "O Prophet! We have sent you as a witness,
a giver of glad tidings, and a warner," and guardian of the
illiterate. You are My slave and My Messenger, and I have named you
Al-Mutawakkil (one who depends upon Allah). You are neither
hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets.
You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive. Allah will not
take you unto Him till He guides through you a crocked (curved) nation
on the right path by causing them to say: "None has the right to be
worshipped but Allah." With such a statement He will cause blind eyes,
deaf ears and hardened hearts to open.'"
These are the
description and attributes of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allaah be upon him) in previous Books, and during all his life lie S
enjoined good and forbad evil, as Abdullah Ibn Mas'oud had said: "if you
hear Allah says, "O you who believe", you should listen closely
to it, for it is either something good which is made lawful to you, or
something evil made unlawful to you.
(bold ours)
Is this argument premised on the assumption
that the Torah has remained intact and uncorrupted since its revelation?
The question over whether this distortion took
place before and/ or after the revelation of verse 7:157 also needs to
be addressed.
With regards to the
status of 'previous scripture' consider the following verses of the
Quran:
How come they unto
thee for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath
delivered judgment (for them)? Yet even after that they turn away. Such
(folk) are not believers. Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is
guidance and a light, by which the Prophets who surrendered (unto Allah)
judged the Jews, and the rabbis and the priests (judged) by such of
Allah's Scripture as they were bidden to observe, and thereunto were
they witnesses. So fear not mankind, but fear Me. And barter not My
revelations for a little gain. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah
hath revealed: such are disbelievers. (Pickthall 5:43,44). (bold mine).
The Jews are being asked to judge by the Torah, since their prophets did
likewise. Muhammad is being asked as to why the Jews were coming to him
for judgement when they have the Torah in which is Allah's guidance and
light. So the Jews are being told to seek guidance from their own
scriptures. Since corrupted scriptures cannot be the source of sound
judgement and guidance this passage assumes the reliability of the
scriptures in the hands of the Jews.
In this instance, Roudh has regurgitated the
same mistake of the Christians by committing the fallacy of isolation,
i.e. quoting out of context. Although this verse is oft-cited in a
desperate and contrived attempt in proving the incorruptible status of
the Torah, the truth is that when taken in context, this serves as
evidence against and not for the infallibility of the Torah.
If Roudh was academically rigorous, he would
have read the preceding verses and noticed in verse 41 the following
glaring rebuttal:
"O
Messenger; let not those who hurry to fall into disbelief grieve you, of
such who say: 'We believe' with their mouths but their hearts have no
faith. And of the Jews are men who listen to any lies - listen to others
who have never come to you. They CHANGE THE WORDS from their places;
they say, 'If you are given this, take it, but if you are not given
this, then beware!' And whomsoever Allah wants to put in Al-Fitnah
(error, because of his rejecting of faith), you can do nothing for him
against Allah. Those are the ones whose hearts Allah will not purify
(from disbelief and hypocrisy); for them there is a disgrace in this
world, and in the Hereafter a great torment."
The context of this verse revolves around an
incident that occurred after the great immigration and during Muhammad's
rule of al-Madinah involving the impending punishment facing a Jewish
couple guilty of adultery. Again, the incident is recounted by Ibn
Kathir:
"They change the
words from their places", that is, they misinterpret the words and
alter them knowingly. Allah's verse, "they say: 'If you are
given this, take it, but if you are not given this, then beware!'", was
revealed with regard to the two who committed Zinah (adultery).
As usual, the Jews had already distorted the truth in their
Scripture regarding the ruling of adultery. The Torah stipulates
that a married man or woman who commit adultery should be stoned to
death. However, they changed the legal punishment from
stoning to death to a hundred lashes, blackening the face with coal and
being ridden on an ass the other way round. The incident happened after
the immigration of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) to Madinah. The Jews said: 'Let us go to Muhammad and ask him to
judge between us.' If he ordered that the man and woman be lashed, then
we accepted his ruling and made it a proof between Allah and us that a
Prophet of His had judged between us accordingly. But if he ruled that
they should be stoned to death, then we would not obey him.
Several Ahadith
have been reported with regard to this incident. On the authority of
Abdullah Ibn Omar, Malik quoted Na'fi': "The Jews came to Allah's
Messenger and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had
committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah's Messenger said to them,
'What do you find in the Torah (Old Testament) about the legal
punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?' They replied, 'We announce
their crime and lash them.' Abdullah Ibn Salam said, 'You are telling a
lie; Torah contains the order of Ar-Rajm.' They brought and
opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of
Ar-Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah Ibn
Salam said to him, 'Lift your hand.' When he lifted his hand, the Verse
of Ar-Rajm was written there. They said, 'Abdullah Ibn Salam has
told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Ar-Rajm. The Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) then gave the order that
both of them should be stoned to death. (Abdullah Ibn Omar said, 'I saw
the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones.'"
This is the wording of
Al-Bukhari. Muslim, Abu Dawud, Imam Ahmed and Ibn Jarir reported the
same Hadith.
However, the
similarity between the ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) and the one [that] existed in the Torah is not an
honour to their belief. But, this is a special revelation from Allah to
His Messenger, who asked the Jews about the ruling of adultery, in
order to confirm their distortion and denial of the truth contained in
Torah, and their abandonment of its laws for years. Their deliberate
lie about the legal punishment of adultery, their deviation, obstinate
behaviour and refusal to accept the ruling of the Torah and of the
Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was but to follow
their desire and opinion, and not to believe in what the Prophet (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him) decided. For this reason, the Jews
said, "they say: If you are given this", that is, lashing and blackening
the face with cool, "take it", that is accept it. "But if you are not
given this, then beware" meaning, do not accept or follow it. (bold, underline ours)
This historical account is unsurprisingly lost
on Roudh for if he knew of both its related context and correct
interpretation it would have been inconceivable for him to have drawn
the opposite conclusion.
Similar to Roudh, the Jews of yesteryear
attempted to play fast and loose with the revelation of God vis-á-vis
interpretation, but were thoroughly exposed for their nefarious efforts.
Verse 42 states:
"They [the
Jews] like to listen to falsehood, to devour anything forbidden. So if
they come to you (O Muhammad), either judge between them, or turn away
from them. If you turn away from them, they cannot hurt you in the
least. And if you judge, judge with justice between them. Truly, Allah
loves those who act justly."
Ibn Kathir explicates:
"[S]o if they come
to you", that is, if the Jews come to you seeking your judgement,
"either judge between them, or turn away from them. If you turn away
from them, they cannot harm you at all", meaning: you do not have to
judge between them because they do not intend to follow the truth ... but
to follow their whims and their vain desires. Ibn Abbas and a group of
Ta'been said: the above verse is abrogated by Allah's verse, "and
so judge between them by what Allah has revealed" (Al-Ma'idah: 49), and
"if you judge, judge between them in equity", that is, with truth and
justice, even if they were oppressors, because, "truly, Allah loves
those who judge in equity".
J
In light of the above, Roudh's claim that "Muhammad
is being asked as to why the Jews were coming to him for judgement when
they have the Torah in which is Allah's guidance and light" is nothing
short of a fantasy-driven narrative with no evidential grounding
whatsoever.
Historically speaking, God exposed the Jews
attempt at circumventing His judgement as yet another example of a
general trend exhibited by them that would "confirm
their distortion and denial of the truth contained in [the] Torah,
and their abandonment of its Laws for years".
Hence, the Jews were not, as Roudh surmises, "being told to seek
guidance from their own scriptures" per se, nor were they expected to
confirm in toto the "reliability of the scriptures in the[ir]
hands", but rather to faithfully implement a specific "ruling
embodied in their Scripture", which was approved by Allaah as the
correct judgement for punishing adulterers. It is for this reason that
Allaah states: "[B]J"
Moreover, Roudh's assertion that "[t]he Jews
are being asked to judge by the Torah, since their prophets did
likewise" is again way short of the mark since verse 44, while speaking
in the past tense, praises the Torah revealed to Moses sans
corruption, thereby making a distinction between the original thousands
of years earlier and the distorted version circulating at the time of
the Prophet, as Ibn Kathir clarifies:
Afterwards,
Allah praises the Torah, which He has sent down to His Servant and
Messenger, Moses Ibn Imran, "Verily, We did send down the
Torah, therein is guidance and light, by which the Prophets, who
submitted themselves to Allah's Will, judged the Jews", meaning: they
adhere to the laws and rulings of the Torah, and they do not alter,
nor modify it. "And the Rabbis and the priests", that is, the
scholars and the servants of Allah, "for to them was entrusted the
protection of Allah's Book", meaning that they were authorised to convey
the Scripture and abide by its ruling. "And they were witnesses thereto.
Therefore, fear not men but fear Me" and "sell not My Verses for a
miserable price. And whosoever judges not by that which Allah has
revealed, such are the Kaafirun [disbelievers]" ....
(bold, underline ours)
However, as we have shown, the Jews in Madinah
in the context of the incident of the adulterers had already been
accused by God of "chang[ing] the words from their places" (re. verse
41), and for having "already distorted the truth in their Scripture
regarding the ruling of adultery".
To drive the nail
firmly into Roudh's coffin, we move on to verses 46 and 47:
"And in
their footsteps, We sent Jesus, son of Mary, confirming the Torah that
had come before him, and We gave him the Gospel in which was guidance
and light and confirmation of the Torah that had come before it, a
guidance and an admonition for the pious.
"Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein.
And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed (then) such are
rebellious i.e. disobedient."
Ibn Kathir explains that Jesus "told the
Children of Israel, 'and to make lawful to you part of what was
forbidden to you' (3:50). Accordingly, scholars have said that the
Gospel had abrogated some of Torah's rulings" (bold ours).
What is of significance, however, is the portion of verse 47 which
reads: "Let the people of the Gospel judge by that which Allah has
revealed therein"; Ibn Kathir expounds:
[T]he word
'Liyahkuma' (translated here as 'judge by') is recited with the
final consonant pronounced with 'a'. It means that Allah has sent the
Gospel to Jesus in order that his people could judge by it during
their times. (bold ours)
In other words, the use of the Gospel was for
a particular period, not for all times; this is further made clear by
Ibn Kathir:
Also they should
believe in the glad tiding[s] of the Prophet Muhammad's mission and
follow him. Allah says, "Say: 'O people of the Scripture! You have
nothing till you act according to the Torah, the Gospel, and
that which has been sent down to you from your Lord (the Qur'an)"
(5:68).
(bold, underline ours)
Moving on to verse 48, Allaah further
clarifies this by saying:
"And We have
sent down to you (O Muhammad) the Book (Qur'an) in truth, confirming the
Scripture that came before it and MUHAYMINAN over it (previous
Scriptures). So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and
follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has
come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear
way. If Allah had willed, He would have made you one nation, except that
(He) wishes to test you in what He has provided you; so compete in good
deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allah; He will then inform you over
what you differ over."
Hence, just as the Jews were expected to
follow Jesus who was ordered to judge by the Gospel, which clarified the
truth of the original Torah and abrogated portions of it, similarly,
with the advent of the Qur'an, the Jews and Christians were expected to
follow Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who was
instructed to "judge between them by what Allah has revealed", i.e. the
Qur'an. Ibn Kathir confirms the "permissibility" of following the Torah
in the past tense:
After Allah
mentioned and praised the Torah, and ordered that it should be followed
when it was permissible to follow it, and after He mentioned and
praised the Gospel, and ordered the Christians to adhere to its rulings,
He has started to talk about the Noble Qur'an, which He has sent down
upon His Slave and Messenger, Muhammad. Allah says, "and We have sent
down to you the Book with the truth", that is, with indisputable truth
that the Qur'an is from Allah. And "confirming the Scripture that came
before it" means the previous Books which mentioned and praised the
Qur'an, and confirmed that it would be revealed from Allah upon His
Slave and Messenger Muhammad. The revelation of the Qur'an has confirmed
that the previous Books made mention to it. Therefore, those who
believed in the previous Books, adhered to Allah's Command followed His
Shari'ah and believed His Messengers, who had informed them of the
Prophet's coming, became more ceratin [sic] with the revelation of the
Qur'an.
(bold ours)
While the transliterated word Muhayminan
ultimately completes the picture:
As for Allah's
verse "and Muhayminan over it", Ibn Abbas said: A witness over
it. Ibn Abbas also interpreted it as: The Qur'an safeguards all the
former Books. Ibn Jarih [sic] said: The Qur'an safeguards the former
Books; it testifies the truth that is therein and falsifies the
falsehood that is added therein. Ibn Abbas said "and
Muhayminan over it" means it rules over the former Books. All
these accounts have more or less the same meaning.
Allah has made the
Noble Qur'an, which he has sent down the last, most perfect and most
comprehensive of all Books. He has preserved within it all
the good qualities and beauties of all the former Books, and added to it
some perfections not contained in the other Books. Therefore, Allah
has made it a witness over all the former Book[s], and one that
safeguards and rules over them. For this reason, Allah has entrusted
Himself to safeguard it, "Verily, it is We Who have sent down the
Dhikr (the Qur'an) and surely, We will guard it" (Al-Hijr:
9).
The verse, "so
judge between them by that which Allah has revealed", is an order from
Allah to His Messenger Muhammad to judge between all people by what
Allah has revealed in the Noble Qur'an, and by the laws of the former
Prophets, which He has not abrogated in the Islamic Shari'ah. On the
authority of Ibn Abbas, Ibn Abu Hatim said, 'The Prophet had the choice,
either to judge between them or turn away from them. So he judged
between them by their rulings. Then the verse "so judge between them by
that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires" was
revealed, and the Prophet was ordered to judge between them by the
Laws of the Qur'an.
This completely refutes Roudh's claim that
"[t]he Jews are being asked to judge by the Torah",
which he falsely understands to be uncorrupted. Allaah allowed the Jews
to rule by the Torah up to until Jesus was sent with the Gospel, which,
along with its particularised addendums, might have also incorporated
what was relevant for that age from what was left of the original and
uncorrupted aspects of the Torah. At this time, Jesus was ordered to
rule not by the Torah, but by its supersession: the Gospel. Of course,
in respect to this commandment, there were some Jews who obeyed their
Lord while many others chose not to.
The Qur'an then superseded the Gospel and
Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was ordered
to judge by that exclusively. As stated earlier, the Jews transgression
in the issue of the adulterous couple culminated in Allaah revoking
their privileges by ordering His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him) not to judge by their law. For this reason, verses 49-50
were revealed emphatically declaring:
"And so
judge (O Muhammad) between them by what Allah has revealed and follow
not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they turn you away
from some of that which Allah has sent down to you. And if they turn
away, then know that Allah's Will is to punish them for some their sins.
And truly, most of mankind are rebellious/ disobedient.
"Do they then seek the judgement of (the days of) Ignorance? And who is
better in judgement than Allah for a people who have firm Faith."
Allaah described those Jews and Christians who
persist in obstinately continuing to rule by the abrogated Torah and
Gospel as "seek[ing] the judgement of (the days of) ignorance".
(Qur'an
2:89) And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming
what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for
victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that
which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it but
the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. (emphasis mine)
The Quran considers the original revelations granted to the Jews to be
in their possession and at their disposal.
If Roudh is to make any real headway in
constructing strong arguments, he has to understand that the explanation
of the Qur'an involves more than just a cursory read of the texts
followed by hasty evaluations. Such an approach may suffice in
explaining Sri Guru Granth Sahib; but in relation to the
Qur'an, it will invariably lead to instances of eisegesis culminating in
misunderstandings and misinterpretations.
The science of at-Tafseer al-Qur'an,
or the Explanation of
the Qur'an, requires knowledge of certain necessary disciplines and
interrelated branches. For Roudh's edification, therefore, let us
summarise the principles of Tafseer. Imam as-Suyooti said:
The scholars have
said: Whoever wishes to interpret the Qur'aan, he should first turn to
the Qur'aan itself. This is because what has been narrated succinctly in
one place might be expounded upon in another place, and what is
summarized in one place might be explained in another...
If he has done
that, then he turns to the Sunnah, for it is the explainer of the
Qur'aan, and a clarifier to it. Imaam as-Shafi'ee said, 'All that the
Prophet said is based on his understanding of the Qur'aan.' And Allaah
said, "Verily, We have revealed to you the Book, in truth, so that you
may judge between mankind by that which Allaah has shown you." [4:105]
And the Prophet
said, 'Indeed, I have been given the Qur'aan, and something similar to
it,'
meaning the Sunnah.
If he does not
find it (the tafseer) in the Sunnah, he turns to the
statements of the Companions, for they are the most knowledgeable of it,
since they witnessed the circumstances and situations the Qur'aan was
revealed in, and since they were blessed with complete understanding,
and true knowledge, and pious actions...
This definition not only cites a verse (4:105)
which again repeats that the Qur'an is to be taken as the only
judge between humankind and their creator, but also provides a glimpse
of the amount of prerequisite knowledge required to do justice in
accurately interpreting the Qur'an.
In regards to interpreting the Qur'an by the
Qur'an itself, one requires the following knowledge:
Included
in the interpretation of the Qur'aan with the Qur'aan is the knowledge
of asbaab an-nuzool,
the knowledge
of makkee and madanee verses,
the naasikh
and mansookh verses,
the various
qira'aat,
and the knowledge of the different categories of
verses (the muhkam and mutashaabih,
the 'aam
and the khaas,
the mutlaq and the
muqqayad,
the mantooq and the
mafhoom,
the
haqeeqee and the majaazee,
To conclude, it is
essential that every verse of the Qur'aan be looked at in light of its
sister verses ....
(bold ours)
With this brief summary in mind, has Roudh
bothered to even attempt to take any of these aspects of the science of
interpreting the Qur'an into account? Has he made recourse to the
experts in this field to support his arguments and of verse 2:89? The
answer is, sadly, no.
What we say in response is that even a cursory
read of said verse provides absolutely no hint whatsoever in suggesting
that the Qur'an recognises the Torah in the hands of the Jews at that
time to be the original. Roudh's assertion is an example of an
incredibly poor case of eisegesis.
Ibn Kathir, who had complete mastery over the
aforementioned prerequisite categories of the science of Tafseer,
provides an explicit context which Roudh is either oblivious of or
conveniently ignores. The context of this verse is again not
"confirming" the Torah in toto, but rather restricting it to a
particular supplication made by the Jews during a pre-Islamic period of
history:
The sentence
"though before they were asking for a victory over the disbelievers"
means that before the coming of this Prophet [Muhammad] with His Book
[Qur'an], they used to invoke Allah to send him, to gain victory over
the polytheists. They (the Jews) told the polytheists that a Prophet
would rise at the end of time and that, with his aid, they would kill
them in the same way that 'Ad and Iram were killed. ...
However, when he rose from the Arabs, they disbelieved and denied what
they had said about him. ... Hence, Mu`adh bin Jabal and Bishr bin
Al-Bara' bin Ma`rur and Dawud Ibn Salamah told the Jews "Fear Allah and
submit to Him by following the religion of Islam. For you used to ask
for victory over us with the help of Muhammad when we polytheists
telling us that he would come and giving his description (as you have in
your book)". ... This is why Allah said: "And now that a Scripture from
Allah confirming their own (the Torah)..." (2:89).
(Qur'an
2:41) And believe in what I reveal, confirming the
revelation which is with you, and be not the first to
reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me,
and Me alone. (bold mine)
Surely Allah is not saying that his Quran confirms hopelessly corrupt
scriptures? And to sell Allah's verses one must have them first. This
verse clearly assumes that the scriptures in the possession of the Jews
of Muhammad's time were original and reliable.
Again, in light of all the above that we have
delineated, this confirmation is not in toto, but rather, as Ibn
Kathir states, to "believe in the Qur'an which confirms belief in Allah
and His Prophet, whom you find described in the Torah which commands you
to believe in him, support him and follow the Qur'an which was revealed
to him".
Those who follow the
messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will
find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with
them. (emphasis mine)
This merely reinforces the above
understanding.
(So. now mercy has
been assigned to those) who follow this Messenger, the Ummi Prophet
whose mention they shall find in the Torah and the Gospel with
them. (Mawdudi) emphasis mine.
Refuted above.
This verse assumes
that the Torah and the Gospel was in the possession of the Jews and
Christians of Muhammad's time. It says that the reference to Muhammad is
to be found in the Torah and the Gospel which are with them.
It does not say that the reference to Muhammad is described in the
nonexistent
Torah originally revealed to Moses before it was textually
corrupted (not the extant Tanakh, Pentateuch or the Bible).
Neither does it say that this reference is to be found in the
hopelessly corrupted Torah which still may possibly contain some traces
of truth. This is a presumption running contrary to
the clear witness of the Quran, read into the text by Muslims who
recognise that the natural and plain meaning of this verse destroys
Islam's credibility. To say that this reference was corrupted before
Quran 7:157 was given would then clearly contradict the Quran.
As we have shown, and as we demonstrated in
our first reply to Roudh, the context needs to be determined for every
instance the words "Torah" and "Gospel" are mentioned in the Qur'an.
Unfortunately for Roudh, not only has he failed in this regard, but it
also seems as though he is incapable of doing so.
Those who follow the
Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write (i.e. Muhammad)
whom they find written with them in the Taurat (Torah)
(Deut, xviii, 15) and the Injeel (Gospel) (John xiv, 16), (The Noble
Quran 7:157) bold mine.
The Noble Quran even
identifies this verse with the prophecy in Deuteronomy.
What nonsense! There is nothing in the Arabic
text to say that the Qur'an suggests a reference to a prophecy found in
the book of Deuteronomy. Given the parenthesised text in the above
citation, i.e. "(Deut, xviii, 15)", it is patently obvious that this
amounts to nothing more than an explanatory addendum inserted by the
translator.
Ishaq's
interpretation of certain verses of the Quran including Quran 2:41
Ishaq:250 "Fear Me and
do not mingle truth with falsehood or hide the truth which you know. Do
not conceal the knowledge which you have about My Messenger. You
recognize what he has brought to you because you find it with you in the
books that are in your hands. You are readers of scripture. Why do you
forbid men to believe in the prophecy you have and in the covenant of
the Torah. You must pronounce My Apostle to be true."
According to this
biographer the Jews recognise the message brought by Muhammad because
they can find it in the books in their possession. The Jews read the
scripture but they forbid men to believe in the prophecy of Muhammad and
the covenant contained therein. In the light of the knowledge contained
in their scriptures the Jews must pronounce Muhammad to be a true
Apostle.
Consider also the following.
Ishaq: 252
"Have you no understanding? Why do you maintain that
he is not a prophet since you know that Allah has made a Covenant with
you that you should follow him? While he tells you that he is the
prophet whom you are expecting, and that you will find him in Our book,
you oppose him and do not recognize him. You reject his prophethood on
mere opinion."
"Our book" can only
refer to original scripture". To say that the prophecy of Muhammad was
corrupted before Quran 7:157, was given would contradict the above also.
Since we have copies of the Torah that pre-date Muhammad and they are
the same as the Torah we have today. The charge of corruption cannot
explain away the absence of a reference to Muhammad. This may be the
reason why Muslims (the majority I believe) have chosen to identify
verse/s in the existing Bible in response to Quran 7:157.
Notice how Roudh mischievously attempts to
shift the goalposts in this argument. At no stage, either in this
rebuttal or the first one, have we said that a mention of Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), be it by name or
description, cannot be found in the extant copies of the Torah
and/ or the Bible.
We made this point explicitly clear in our
first rebuttal by stating:
Having said this,
however, the textual corruption vis-á-vis Muhammad's (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) name and/ or description has not
been expunged in toto. (bold, underline ours)
Perhaps Roudh does not know the meaning of the
term "in toto"; it means: in totality.
It is, thus, a clear fallacy of shifting
grounds to suggest that we are arguing for "the
absence of a reference to Muhammad" in the Torah and/ or Bible on the
basis of corruption. In fact, we concluded in our first rebuttal:
Both
these reasons support the understanding that, despite the textual
corruption of the Torah and Gospel, the Jews and Christians failed
to completely purge the original of all references and allusions to
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). (bold,
underline ours)
Since the Quran recognises the divine origin of the Bible whilst
contradicting its message on almost every page, Muslims must rely on the
unwarranted charge of corruption to legitimise their religion.
Ibid.
I
will however only comment upon charges of corruption if they are
relevant to the issues I have raised. In addition to this there are some
other points you raise, i.e. the canon of the Bible which I feel do not
affect the issues I presented so I will not address these either.
In
regards to the claim that the Torah has been corrupted please consider
the following.
These hadiths were
quoted on a Christian website, the emphasis is theirs.
The apostle wrote to the Jews of Khaybar
according to what a freedman of the family of Zayd b. Thabit told me
from 'Ikrima or from Sa'id b. Jubayr from Ibn 'Abbas: 'In the name of
God the compassionate the merciful from Muhammad the apostle of God
friend and brother of Moses WHO CONFIRMS WHAT MOSES BROUGHT. God says to
you, O scripture folk, and you will find it in your scripture "Muhammad
is the apostle of God; and those with him are severe against the
unbelievers, merciful among themselves. Thou seest them bowing, falling
prostrate seeking bounty and acceptance from God. The mark of their
prostrations is on their foreheads. That is their likeness in the Torah
and in the Gospel like a seed which sends forth its shoot and
strengthens it and it becomes thick and rises straight upon its stalk
delighting the sowers that He may anger the unbelievers with them. God
has promised those who believe and do well forgiveness and a great
reward." I adjure you by God, AND BY WHAT HE HAS SENT DOWN TO YOU, by
the manna and quails He gave as food to your tribes before you, and by
His drying up the sea for your fathers when He delivered them from
Pharaoh and his works, that you tell me, DO YOU FIND IN WHAT HE SENT
DOWN TO YOU that you should believe in Muhammad? IF YOU DO NOT FIND THAT
IN YOUR SCRIPTURE THEN THERE IS NO COMPULSION UPON YOU. "The right path
has become plainly distinguished from error" so I call you to God and
His Prophet' (313).
Assuming this quote is authentic, we refer you
back to the meaning of the Arabic word Muhayminan for a correct
understanding of what the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) meant by "confirming what Moses brought". This
agrees perfectly with what is supported by the exegetical evidence
already cited before.
Please answer this
question, what is the point of Muhammad asking the Jews:
DO YOU FIND IN WHAT HE SENT DOWN TO YOU that
you should believe in Muhammad?
If the Jews did not
have in their possession what Muhammad
refers to as "WHAT HE SENT DOWN TO YOU"? How do the Jews find
Muhammad or not find him in "WHAT HE SENT DOWNTO YOU" if
they did not have "WHAT HE SENT DOWN TO YOU"?
Muhammad's question
is completely meaningless unless the Jews had in their Possession
what Muhammad calls "WHAT HE SENT DOWN TO YOU".
He also equates
"WHAT HE SENT DOWN TO YOU" with
"YOUR SCRIPTURE"
when he says "IF YOU DO NOT FIND THAT IN YOUR SCRIPTURE THEN THERE IS NO
COMPULSION UPON YOU"
Ibid.
So what if they do
not find him in what he calls "WHAT HE SENT DOWN TO YOU"? Then there is
no compulsion on the Jews (or anyone else) to believe in him.
And that is a big "if". As we stated in our
original rebuttal to Roudh:
The second is that
many Muslim academics and proselytisers, both in the past and in recent
times, have argued that although an explicit mention of his name is no
longer present in the Bible, there are to be found descriptions in both
the Torah and the Gospels that strongly match the characteristics and/
or historical mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him).
And make no mistake
"WHAT HE SENT DOWN
TO YOU"
Can only refer to
pristine scripture, not to some pathetic book that has been
corrupted beyond recognition.
As we have shown, when we contextualise the
verses Roudh has quoted and examine them holistically, i.e. in light of
all the evidences related to this topic, they provide an understanding
in contradistinction to Roudh's.
Also,
And when he says "I
adjure you by God, AND BY WHAT HE HAS SENT DOWN"- you can adjure someone
by God or divine scripture but not by a book that is hopelessly
corrupted!
Not necessarily; a person can adjure someone
to recognise the elements of truth found in a corrupt book. Again, it is
of paramount importance to understand the meaning of the Arabic word:
Muhayminan, if one is to reach the truth in this context.
This hadith proves
that Muhammad considered the scriptures in the hands of the Jews to be
the genuine article.
A reference for the hadith would have helped
immensely. Nevertheless, and as already shown, it is a proof against you
and not for you.
Also consider this,
Abu Dawood
narrated in his collection that Ibn Umar said:
A group of Jewish people invited the
messenger of Allah to a house. When he came, they asked him: O Abu
Qassim, one of our men committed adultery with a woman, what is your
judgment against him? So they placed a pillow and asked the messenger of
Allah to set on it. Then the messenger of Allah proceeded to say: bring
me the Torah. When they brought it, he removed the pillow from
underneath him and placed the Torah on it and said: I BELIEVE IN YOU
AND IN THE ONE WHO REVEALED YOU, then said: bring me one of you who
have the most knowledge. So they brought him a young man who told him
the story of the stoning.
The scholars said: if the Torah was
corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not
have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you. This
group of scholars also said: Allah said:
"And the word of your Lord has been
accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words,
and He is the Hearing, the Knowing."
And the Torah is Allah's word. (Ighathat
Al Lahfan, Volume 2, p. 351; bold and capital emphasis ours)
We are certain that the phrase: "The scholars
said..." and everything thereafter is not part of the original hadith, but
rather commentary. Hence, the question that arises is: who were these
scholars? With no name having been presented, this, again, is an example
of appealing to authority, which, in this case, is unknown.
However, even if, for arguments sake, this
hadith was authentic, we could argue that it is referring to the only
incident we know of concerning the story of the Jewish adulterer and
adulteress cited before. In this regard, we showed that when Allaah
spoke about confirming the Torah, this was specifically restricted to
confirming the punishment for adultery in the Torah, which the Qur'an
confirmed, and not the Torah in toto. In the above cited account,
given that the Jews come to Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) for arbitrational purposes regarding judgement over a case of
adultery, the Prophet's belief in the Torah could only have been
restricted to this issue alone given the fact that he did not recognise
the infallibility of the Torah in toto. This is made apparent in
the following authentic traditions.
It was narrated
that Abu'l-Darda' said: "Umar brought some pages of the Torah to the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and
said, 'O Messenger of Allaah, these are some pages of the Torah which I
took from a brother of mine from Banu Zurayq.' The expression of the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) changed,
and 'Abdullaah ibn Zayd - who had been shown the Call to Prayer [adhaan
in a dream] - said, 'Has Allaah taken away your mind? Do you not see the
expression on the face of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings
of Allaah be upon him)?' 'Umar said, 'We are pleased with Allaah as our
Lord and with Islam as our religion and with Muhammad as our Prophet and
with the Qur'an as our guide.' Then the Messenger of Allaah (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) relaxed and said, 'By the One in Whose
hand is my soul, if Moses were to come among you and you were to
FOLLOW HIM and LEAVE ME, you would have gone far astray. You are
my share among the nations and I am your share among the Prophets."
(Musnad Ahmad, 15437)
In fact, the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) became angry when he saw 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab with
scripture from the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) in his
hands. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) warned:
Are you in doubt
of it [the Qur'an], O son of al-Khattaab? By the One in whose hand is my
soul, I have brought to you that which is white and pure, and by the One
in whose hand is my soul, if Moses were alive today he could do nothing
but follow me.
The question that stands before us is that if
the extant Torah had remained unchanged since its inception as Roudh
argues, how could the hypothetical followers of Moses at the time of
Muhammad be astray if they were being guided by the complete and
unadulterated truth from Allaah in the hands of Moses? If we were to
apply Roudh's logic, Moses would have to abandon following his "white
and pure" scripture for the equally "white and pure" scripture of
Muhammad's (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Hardly makes
sense.
The same logic could be extended and applied
to Jesus. If the Gospel has and will remain uncorrupted, why on his
return nearing the end of time will Jesus establish the laws (Shari'ah)
of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
when the uncorrupted
Gospel (and Torah) will presumably be available to him? What is more,
part of the establishment of the Shari'ah will also include not only him
breaking the symbol of Christianity, i.e. the cross, a public
declaration of the falsity of Christianity, but will wage war against
the Jews and Christians for the
atrocities and excesses they shall be committing against the Muslims at
that time.
Moreover, Jesus will, on the Day of
Judgment, free himself of the excesses and the disbelief of those who
claim to follow him.
Why would he
disassociate himself from those who claim to follow him if they were
left upon a pristine guidance with uncorrupted scriptures?
In addition, Abu Hurayrah reported that the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
By the One is
whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, not one from this nation, Jew or
Christian, will hear of me and die without having believed in
that with which I have been sent [Qur'an], but he will be one of the
dwellers of Hell fire. (Muslim, 153)
Again, if the Jews and Christians have the
complete truth in the form of the Torah and Gospel in their possession,
why is the following of other than these scriptures being setup as a
condition for salvation?
Furthermore, how will Roudh be able to
reconcile his position with the explicit statements in the Qur'an
stipulating that all other religions other than Islam will be rejected?
Observe:
"The only
religion acceptable to Allaah is Islam."
(Qur'an 3:19)
"Whoever
follows a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted from
him and in the hereafter he shall be from amongst the losers."
(Qur'an 3:85)
If Allaah recognises that the Jews and
Christians have the unblemished truth in their midst, why is He
instructing them that their current choice in religion and adherence to
their scripture will amount to nothing?
"And whoever
contradicts and opposes the Messenger after the right path has been
shown clearly to him, and follows other than the path of the believers,
We shall keep him on the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell - what
a terrible end!" (Qur'an 4:115)
Once more, to contradict Muhammad and to
follow a path other than his and the believers, i.e. the Muslims, is to
be a non-Muslim who does not believe in nor follow the Qur'an. Given
that the Jews and Christians fitted this description at the time of its
revelation, why is Allaah threatening them with eternal punishment in
hell fire after presumably affirming the complete truth of their
respective scriptures and asking them to continue abiding by them?
Finally, how about the verse in the Qur'an
where Allaah states in no uncertain terms:
"But woe to those who write out the Book with
their own hands and say 'This is from Allah'; to buy therewith a little
price. And woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to
them for what they gain."
(Qur'an 2:79)
In Tafseer Ibn Kathir, the following
explanation is given:
'Waylun
(woe)' carries meanings of destruction and perishing, and it is a
well-known word in the Arabic language. Az-Zuhri said that 'Ubadydullah
bin 'Abdullah narrated that Ibn 'Abbas said, "O Muslims! How could you
ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah
(Qur'an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from
Him and you still read it fresh and young? Allah told you that the
People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote
another book with their own hands. They then said, 'This book is
from Allah,' so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn't the
knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them? By Allah! We
have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you."
This Hadith was also
collected by Al-Bukhari.
...
Ad-Dahhak said
that Ibn 'Abbas commented, "Woe to them", "Means the torment will
be theirs because of the lies that they wrote with their own hands
...."
(bold, underline
ours)
This emphatic explanation should effectively
put this entire argument to bed. Ibn 'Abbaas is instructing the
companions not to consult the extant scriptures in the possession of the
Jews and Christians because Allaah confirmed their corruption.
All this effectively leaves Roudh in a rather
sticky catch-22 situation. If he intransigently insists on defending his
convoluted stance, he will have to reconcile this line of reasoning with
those numerous occasions where the Jews and Christians are either
threatened for continuing upon their religious path, which rests
exclusively with them following these so-called pristine scriptures, or
castigated for continuing to follow and believe corrupt scriptures that
were deliberately changed by them and/ or their ancestors.
The simple solution to this conundrum is for
Roudh to acknowledge that these scriptures have not remained
uncorrupted from the time of their original revelation.
This hadith shows
that Muhammad had the utmost respect for the Torah in the hands of the
Jews. Also the scholars quoted above were not prepared to contradict
him. They also applied there is none who can change His words
to the Torah.
What scholars? No scholars have been quoted.
It is crystal clear
from this that Muhammad assumes that the scriptures in the hands of the
Jews were genuine and authentic. Again if Muhammad and the Quran had
clearly taught for 23 years that the Torah was textually corrupted then
this affirmation by early Muslim scholars that the Torah was textually
sound is incomprehensible.
Refuted above.
The reason why some
Muslims are prepared to ignore the clear testimony of their own
scriptures is because in the upside down world of Islam an unshakable
imaan is considered far more precious than the dignity that comes from
never relinquishing one's intellectual integrity.
As we have shown, in the upside down mind of
Roudh, day is night and night is day and if they are not then the twain
shall always meet.
When Muslims refer to the Torah, they are
certainly not referring to the extant Old Testament that comprises a
number of works, by both known and unknown authors, which contain
blasphemous and heretical theological beliefs and concepts. And when
Muslims refer to the Gospel, they are certainly not referring to the
extant New Testament and its 27 books comprising of works ascribed to
authors unknown and Paul of Tarsus, whose apostleship Muslims reject.
Thus, we reject the four Gospels ascribed to four pseudonymous authors
since we believe in only a single Gospel revealed by God and
disseminated by one man only: Jesus, son of Mary (who is not considered
the Son of God nor part of the fictitiously illogical concept of a
Triune God-head).
(Qur'an 5:66) If
only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation
that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness
from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course:
but many of them follow a course that is evil.
There he goes again with his eisegesis; and
here we come with the correct exegesis. Ibn Kathir quotes Ibn 'Abbaas as
follows:
As for Allah's
verse, "and if only they had observed the Torah, the Gospel, and what
has been sent down to them from their Lord", Ibn Abbas said: it
means the Qur'an. "They would surely have eaten from above them
and from beneath their feet", that is, if they had followed the Shari'ah
ordained in their Books, as it had been revealed to their
Prophets, WITHOUT modifying, altering or distorting the truth in them,
they would surely have been guided to follow the truth and abide by the
laws revealed to Muhammad from His Lord. Without doubt, their Books
confirm the advent of Prophet Muhammad SI, belief and obedience of his
Message.
(bold, underline,
capitals ours)
Is there a pattern emerging here Roudh?
(Qur'an
5:68) Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon
unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that
has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to
thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate
rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without
Faith.
After all this, we could risk asking Roudh to
take a wild guess as to what Allaah means by the portion of the verse
that reads "that which has been sent down to you from your Lord", but we
are afraid his answer may sorely disappoint everyone. And so we turn to
Ibn Kathir who cites the student of Ibn 'Abbaas:
And "that which
has been sent down to you from your Lord", that is, the Qur'an,
as Mujahid said. (bold ours)
The above verses
urge the Jews and Christians to follow the guidance of their respective
scriptures. So which scriptures were available to the Jews and
Christians that the Quran was telling them to abide by?
Is it so difficult to see that the Qur'an is
referring to Gospel in the singular and yet what the Christians hold in
their hands are Gospels - four to be precise - written by pseudonymous
and unknown authors? This simple argument is sufficient in refuting
Roudh.
The Christians are being urged to follow the
remnants of truth from the original source, i.e. the Gospel (in the
singular), that remains in the extant Bible which the Qur'an came to
witness over and testify to as explicated by Ibn 'Abbaas and Ibn Jarir.
If by the Gospel the
Quran means:-
a single Gospel revealed by God and
disseminated by one man only: Jesus, ...
then this book was
not in the hands of Muhammad's Christian contemporaries, it would
therefore render the Quran's exhortation meaningless. Since the Quran
can only be referring to a scripture that the Christians were able to
access, we must determine which scripture this was.
Or, as we have argued, the Qur'an refers to
the truth it witnesses over and testifies to.
Also it needs to be
said that there is absolutely no evidence that a
single Gospel revealed by God and disseminated by one man only: Jesus,
... has ever existed. Muslims need
to produce some evidence for this book as it is not credible that it has
disappeared without trace.
The absence of such a source does not
necessarily infer that no such source existed. To the contrary, New
Testament scholars have inferred the existence of a hitherto
undiscovered source for at least two Gospels, viz. Matthew and
Luke, which they have called the "Gospel of Q" or "Q Source". For
example, renowned New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman, states:
Although Q
obviously no longer exists, there are good reasons for thinking that it
was a real document-even if we cannot know for sure its complete
contents.
(bold ours)
Ehrman elaborates elsewhere:
[S]ince the
nineteenth century .... The German scholars who came up with this view
called this other source Quelle, the German word for 'source.'
This unknown additional "source" is called simply Q.
Q then is the
source of material found in Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. This
material appears to have come from a lost Gospel accessible to
the two later Gospel writers. We do not know everything that was in
Q (or that was not in Q), but whenever Matthew and Luke agree word for
word on a story not found in Mark, it is thought to came from Q. So
Mark and Q are our two earliest sources. Matthew used one or more
other written or oral sources for his Gospel, and these we call Matthean
sources, or M. The sources for material special to Luke we call L.
So prior to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke there were four
available sources: Mark, Q, M, and L (both M and L are possibly
multiple sources). These are our
earliest materials for reconstructing the life of Jesus.
(bold, underline
ours)
It is strange, though unsurprising given
Roudh's shoddy research efforts, that he could be so flippantly
dismissive despite the existence of academic discussion and research
within the circles of New Testament scholarship extending back to the
nineteenth century. We would, therefore, invite him to further studies
in this subject by suggesting the following website as a starting point
to what scholars over the past century have said regarding
The Lost Sayings Gospel Q.
Similarly we need to
know which scripture the Quran is telling the Jews to follow. This
cannot be the nonexistent
Torah originally revealed to Moses before it was
textually corrupted (not the extant Tanakh, Pentateuch or the Bible)
because the Jews could not follow a book that did not exist.
As stated above, the remnants of truth from
the original source found in the extant Torah which the Qur'an came to
witness over and testify to as explicated by Ibn 'Abbaas and Ibn Jarir.
So what scriptures
were available to the Jews and Christians in the seventh century? The
historical records attest that the only scriptures available to these
Jews and Christians were the Jewish Bible or the Torah and the New
Testament. Since these can be the only scriptures that the Quran could
be referring to, it confirms the scriptures in the possession of Jews
and Christians of Muhammad's time. This also means that the Quran
confirmed the scriptures in the possession of Jews and Christians today.
Ibid.
You quote Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi.
In addition, we can also confirm that there
exists evidence in the historical tradition of Islam to suggest that the
Torah in the hands of the Jewish community in Arabia during the time of
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) must have gone
through some textual corruption given that it differs to the Torah we
have today.
Zawadi observes that "it is also possible that
parts of the true Torah and Injeel [Gospel] existed until the 7th
century [during Muhammad's time] and are not found in the Bible today".
He supports this claim by citing five authentic Islamic traditions that
point to references and injunctions apparently present in what the Jews
in that area and epoch referred to as the Torah, but which "we don't
find ... today with us in the Bible", and "[t]herefore ... must have
been removed, thus indicating textual corruption".
Islamic traditions
cannot be given greater credence than the findings of independent and
unbiased historians and scholars who have no theological axes to grind,
regardless of how authentic these traditions are, or it would beg the
question.
Given that there is no evidence to prove that
the presence of bias resulted in Islamic sources being inaccurate or
unfair when chronicling historical accounts and findings, this is
nothing short of a cheap ad hominem attack.
With regards to the
reliability of the Jewish Bible consider the following concerning The
Dead Sea Scrolls:
In these scrolls we have the manuscripts of
the Jewish bible which date to about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.)
than the other Jewish bible manuscripts in our possession (900 A.D.)
When compared it is clear that they are
essentially the same, with very few changes.
The fact that manuscripts separated by a
thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible
accuracy of the Jewish bible's transmission. The full copy of Isaiah
that was discovered was word for word identical with the standard Hebrew
bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation
consisted of obvious slips of the pen and spelling variations. (Ron
Rhodes)
The alleged reliability of the Hebrew Bible
dating back only 150 years before Jesus does not account for the
remaining approximately 1400 years extending back to the time of the
first book of the Torah, Genesis. It is a hasty generalisation to claim
that because reliability allegedly exists from 150BC to 900AD that this
is also true of the time between 150BC and 1400BC. Hence, there is no
reason to say that corruption could not have occurred during this period
of 1250 years.
As a side note, Ron Rhodes seems to
dramatically exaggerate the import of the Dead Sea Scrolls vis-á-vis
the argument of reliability. Although it is true that complete copies of
Isaiah were found in Qumran, this is not the case with the rest of the
books of the Hebrew Bible. For example, the Book of Esther was not
present among the finds, while only fragments were found accounting for
all the other remaining books. According to The Oxford Companion to
Archaeology:
The biblical
manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every
book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther,
provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that
available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical
manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional,
Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of
Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences
in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual
variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to
reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern
biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic
text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan
Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament
scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around
100 CE.
(bold, underline
ours)
Even looking to the book of Isaiah, to
simplistically suggest that this book has arrived to us in its complete
and unadulterated form directly from Prophet Isaiah is nothing but
wishful thinking. The Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls
recognises the following under the Book of Isaiah:
Literary criticism
has long since demonstrated that MOST of the books of the
Hebrew scriptures are the product of a lengthy and complex
compositional process, and the earliest extant textual evidence at times
preserves documentation of the latter Stages of these processes. This
general picture holds also for the Book of Isaiah in particular. It
is a highly composite work, with a rich history of growth and
development. Starting with a collection of oracles from the
eighth-century bce prophet Isaiah of Jerusalem, the work served as a
magnet for a rich and variegated heritage of prophetic materials.
These range from the large collections of high theology expressed in
lyric poetry by an unknown exilic author called Deutero-Isaiah in
Babylon and the late-sixth-century follow-up in Trito-Isaiah in
Jerusalem, to hundreds of minor insertions expressing divergent
theological points over the passing centuries.
(bold,
underline, capitals ours)
Hence, literary criticism has long since
proved that the Book of Isaiah falsely attributed to the Prophet of the
same name was, for centuries, incrementally added to and changed in
response to whatever expediential theological points required inclusion.
And this process was true for "most of the books of the Hebrew
scriptures".
Take the example of the Book of Psalms. In the
Islamic tradition, the Psalms, known as the Zuboor in Arabic,
were revealed exclusively to Prophet David (Dawood) and Prophet David
alone. In the Hebrew scripture, however, the Book of Psalms comprises
150 songs many of which are written by anonymous authors while others
are attributed to other than David.
German theologian, Johann Peter Lange,
provided a tabulation of the songs which we have further broken down
statistically:
Book 1: Of the 41 books: four are anonymously
authored.
Percentage of Davidic Psalms = 90%.
Book 2: Of the 31 books: seven are Kohrite
Psalms; one is an Asaphic Psalm; three are anonymous; one is a Psalm of
Solomon.
Percentage of Davidic Psalms = 61%.
Book 3: Of the 17 books: eleven are Psalms of
Asaph; four Kohrite Psalms; closing with the Messianic Psalm of Ethan.
Percentage of Davidic Psalms = 6%.
Book 4: Of the 17 books: begins with the
prayer of Moses! 13 anonymous.
Percentage of Davidic Psalms = 17.5%.
Book 5: Of the 44 books: 28 anonymous; one
attributed to Solomon!
Percentage of Davidic Psalms =
34%.
75 of the 150 songs in the Book of Psalms are
non-Davidic, i.e. exactly half are not authored by David, while 48 of
the 150 songs (32%) are anonymously authored, despite "[a]lmost half the
psalms bear[ing] a headline including the name of David".
If we bring into the fray the Dead Sea
Scrolls, as Roudh has unsuccessfully attempted to do to bolster his
stance, then "according to the large Qumran scroll (llQPsa
col. 27) David 'wrote' and 'spoke' no less than 3,600 psalms ... and 450
'songs' ...!"
Would Roudh like to
venture an explanation as to what became of all these and whether they
were ever part of the extant Torah?
By his overly ambitious reasoning, all the
contents of the Psalms must be attributed to David; yet Biblical
scholars have acknowledged that the Book of Psalms again shows the same signs
of adultery and corruption as the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Roudh cannot
have his cake and eat it.
Now if there were
predictions of Muhammad then we would expect to find evidence for these
in the writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Again, this is a strawman for we never denied
the presence of said prophecies.
All the extant
manuscripts of the Jewish bible which were written during and after the
time of Jesus would contain traces of such prophecies since all of these
manuscripts virtually read the same, and no variant reading questions
the textual integrity of the Jewish bible.
Who says they do not? Again, this is a
strawman.
Allegations in some Islamic traditions that the Torah contained
references to Muhammad which were later corrupted are not only
contradicted by other authentic traditions but by the Quran, early
Muslim scholars and most importantly by the manuscript evidence.
The Old Testament,
written originally in Hebrew (with a portion of Daniel in
Aramaic), was translated into Greek about two hundred years before the
time of Christ. The Septuagint (as this translation came to be known)
was likewise widely disseminated. Its complete consistency with the
Massoretic text of the Old Testament, right down to this day,
testifies to the authenticity of the Old Testament centuries before the
times of both Jesus and Muhammad. (John Gilchrist)
But, as we said, not all the way back to its
origin.
We
know what the Torah in the hands of the Arabian Jews looked like before
Muhammad claimed to be a prophet as we have extant copies of the Torah
written at various times and places, some of which predate Jesus as well
as Muhammad.
This is a false argument unless Roudh can
provide evidence for the existence of an extant manuscript from the
period and locale of "the Arabian Jews".
It does not logically follow that because
certain manuscripts have survived from certain regions that this must
also be true of all regions.
None of these copies contained the passages mentioned by the hadiths
quoted by Zawadi. Since all the other copies of
the Torah that existed throughout the then known world were the same it
is not credible that the Arabian Jews had a "special" Torah which alone
contained prophecies of Muhammad which they then corrupted.
Again, it is a hasty generalisation to claim
that all the copies of the Torah of that time were the same by
dismissing, without any credible and objective justification, historical
evidence that suggests the opposite. Roudh's desperate appeal to
something not being possible is nothing more than an emotional one.
It
is far more credible that these charges were drummed up by some Muslims
who were unable to find prophecies for their prophet which they were
misled into believing were there, or these "historical" traditions are
fabrications concocted by dishonest Muslims to 'prove' that the Torah
contained references to their prophet.
Credible because Roudh says it is? Where is
the proof that the Muslims of that time attempted to search for these
prophecies, but failed to do so? Could it not be possible that they
simply did not bother wasting their precious time in search of said
prophecies?
Ironically for Roudh, Muslims at a later date
have forwarded examples from the Bible they believe to be accurate
descriptions of their Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Even if we assume for arguments sake that the Arabian Jews removed these
references to Muhammad from their Torah then how do you explain the
absence of these references from the copies of the Torah which were in
the possession of Jews and Christians in the rest of the world? How
do you explain the absence of these references from
the copies of the Torah that predate Muhammad?
You cannot if you do not consider them to be
absent! There is nothing in said hadiths to suggest that all the
descriptions of Muhammad (peace
and blessings of Allaah be upon him) from all the
Torahs were removed. Although Roudh seems to have correctly acknowledged
that these prophetic traditions are restricted to the Jews of Arabia, he
then falsely attempts to over state his case by suggesting that they
must have been absent from all others.
The Torah has been transmitted independently by Jews and Christians from
well before the time of Muhammad and they are the same which means that
we have the same Torah now which was in the possession of the Arabian
Jews of Muhammad's time.
Hasty generalisation!
It
would not be possible for prophecies of Muhammad to have been removed
since this would require that the Jews and Christians have access to all
the Biblical manuscripts all over the then known world in order to
remove these alleged predictions.
And here we come full circle: the false
assumption that the Prophet's description was expunged from all the
Torahs.
This would further mean that the Jews and Christians would have to know
of Muhammad beforehand and also agree to come together in order to
corrupt their writings so as to remove any mention him. But their basic
beliefs are so different this suggestion is not even worthy of
consideration. To accomplish this without leaving any trace of evidence
would have required a miracle.
Refuted above.
It would have only been possible for the Jews to remove prophecies of
Muhammad after they came to know him i.e. they did not like his message
or because he was not a Jew etc.
That is the whole point; the Jews residing in
Arabia, who were settled in Arabia for so long that they were
independently autonomous and self-sufficient, attempted to expunge the
descriptions from only the Torah in their possession.
But if they removed these references after coming to know him we could
easily expose their corruption by comparing copies of the Torah that
were written prior to the coming of Muhammad with those that were
written after him.
This claim is predicated on the assumption
that such copies have survived; otherwise we are effectively left with
the historical accounts of Muslims which, as seen earlier, Rough
summarily dismisses simply because they are from the Muslims.
When comparing these copies what we find is that copies of the Jewish
bible written before Muhammad are essentially the same and are almost
identical to the copies that were written after him.
What copies?! If Roudh is hiding away an
extant copy of the Torah belonging to the Jews of Madinah, now would be
the time to reveal it to us and, more importantly, the rest of the
world.
Since this proves that the Jews did not remove prophecies of Muhammad
from their scriptures the references in Zawadi's "historical" traditions
contradict the evidence and must be rejected as forgeries.
Ibid.
The writers of the Christian scriptures (New Testament) also claimed
that the Jewish Bible contains numerous verses that are prophecies of
Jesus, but the Jews did not remove these verses from their Bible. With
regards to this consider the following:
One of the great themes of the New Testament
is that the covenant recorded in its pages which came through the
revelation of Jesus Christ was foreshadowed in the Old Testament, the
Scripture of the Jewish peoples which was completed at least four
centuries before Jesus was born. The teaching of the New Testament that
Jesus is the Son of God, for example, is constantly justified by quotes
from the Old Testament. In Psalm 2.7 God speaks of his coming anointed
one and says, "Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee" and, in 2
Samuel 7.14, when telling David that this same anointed one would be one
of his own offspring, God said "I will be his father and he shall be my
son". Both these texts are quoted in Hebrews 1.5 to show that the coming
of the Son of God as God's anointed ruler and deliverer among men was
foretold in the earlier scriptures.
To this day the relevant texts remain in the
Old Testament, the cherished Scripture of the Jews, a people who no more
believe that God has a Son than the Muslims do. The doctrine of Jesus as
the Son of God is as vehemently rejected by the Jews as it is by the
Muslims, even more so by the Jews as they do not believe in Jesus at
all, whereas the Muslims at least acknowledge that he was a true
prophet. Yet the very texts foretelling the coming of God's Son into the
world remain intact in the Jewish Scriptures. (John Gilchrist).
The fact that the
Jews did not remove these texts also strongly argues against the charge
that Jews removed references to Muhammad from their scriptures.
This fallacious reasoning is known as 'Denying
the Antecedent', i.e. if A, then B; not A, then not B. It does not
follow that because the Jews did not remove the Prophecies of Jesus,
they had no reason to remove any prophecies of Muhammad.
A question for Roudh to ponder over is what
purpose would it have served the Jews of Madinah to attempt to remove
the prophecies of Jesus? Jesus' legacy was virtually rejected by the
Jews; they did not consider him to be the long awaited Messiah and they
certainly could never accept him to be a divine person of the Trinity
Doctrine. However, with the advent of Muhammad (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him), they had every reason to attempt this extirpation.
If a description of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
were pointed out to them, they would have found very little excuse to
reject him as a Prophet thereafter?
With regard to this
issue consider also the following quotes that were taken from a
Christian website. (any emphasis is theirs) in the words of Mahmoud
Ayoub:
"Contrary to the general Islamic view, the
Qur'an does not accuse Jews and Christians of altering the text of their
scriptures, but rather of altering the truth which those scriptures
contain. The people do this by concealing some of the sacred texts, by
misapplying their precepts, or by `altering words from their right
position" (4:26; 5:13,41; see also 2:75). However, this refers more to
interpretation than to actual addition or deletion of words from the
sacred books. The problem of alteration (tahrif) needs further study.
("Uzayr in the Qur'an and Muslim Tradition" in Studies in Islamic &
Judaic Traditions, ed. W.M. Brenner and S.D. Ricks, The University
of Denver, 1986, p. 5.)
And this from the
Egyptian scholar, Muhammad 'Abduh.
"(The) charge of corruption of the Biblical
texts makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews
and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those
in Arabia had done it, the difference between their books and those of
their brothers, let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been
obvious." (Jacques Jomier, Jesus, The Life of the Messiah,
C.L.S., Madras, 1974, p. 216.)
These explanations directly contradict the
explicit historical accounts that suggest otherwise. 'Abduh's argument
is premised on the assumption that the obvious difference arising from
such a change would have been sufficient in dissuading them. However,
this again is a false assumption because there could have been any
number of other plausible reasons for them to think otherwise. For
example, perhaps they were willing to take the risk; perhaps they could
not have cared less what their non-Arab coreligionists might have
accused them of; perhaps the Torah being in the hands of their
Rabbinical elite and, thus, not readily available to the lay, as was
often the case with Jewish and Christian communities and their
respective scriptures, made them believe they would not be exposed.
This final reason seems very plausible in
light of Muqatil bin Sulaiman's interpretation of the Qur'anic verse
2:79:
The leaders
of the Jews in Medina erased the descriptions and traits of Muhammad
peace be upon him from the Torah, and they wrote other traits and
descriptions.
With this in mind, it would be inconceivable
to entertain the notion that the leaders of these Arab Jews were capable
of conspiring to change all the Torahs of the world.
Al-Razi say's in his
commentary
There is a difference of opinions regarding
this matter among some of the respectable scholars. Some of these
scholars said: the manuscript copies of the Torah were distributed
everywhere and no one knows the exact number of these copies except
Allah. It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the
word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a
conspiracy will not be logical or possible. And when Allah told his
messenger (Muhammad) to ask the Jews to bring their Torah and read it
concerning the stoning command they were not able to change this
command from their copies, that is why they covered up the stoning
verse while they were reading it to the prophet. It was then when
Abdullah Ibn Salam requested that they remove their hand so that the
verse became clear. If they have changed or altered the Torah then this
verse would have been one of the important verses to be altered by the
Jews.
Also, whenever the prophet would ask them
(the Jews) concerning the prophecies about him in the Torah they were
not able to remove them either, and they would respond by stating
that they are not about him and they are still waiting for the prophet
in their Torah. (emphasis theirs)
If anything, ar-Razi's reasoning that "[i]t is
impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in
all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a
conspiracy will not be logical or possible" (bold, underline ours)
further supports our contention that not only would such a task be near
impossible to achieve, but also that the hadiths do not suggest that all
the Torahs were altered, but only those in the possession of the Madinan
Jews.
So again we find
more Muslims scholars who were unable to believe that the Torah has been
textually corrupted.
Appeal to numbers!
Zawadi's claims are
unsustainable because apart from contradicting the Quran, other
authentic hadiths, and many Muslim scholars they contradict the
manuscript evidence. Zawadi appears unable to allow for the possibility
that the hadiths he quoted may have been fabricated despite the fact
they contradict all the evidence.
He
(Bassam Zawadi)
then cites one of the leading interpreters of the Qur'an and a companion
of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), Ibn
Abbaas
(Ibn Abbaas, Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn
'Abbas, Commentary on Surah 2:79,
Source)
He also quotes "early Qur'anic commentator
Muqatil bin Sulaiman" who says of the Qur'anic verse 2:79:
The leaders of the Jews in Medina erased
the descriptions and traits of Muhammad peace be upon him from
the Torah, and they wrote other traits and descriptions
(Qur'an
2:77-79) Know they not that Allah knoweth what they conceal and what
they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the
Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but
conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands,
and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable
price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they
make thereby.
Quran 2:77-79 is
aimed at only a section of the Jews and not all of them.
And there are among them illiterates, who
know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do
nothing but conjecture
I fail to see how
"illiterates, who know not the Book" could be referring to
The leaders of the Jews in Medina.
Astonishingly
Muslim's are asking us to believe that "illiterates, who know not the
Book" corrupted the text of the Torah!!
There is nothing in the verse to imply that it
was the illiterates who wrote the book with their own hands, i.e.
changed it. In fact, when we take this issue in context, which, lo and
behold, Roudh has again failed to do, we find the following to be the
case.
Verse 75 reads:
"Do you
(faithful believers) covet that they will believe in your religion in
spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to
hear the Word of Allah (the Torah), then they used to change it
knowingly after they understood it?"
Ibn Kathir explains that "being fully aware of
their erroneous interpretations and corruption. This statement is
similar to Allah's statement, 'So, because of their violation of
their covenant. We cursed them and made their hearts grow hard. They
change the words from their (right) places' (5:13)" (bold ours).
He then quotes Mujahid as saying:
Those who used to
alter it and conceal its truths; they were their scholars.
(bold, underline
ours)
It goes without saying that it was the
literate scholars or leaders of the Jews who achieved this feat, not of
course the illiterates. Evidence of this distinction between the
literate and illiterate is apparent from how verse 79 begins: "Then woe
to those who write the Book with their own hands," (bold,
underline ours), as Ibn Kathir clarifies:
This is another
category of people among the Jews who called to misguidance with
falsehood and lies about Allah, thriving on unjustly amassing people's
property. (bold ours)
That is, another category of people other than
the illiterate ones (Arabic: ummiyyoon) mentioned in the previous
verse.
Then woe to those who write the Book with
their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it
for miserable price!-
This verse is
accusing a section of the Jews of fabricating verses for the purpose of
selling them off as divine scripture. What it does not say is that they
were corrupting the text of the Jewish Bible.
Ibid.
In addition the Quran also recognises
righteous Jews who obviously would not corrupt their scriptures.
(Qur'an 7:159) Of
the people of Moses there is a section who guide and do justice in the
light of truth.
(Qur'an 3:199) And
there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in
Allah, in the revelation to you, and in the revelation to them, bowing
in humility to Allah: They will not sell the Signs of Allah for a
miserable gain! For them is a reward with their Lord, and Allah is swift
in account.
(Qur'an 3:113-114)
Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that
stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long,
and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in Allah and
the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and
they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of
the righteous.
Concerning the
Quran's charge of the Jews distorting the Torah
with their tongues.
(Qur'an
3:78) There is among them a section who distort the Book with their
tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it
is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is
not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they
know it!
You cannot hide,
distort, twist, misinterpret or even sell a book you no longer have
access to. Why does Allah condemn the Jews for doing this to a book if
it was already corrupted beyond recognition and not even worth reading?
And why do the Jews need to distort, twist, conceal and misinterpret a
book if it was already hopelessly corrupted?
Firstly, what makes Roudh believe that the
Jews did not have access to their distorted scripture? There's no
explanation given for this.
We have already furnished evidence to show
that the Jews came to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) and attempted to cover with their hands the verses in
reference to the punishment of adultery in their book. How can anyone
physically cover up inaccessible scriptures?
Secondly, who said it was not worth reading
for the Jews? More importantly, why does Roudh persistently insist on
resorting to eisegesis in constructing his false arguments? As stated
before, the Jewish scripture was not so hopelessly corrupted that it did
not contain elements of truth, such as, descriptions of the Prophet or
the punishment for adultery. Hence, the remnants of truth allows for the
possibility of further corruption, such as the Madinan Jews attempt in
expunging the descriptions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah
be upon him).
If textual
corruption is what Allah really wants to accuse them of then why beat
about the bush, why not simply come out with it and state in unmistaken
terms "the Jews have corrupted the text of the Torah beyond recognition
and it can no longer be considered divine scripture and must be
rejected". Why make such a hard job of it? If this is what he was really
trying to tell us then he has certainly managed to fool me, not to
mention his prophet, many Muslim scholars and probably all of the
non-Muslims who have studied this matter.
There is nothing difficult in this regard save
for those who have very little understanding and consistently resort to
eisegesis. If Roudh had bothered to ascertain the correct methodology of
Islamic exegesis, rather than stumbling around blindly as he has done,
he would not feel as though he has been fooled. As Allaah says:
"And that
the foolish among us used to utter against Allah that which was an
enormity in falsehood." (Qur'an
72:4)
After writing the
above comment I came across this observation submitted by a reader of a
Christian website:
Why is there no clear statement about
Bible Corruption in the Qur'an?
Concerning what the Qur'an says about the
Bible. Here is an argument which I have not seen on your site:
The Qur'an claims to be a book which is
COMPLETE; a book fully DETAILED and an explanation of EVERYTHING, where
NOTHING is omitted (Cf. Surahs 6:38; 6:114; 6:126; 10:37, 12:11; 16:89).
Consequently, we would expect to find a
plain verse from the Qur'an saying explicitly that the text of the Torah
and/or Gospel is/are falsified, since the Qur'an claims not to have
omitted anything. However, we NEVER find such a verse in the entire
Qur'an.
In fact, the Muslims have so far been unable
to produce even one verse which clearly says that the text of the
Torah and/or the Gospel are falsified. The Muslim propagandists
speculate and extrapolate some verses such as 5:14; 5:48; 3:78; 2:75-79,
which NEVER say in a way that is clear that the Torah and/ or the Gospel
is/are falsified. Furthermore, these verses, once correctly read,
actually prove to be a confirmation of the authenticity of the Torah and
the Gospel.
A question for Muslims: Why did Allah fail
to explicitly and clearly announce that the text of the Torah and Gospel
have been falsified, especially when this is such an important topic of
discussion in Muslim and Christian polemics?
Another question: Muslims often say at the
end of their articles that Allah has more knowledge (i.e., "Allah knows
best"). If this is the case, then why do you affirm with such fierceness
a thing that Allah did not say at all in the Qur'an? Are you more
erudite than Allah?
Rather than make exaggerated claims, and
attribute things to Allah that he did not say, the Muslims should listen
to what the Qur'an really says about the Torah and the Gospel. However,
that would lead to the conclusion that the Qur'an is not from God.
David Tonnoir
To
this I would like to add another point. For Islam to be true the Torah
needs to have been corrupted beyond recognition. If the Torah has been
corrupted beyond recognition then why does the Quran repeatedly testify
that the Torah is genuine, reliable, original and authentic?
Suffice it to say that we have furnished clear
evidence to show that when correctly understood in light of the Islamic
methodology of exegesis, there can be no doubt that the Qur'an
unquestionably charges the Jews and Christians with scriptural
corruption.
Muslims are compelled to distort the clear testimony of the Quran in
order to save their faith. One of the arguments that the Quran
repeatedly puts forward as evidence of its divine origins is that it is
in harmony with previous revelations. The unwarranted and unnatural
meaning that the Quran is telling people that it is in agreement with
the nonexistent
Torah originally revealed to Moses before it
was textually corrupted (not the extant Tanakh, Pentateuch or the Bible)
is imposed on the text by Muslims who recognise the devastating
implications of the plain meaning of these verses. I have never seen any
evidence that during the 23 years of Muhammad's recitals they were ever
understood by anyone in this way.
"Knowledge of absence is not absence of
knowledge"; meaning: just because Roudh has never seen them, which is
unsurprising given the limited extent of his knowledge, does not mean
its absence. Hopefully, we have now shown him otherwise.
In relation to Quran
2:79, also consider the following quote:-
" if we insist upon an actual corruption of
the genuine text, would this not nullify other numerous references
within the Qur'an regarding the genuineness of the Tawrat so that the
Qur'an would become self-contradictory? Or further, assuming that an
actual corruption of the manuscripts themselves took place, may it not
be asked if all Jewry necessarily followed in the footsteps of those
Jews here addressed? And if all Jews in the world joined in this
corruption, did all the Christians of the world, who also possess the
Tawrat, assent to these changes? To deduce thus a general corruption of
the Tawrat among all Jewry and Christendom, for all subsequent ages,
from one specific instance of corruption by a small colony of Jews in so
remote a place as Madina, as is here assumed for the moment, is hardly a
legitimate deduction."
(Ernest Hahn: The Integrity of the
Bible according to the Qur'an and the
Hadith).
You quoted Ibn Abbas in an attempt to prove
that one of the greatest Muslim scholars interpreted Quran 2:79 to mean
that the Jews corrupted the Torah.
Let me give another
quotation from Ibn Abbas. Reported by the famous hadith collector that
you mentioned.
Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said
that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among
Allah's creation CAN REMOVE THE WORDS OF ALLAH FROM HIS BOOKS, THEY
ALTER AND DISTORT THEIR APPARENT MEANINGS. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The
Tawrah and Injil REMAIN AS ALLAH REVEALED THEM, AND NO LETTER IN THEM
WAS REMOVED. However, the people misguide others by addition and
false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves."
Then,
<they say: "This is from Allah," but it
is not from Allah;>
As for Allah's books, THEY ARE STILL
PRESERVED AND CANNOT BE CHANGED." Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this
statement ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir - Abridged, Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5,
Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, verse 147 [Darussalam
Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First
Edition: March 2000], p. 196;
source;
(as quoted on a Christian
website) emphasis theirs.
It
is clear from this quote that Ibn Abbas and another respected scholar
did not believe in the textual corruption of the Jewish or Christian
scriptures. Ibn Abbas' understanding according to this
quotation was that they corrupted the meanings of their scriptures. If
the Quran and Muhammad had clearly taught for 23 years that the Bible
was textually corrupted beyond recognition then this statement from an
eminent Muslim scholar and a companion of your prophet is inexplicable.
This is a perfect example of why Roudh needs
to at least attempt to conduct his own research rather than blindly
rehash the efforts of Christians. Had Roudh only bothered to click on
the source link, he would have noticed a typical example of distortion
that some Christians often employ: selective quotation. What is
conveniently clipped is the following:
However, if Wahb
meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the
Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they altered,
distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic
versions of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and
deletions and enormous misinterpretation. Those who rendered these
translations have incorrect comprehension in most, rather, all of these
translations. If Wahb meant the Books of Allah that He [Allah] has with
Him, then indeed, these Books are preserved and were never changed.
What Ibn Kathir perceptively highlights is
what Ibn 'Abbaas and Wahb actually meant by Allaah's Books being
altered. Wahb makes an apparent distinction between "[t]he Tawrah
[Torah] and the Injil [Gospel that] remain as Allah revealed them" and
the "books that they [the Jews and Christians] wrote themselves". If, as
Roudh claims, "Ibn Abbas and another respected scholar
[viz. Wahb] did not believe in the textual
corruption of the Jewish or Christian scriptures", why would Wahb
explicitly state that the Jews and Christians rely on books "they
wrote themselves"? The answer is obvious: they wrote
these books themselves, thereby committing a form of textual corruption,
and falsely claimed them to be divinely inspired.
So what does Wahb mean by
"[t]he Tawrah [Torah] and the Injil [Gospel]
remain as Allah revealed them"? Ibn Kathir correctly points out that the
original Books of Allah can never be changed because they are "with
Him", meaning: with Allaah. And this is what Wahb meant by: "As for
Allah's Books, they are still preserved and cannot be changed."
The explanation of Wahb and the commentary of
Ibn Kathir is precisely what Ibn 'Abbaas also meant. Although the quoted
link states that "Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn 'Abbas said ...", the
website fails to quote the relevant hadith from al-Bukhari. However,
when one turns to a more extensive coverage of Ibn Kathir's tafseer
vis-á-vis verse 2:79, rather than the condensed one these
Christians opportunistically link to, we find further clarification in
the form of said hadith:
Az-Zuhri said that
'Ubadydullah bin 'Abdullah narrated that Ibn 'Abbas said, "... Allah
told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed
it and WROTE ANOTHER BOOK WITH THEIR OWN HANDS. They then
said, 'This book is from Allah,' so that they acquired a small profit by
it. Hasn't the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking
them? By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was
revealed to you."
This Hadith was
also collected by AL-BUKHARI.
(bold, underline,
capitals ours)
And:
Ad-Dahhak said
that Ibn 'Abbas commented, "Woe to them", "Means the torment will
be theirs because of the lies that they WROTE with their own
hands ...."
(bold, underline,
capitals ours)
Given that Ibn 'Abbaas affirmed the textual
corruption of the previous scriptures, he, along with Wahb and all other
Muslims for that matter, understood that when all is said and done no
one could ultimately change the original Torah and Gospel for they were
the Speech of Allaah, which, in terms of its divine origin, is eternal
and can never be subject to change.
This point is well delineated by Bassam Zawadi
in his refutation of the notorious Sam Shamoun:
Surah 6:115
The
word of thy Lord doth find its fulfilment in truth and in justice: None
can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth
all. S. 6:115 (bold, underline not ours)
Surah 18:27
And
recite (and teach) what has been revealed to thee of the Book of thy
Lord: none can change His Words, and none wilt thou find
as a refuge other than Him. S. 18:27(bold, underline not ours)
It
seems quite clear just from reading the context alone that what is meant
by "none change His words" is that no one could stop Allah's promises
from being fulfilled. Reading Surah 6:115 alone makes that very clear.
Imam Al
Tabari in his commentary states:
"None
can change His words", He is saying that there is no one who could
change what He has informed in His books about anything which is bound
to happen during it's time or has been postponed. It all happens as
Allah says it would. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami' al-bayan fi
ta'wil al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 6:115, Source) (bold,
underline not ours)
Imam
Al-Qurtubi in his commentary states:
Al
Ramaani narrated on the authority of Qataadah who said: There is no
change in the judgment of God. Even if one were to change and substitute
the words just as the people of the book did with the Torah and Gospel,
God doesn't consider this. (Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tasfir al
Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 6:115,
Source) (bold, underline not ours)
This is
a crucial point that is being made. Anyone could simply pick up a Qur'an
and grab a pen and scribble out words and add his own, however that
doesn't mean that one is refuting the idea that none can change the
words of Allah. Rather, changing the words of Allah in the passage means
that one cannot change what He has promised would occur.
One
could easily change and distort texts by picking up a book and a pen,
but they could not change the original true texts and revelations which
is with Allah on al-Lawh al-Mahfudh (preserved tablet) since the speech
of Allah is uncreated and no one can ever make it go lost [sic]
completely.
Removing the words from the books here on earth does not mean that God's
words have become totally lost but lost here on earth only. ...
Furthermore, corrupting the texts of holy books here on earth does not
mean that one has succeeded in totally erasing off the existence of
God's words since they are also preserved in the al-Lawh al-Mahfudh.
... Allah on the other hand has made a promise that the Qur'an would be
preserved for us (Surah 15:9). A unique claim NOT made for any
other scripture.
(bold, underline, capitals ours)
In addition, Ibn 'Abbaas' statement that "they
alter and distort their apparent meanings" does not necessarily imply a
non-textual corruption of the scriptures since both a textual and/ or
oral mode of distortion could result in the alteration of the apparent
meanings of a scripture. Hence, Roudh is reading too much into Ibn
'Abbaas' words.
You mentioned
the famous hadith collection of Imam al-Bukhari's Jami' as-Sahih:
Let us see what this hadith collector's view was on this issue.
On the other side, another party of hadith
and fiqh scholars said: these changes took place during its
interpretation and not during the process of its revelation. This is
the view of Abi Abdullah Muhammad bin Ishmael Al-Bukhari who said in his
hadith collection:
"No one can corrupt the text by removing any
of Allah's words from his Books, but they corrupted it by
misinterpreting it."
Al Bukhari did not
believe that the text of the Bible had been corrupted
We searched through Sahih al-Bukhari but could
not find the above citation. From the point of view of research,
providing a full or adequate reference for a citation usually helps!
From what seems apparent, however, is that
Imam al-Bukhari is merely repeating the understanding of Ibn 'Abbaas,
Mujahid and Wahb ibn Munabbih as delineated above; and Allaah knows
best.
The accusation of
the Quran is not that the Jews corrupt the text of their scriptures but
they falsify them by misinterpreting them.
That is highly likely; but, as seen above,
certainly not the only way.
In
addition I have never seen any evidence from the Quran or Hadith where
the Jews defend the charge of textual corruption. I find it absolutely
astonishing that Muhammad could have for decades accused the Jews and
yet from the Jewish side we do not come across a single reply to this
charge.
In this instance, Roudh again argues from
silence; he would do well to memorise the principle: "Absence of
knowledge is not knowledge of absence."
A proof already cited above is the
Jewish boy who, on his deathbed and in the presence of Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), contradicted his father's
untruthful claim of the Prophet's description being absent from the
Torah:
The Prophet said
to him: "I adjure you by Allah who sent down the Torah, do you find in
your book (Torah) my description and the time of my coming?" The Jew
answered negatively. His son then said: "I swear by He Who sent down the
Torah we find in our book your description and the time of your coming,
and I testify that there is no god worthy of worship but Allah and
Muhammad is His Messenger." ... This is a Strong Hadith.
As regards to the Christians, which would by
default cover the Torah, there is an authentic narration of the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) addressing a crowd during
which he accuses the Jews and Christians of making forbidden what Allaah
had originally legislated as permissible and vice-versa:
Adi ibn Hatim
narrated that he heard the Messenger of Allaah reciting the verse:
"They (Jews and Christians) have taken their rabbis and monks to be
as Lords besides Allaah and (they also took as their lord) Messiah, son
of Mary while they were commanded to worship none but one God. Praise
and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they
associate (with Him)." (Qur'an 9:31) He (Adi Ibn Hatim) said:
"We didn't worship them." The Messenger of Allaah said: "Did they not
make forbidden (haraam) what Allaah made permissible (halaal)
and you all made it forbidden (haraam), and they made permissible
(halaal) what Allah made forbidden (haraam) and you all
made it permissible (halaal)?" He replied "Indeed." The Messenger
of Allaah said: "That is your worship to them."
Adi ibn Hatim was originally a
Christian who converted to Islam and
acknowledges that the Rabbis and Monks did indeed alter the original
edicts of their scripture. This is consistent with the understanding
that it was the religious scholars who changed their scripture.
Another proof is the famous encounter between the King of Rome,
Heraclius, and Abu Sufyaan, the leader of the Arab Quraish and, thus by
extension, the Meccans. As recounted in Sahih al-Bukhari, after
learning of a man who calls himself a Prophet of God in Arabia,
Heraclius summons Abu Sufyaan to his kingdom and quizzes him with a
series of questions to know more about Prophet Muhammad's (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) call. After the long interrogation,
Heraclius then gives an evaluation of the answers he receives from Abu
Sufyaan. In his
magnum opus, Ibn Hajr al-Asqalaani
states the following in this regard:
These questions that
Heraclius asked are not enough to prove the prophet hood. However as
Heraclius himself said later, "I knew that he was going to appear but I
did not expect that he would be from you (the arabs [sic])",
indicating that he already had proof of the emergence of the Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). (bold ours)
It is for this reason that
Heraclius is said to have converted to Islam, though in secret due to
the negative reaction of his people, which eventually led Prophet
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to conduct the
funeral prayer in absentia following the King's death.
But since many verses in the Quran suggest that the Jews mocked
Muhammad's every word a total suspension of reason is required to
believe this.
Ishaq: 239
"Jewish rabbis used to annoy the Apostle with
questions, introducing confusion."
Ishaq: 240
"These Jewish rabbis opposed the apostle, they asked
questions and stirred up trouble against Islam trying to extinguish it."
It
is not credible that the Jews annoyed him with questions and tried to
extinguish Islam yet never addressed 'his charge of corruption'. Even
from the hadith they do not come across as the sort of people who would
let attacks upon the integrity of their scriptures pass without comment.
The absence of debate concerning this 'issue' strongly indicates that
the charge of textual corruption was not made by Muhammad and is a later
development in the history of Islam.
We have cited two authentically narrated
historical accounts where an objection was raised in defence of these
scriptures and against the heinous charge of textual corruption.
However, these were contested and shot down by people from that faith,
viz. Adi ibn Haatim and the Jewish boy on his death bed.
Another possibility that Roudh would do well
to ponder over is that, obversely speaking, such silence could even be
understood to be an admission of guilt on their part. It is generally
the trend for the innocent to contest any charges brought against them.
However, despite the Prophet and his companions levelling such serious
charges against them claiming that God Himself was implicating them,
there are good grounds to postulate that such deafening silence could be
understood as an admission of their guilt.
In
relation to this consider this hadith.
"Rafi b. Haritha and Sallam b. Mishkam and
Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b. Huraymila came to him and said: "Do you not
allege that you follow the religion of Abraham AND BELIEVE IN THE
TORAH WHICH WE HAVE AND TESTIFY THAT IT IS THE TRUTH FROM GOD?" He
replied, "CERTAINLY, but you have sinned and broken the covenant
contained therein and concealed what you were ordered to make plain to
man, and I disassociate myself from your sin." They said, "We hold by
what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do
not believe in you and we will not follow you." So God sent down
concerning them: "Say O Scripture folk, you have no standing until you
observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has been sent down to you from
your Lord. What has been sent down to thee from thy Lord will assuredly
increase many of them in error and unbelief. But be not sad because of
the unbelieving people." (Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad,
p. 268) (Quote taken from a Christian website, emphasis theirs).
What a strange question "Do you not allege that you follow the
religion of Abraham and believe in the Torah which we have and testify
that it is the truth from God?"
for the Jews to ask Muhammad, if for years he had been
condemning them for corrupting their scriptures. One thing this question
from the Jews proves categorically is that the Jews were completely
unaware that Muhammad had ever accused them of textual corruption. The
only explanation for this is that Muhammad never did (at least not to
their knowledge).
This citation from Guillaume has been refuted
well by Bassam Zawadi who said:
This problem
arises because Alfred Guillaume did not translate a very crucial word
properly.
After quoting the Arabic text he provides the
following corrections in translation:
Ibn Abbas
reported: The Messenger of Allah peace be upon him and Rafi b. Haritha,
and Sallam b. Mishkam and Malik b. al-Sayf and Rafi b. Huraymila and
they (the Jews) said to them: O Muhammad, do you not allege that you
follow the way of Abraham and his religion, and believe in what we have
from the Torah and testify that it is the truth from Allah? The
Messenger of Allah peace be upon him replied: Yes, however you
have innovated and broken the covenant contained therein and
concealed what you were ordered to make clear to people, and I
dissociate myself from your innovations. They said, 'We hold by
what we have. We live according to the guidance and the truth and we do
not believe in you and we will not follow you.'
He then opines:
If this story does
anything now, it only serves as evidence that the Jews have corrupted
their scriptures. Notice how the crucial words "innovated" and
"innovations" were not properly translated by Alfred Guillaume. He
simply translated the words as "sinned" and "sins".
The fact that the
Prophet (peace be upon him) accused the Jews of innovating shows that
the Prophet (peace be upon him) accused them of adding to the religion
things that did not belong there.
He continues:
Just by examining
this narration alone, we can't know what the Prophet's intention was.
The story is ambiguous when examined alone. Since it is ambiguous
Christians have no right to use this story as a proof that the Prophet
peace be upon him affirmed the textual purity of the Torah since the
story allows for the possibility that the Prophet intended to say that
the Jews textually corrupted their scriptures.
So the possible
interpretation of the story is that when the Jews asked the Prophet if
he believed that what they have in the Torah is the truth from God he
said "Yes" because he believed that there was truth in it, however the
Jews added their innovations to it.
Muhammad in his reply confirms his belief in the Torah that was in their
possession but accuses them of breaking the covenant i.e. not observing
the Torah or not following its teachings "Say O Scripture folk,
you have no standing until you observe the Torah",
For Allah to say to
the Jews "observe the Torah" takes for granted that the Jews had the
Torah which was worth observing and not some pathetic book which was not
even worth calling scripture.
He
also accuses them of concealing what they were ordered to make plain to
men. For the Jews to be told that they have concealed the truth assumes
that they had the truth and reliable scriptures in the first place. You
cannot conceal truths from people which you do not have access to
yourself.
Ibid.
Also there is no charge of the textual corruption of the Torah in
Muhammad's reply so naturally there is no defence of this in the Jewish
response. If Muhammad had been preaching for years that the Torah was
hopelessly corrupt and yet the Jews (astonishingly) remained under the
impression (that Muhammad was a big fan of the Torah that was in their
hands, which is evident from their question) what a great opportunity
for Muhammad now to clear things up for them (if even after years of
Muhammad's preaching the penny still had not dropped for the Jews,
although this would require them to have been incredibly dumb) that the
Torah in their possession was rubbish. But all he says in reply to their
question is certainly I believe in your Torah as you say and
testify that it is the truth from God but you have sinned because you
are not following its teachings (you have broken the covenant) and you
are concealing rather than making plain to people its message and I
disassociate myself from your sin.
This Hadith proves that Muhammad believed that the Torah in the
possession of the Jews was the original.
Ibid.
The fallacy in this instance is Roudh's
assumption that a premise can be valid by simply appealing to authority,
in this case: a number of unknown Muslims. Further still, Roudh also
begs the question by assuming that said verse is indeed a prophecy
accepted by all Muslims, and thus citable as proof. The counter we throw
in response is to simply ask how Roudh knows we here at Islam-Sikhism
accept this verse to be a prophecy? If we do not, then poor Roudh has
wasted his time arguing a strawman.
If it is assumed
that Deuteronomy 18:15-20, is not a prophecy of Muhammad. Where then is
the prophecy referred to by Quran 7:157?
What the description of Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) in the Torah is is not the subject of
debate, and neither will we be sidetracked by such red herrings.
Our aim is to prove that Roudh's arguments in
support of the infallibility of the previous scriptures are erroneous.
Although we could cite what we believe to be
convincing arguments for the presence of such descriptive prophecies, we
will suffice with leaving such apologetics to the reams of information
already presented by other Muslims.
According to this
verse the prophecy was in the Torah that existed at Muhammad's time.
Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor
write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel
(which are) with them. (emphasis mine).
So where in the
Torah is this reference?
Ibid.
It is not always
possible for me to know what every individual Muslim's beliefs are. Nor
should it be necessary for me to address only those issues which every
single Muslim believes.
We would never assume something so ridiculous
as expecting Roudh to know the view of over a billion Muslims! In spite
of Roudh's meek attempt at trying to brush this under the carpet, he
nevertheless fallaciously presupposes that we consider said verse to be a prophecy.
What I have done is
to address what I believed to be the majority view. If I intended to
address a minority view then I would have made that clear beforehand. I
will give a list of a few well known Muslims who have claimed this verse
to be a prediction of Muhammad.
Dr. Zakir Naik
Jamal Badawi
Shabir Ally
Yusuf Ali
Ahmad Deedat
Mishaal Al Khadi
Osama Abdullah (The
webmaster of the biggest Islamic site on the net that I am aware of)
I am sure there are
many more.
Then we suggest Roudh contact them. However, if his intention is to forward an equally half-baked diatribe
which he has sent us, then we would sincerely advise him to think twice, nay
ten times, before doing so.
the titles: El, Eloah, Elohim, and
Allah'im
used by Jews for God in the Tanakh bare a striking resemblance not only
to the proper name Allaah,
But as stated above, since languages differ
grammatically, the name of God cannot, therefore, be the same,
phonetically speaking, across the board. For example, the titles: El,
Eloah, Elohim, and Allah'im [9] used by Jews for God in the Tanakh bare
a striking resemblance not only to the proper name Allaah,
According to Jewish
Bible God has only one name (YHWH) and it is His name for every
generation and forever.
God also said to Moses, "Say to the
Israelites, YHWH the God of your fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of
Isaac and the God of Jacob-has sent me to you.'
"This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation. (Exodus 3:15)
According to YHWH
his name is changeless.
Claiming the YHWH in the Hebrew scripture to
be changeless because the Hebrew scripture says so is circular.
If the name of God in said scripture was
uncorrupted, then Roudh would have already met the challenge we threw at
him in our first reply by "provid[ing] the vowel points in order so that
God's name can be pronounced correctly"; and yet he has, thus far,
failed to do so.
The Jews have never recognised El, Eloah, or Elohim, as a name for their
God.
And neither did we claim such a thing. What we
said was that the Jews used "the
TITLES: El, Eloah, Elohim".
The word "elohim" literally means "gods." It is used in the Jewish bible
with the meaning of pagan or false gods almost 200 times, therefore it
could never be the name of the true God.
Ibid.
Is Roudh seriously suggesting that the word
Elohim has always, in every instance, referred only to "gods" and never
to the true God? How does this square with the very first verse of the
Bible:
"Bereshit bara' ELOHIM et ha shamayim va et ha erets."
"In the beginning GOD created the heavens and the earth."
(Genesis 1:1)
Now which bona fide orthodox Jew or Christian, or well
established translation of the Bible, has ever understood or translated
the word Elohim as Gods in this verse? It would be an act of
heresy for any Jew or Christian to believe that there is more than one
God who created the heavens and the earth.
In fact, we are utterly astounded that such a nonsensical
argument could be forwarded by anyone who has an iota of knowledge of
Judaism/ Christianity. Roudh would do well to read the following article
that cites no less than thirteen academic sources to prove that "the
word Elohim when used for God, the Lord of Israel and the universe it is
always understood as ONE without a plurality of persons of entities in
whatever shape or form in that oneness":
Elohim. One or Plural?,
Also since it is a plural it could not be related to Allah.
It seems that Roudh needs to be reminded of
the argument at hand. Recall his argument vis-á-vis the alleged
prophecy of Deut. 18:17-20:
Notice that Moses
here speaks this prophecy in the name of his God YHWH i.e. "YHWH said to
me" (not Allah). Moses wrote the name YHWH 1600 times in his Torah.
Moses gives no other name for God. The name Allah does not appear in the
Torah once.
Our response was:
Roudh presupposes
that the Arabic name of God: Allaah, is immutable in the sense that it
must be consistently used to address Him for all time and in all
languages. But ... since languages differ grammatically, the name of God
cannot, therefore, be the same, phonetically speaking, across the
board. For example, the titles: El, Eloah, Elohim, and
Allah'im [9]
used by Jews for God in the Tanakh bare a striking resemblance not only
to the proper name Allaah, but also the name, as suggested by Muslim
scholars such as Ibn al-Qayyim et al., from which it was derived:
al-Ilaah (the God). Similarly, Jesus is recorded in the Gospels
to have called upon God in Aramaic: Eli and Eloi, which again sounds
remarkably similar to Allaah and al-Ilaah. Hence, Muslims would
have no qualms in accepting the possibility that Allaah could have
revealed his name to other non-Arabic speaking nations that would be
distinguished by an obvious difference in pronunciation.
Hence, the overall import of our response
was not to show a phonetic similarity between the names, that was more a
side point than anything else, but to clarify that we would have no
problem in acknowledging that "Allaah could have revealed his name to
other non-Arabic speaking nations that would be distinguished by an
obvious difference in pronunciation".
Usage of Eloah
He will show no regard for the gods of his
ancestors or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god,
but will exalt himself above them all. (Daniel 11:37) bold mine.
He will attack the mightiest fortresses with
the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who
acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will
distribute the land at a price.(Daniel 10:39) bold mine.
"Then they will sweep through {like} the
wind and pass on. But they will be held guilty, They whose strength is
their god." [Habakkuk 1:11]
In all these verses
Eloah is used to mean false gods so it could not be the name of the true
God.
Usage of El
"Who is like You among the gods, O
LORD? Who is like You, majestic in holiness, Awesome in praises, working
wonders? [Exodus 15:11] bold mine.
"Then the king will do as he pleases, and he
will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will speak
monstrous things against the God of gods; and he will prosper
until the indignation is finished, for that which is decreed will be
done. [Daniel 11:36] bold mine.
Since El is used to
describe false gods and humans El cannot be a name for the true God.
We have already shown how Elohim (the plural
for El and Eloah) was used as a title for the true God. If
this is true of the plural noun, it follows that it must also certainly
be true of its singular forms El and Eloah. And who better
to put Roudh back in his place in corroborating this than the preeminent
medieval Jewish philosopher, Moses ben-Maimon, or more famously known as
Maimonides:
I must premise
that every Hebrew knows that the term
Elohim is a homonym,
and denotes God,
angels, judges, and the rulers of countries.
We must also
consider the four different terms employed in expressing the relations
of the heavens to God, bore (Creator), 'oseh (Maker), koneh (Possessor),
and el (God).
In the Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, we are told:
Yahweh (El, Eloah. elohim)
is the source of justice; he is supreme plaintiff and judge, not only on
behalf of his people Israel (Ps. 50:8,21; Isa. 1:18; Mic. 6:2) and
individuals (Gen. 31:42; 1 Ch. 12:18[I7]; Job 13:10; 16:21; 22:4) but
also on behalf of the nations of the world.
The Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the
Bible elaborates further:
Eloah occurs as a divine
name
most frequently in the book of Job, where that term, El,
and Shadday are the standard words for 'God' in the poetic
sections (Eloah forty one times. El fifty-five times, Shadday thirty-one
times). The divine name Yahweh appears almost exclusively in the prose
sections and in some transition indicators in dialogues. The other three
terms are used much as Elohim or Yahweh are used in the rest of the
Hebrew Bible (the plural form 'elohim occurs only four times in
the poetic sections of Job). Outside the book of Job, only in Ps 50:22.
139:19, and Prov 30:5 does the formulation clearly indicate that
'eloah is being used as a divine name.
(bold, underline
ours)
The Jewish bible
gives and the Jews recognise only one name for their God. Like Allah in
the Quran YHWH is never used to describe anyone other than the true God.
However, unlike Allaah, or the title Elohim
and Shaddai, YHWH does not have any vowel points. How can a noun devoid
of its vowel points still be intelligibly used as a name for an object,
let alone the supreme deity? Would Roudh or any other Jew or scholar
wish to wager the correct pronunciation for this mysterious vowel-less
name of God?
Imagine if the same were true of Sikhism where
the Tetragrammaton's equivalent for the name of God in Sikhism,
Waheguru, was rendered: WHGR, and the titles: Ek, Satnam, or Karta
Purakh, were used in its place as substitutes; would WHGR make sense to
any Sikh as a proper name of God?
Muslims need to
answer, why in the Jewish scriptures the God of Moses does not once say
that his name is Allah? The answer is obvious, YHWH never was Allah.
We already have; it seems, however, that Roudh
has selective vision and only sees what is in his best interests.
Muhammad simply took
Allah the chief deity of the Meccans to whom they attributed three
daughters and re-invented him as the one true God without partners. He
then identified this deity with the God of the Jewish scriptures and in
his hands this "deity" became a prop who not only endorsed all his
claims but threatened all who rejected them.
And where is the evidence for this fanciful
narrative?
To frighten the
Arabs into believing and accepting him as the messenger of Allah,
Muhammad threatened them with eternal hellfire, he seduced them with
promises of virgins in Allah's paradise and later he forced them to
submit with jihad. But as a prophet, unable to perform any miracles and
devoid of any convincing evidence for his claims, Muhammad failed
miserably.
Ibid.
(Qur'an 17:59) And
We refrain from sending the signs, only because the men of former
generations treated them as false: We sent the she-camel to the Thamud
to open their eyes, but they treated her wrongfully: We only send the
Signs by way of terror (and warning from evil).
The Arabs turned
hostile they mocked and ridiculed him mercilessly. The Quran is an
expression of Muhammad's burning hatred towards those who
rejected his claims and the evils he wished upon them.
The Quran must rank as one of the longest and most hateful rants ever
written. His paradise was a reflection of his fantasies and his hell was
a manifestation of the revenge he craved. The frequency of the
Quran's references to hell and its tortures are amazing but not
surprising when we consider that representing an impotent deity and
lacking any credible evidence to support his claim of divine selection
all Muhammad could do was threaten.
It is obvious that at this stage, Roudh is
seriously losing the plot. Plucking verses that have nothing to do with
anything and making outlandish and unsubstantiated claims only reflects
poorly on such a person.
(Qur'an
13:7) And the Unbelievers say: "Why is not a sign sent down to him
from his Lord?" But thou art truly a warner, and to every people a
guide.
The message of the Quran can be summed up as follows: obey Muhammad or
you will burn forever.
Let us return to the topic at hand shall we?
Nearly all the
narratives of the Bible that are re-told in the Quran are re-worked
(corrupted) by Muhammad to reflect his own situation.
Muhammad writes himself in as a fellow prophet, the
lead act in the line of Bible prophets and
casts Allah in the role of YHWH. These stories are re-written to
make the Meccan rejection of his own mission look prophetic. The
characters in these narratives sound just like Muhammad and as one
writer observed, if they are not Muhammad then they had the same speech
writer.
We said, "Let us return back to the topic at
hand shall we?"
Actually, what we have to throw in here is the
fact that in terms of what all the Prophets of God taught, it was
exactly the same call: to worship God alone and to eschew the worship of
false Gods. It is inconsistent to suggest that Moses, and his fellow
brethren Prophets thereafter, taught that Allaah is one who could never
become a weak and ineffectual mortal, only for a sect of the Christians
to suddenly rise up and, in opposition to the true message of Jesus,
contradict this infrangible rule by claiming that God had condescended
to become a mortal who was the second person of the fictitious Trinity
and the Divine Son of the Father. In this respect, yes, Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to primarily rectify
this awful heresy.
(We have clipped the rest of this emotional
rant since it amounts to nothing except a red herring)
What Muhammad did
not know and what exposes his fraud was that the God of the Jewish
scriptures with whom he identified his deity had only one name and it
was never Allah.
Finally Roudh comes back to his senses.
Some information in
this section was taken from Alano Perez's article: The name of God in
the Bible and the Quran.
Roudh presupposes that the Arabic name of God:
Allaah, is immutable in the sense that it must be consistently used to
address Him for all time and in all languages.
The point you may
have over-looked is that the author of the Quran puts Allah into the
mouths of the Israelites.
The story of Moses'
encounter with God at the burning bush is narrated both in the Torah and
the Quran. According to the Torah when Moses came to the burning bush
God told him regarding His name:
Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro
his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far
side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2
There the angel of YHWH appeared to him in flames of fire from within a
bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.
3 So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange
sight-why the bush does not burn up." Exodus 3:1-3
15 God also said to Moses, "Say
to the Israelites, 'YHWH
the God of your fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God
of Jacob-has sent me to you.'
"This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation. Exodus 3:15
This story is retold
in the Quran although differently. When Moses came to the burning bush
God told him regarding His name:
(Qur'an
20:9) Has the story of Moses reached thee? 20:10 Behold, he saw a
fire: So he said to his family, "Tarry ye; I perceive a fire; perhaps I
can bring you some burning brand therefrom, or find some guidance at the
fire." 20:11 But when he came to the fire, a voice was
heard: "O Moses! 20:12 "Verily I am thy Lord! therefore
(in My presence) put off thy shoes: thou art in the sacred valley Tuwa.
20:13 "I have chosen thee: listen, then, to the
inspiration (sent to thee) 20:14 "Verily, I am Allah:
There is no god but I: So serve thou Me (only), and establish regular
prayer for celebrating My praise. Emphasis mine
According to the
Torah at the burning bush God revealed to Moses that His name is YHWH
the only name for God which Moses gives in his Torah.
Firstly, in the famous incident of the Burning
Bush in Exodus 3:14-15, God does not reveal the YHWH, but rather states
in Hebrew: "ehyeh asher ehyeh", which translates as: "I Am that I
Am." In the book, The Jewish Bible, Pelc lucidly details:
Indeed, the name
YHWH is a "non-name" name, a way of undermining the whole idea that
God can have a name at all. Moses asks God for God's name, and God
replies, "I will be what I will be." Thus this text, which seems to be
about the revelation of God's name, contains within it the concept
that God cannot have a name at all. Admittedly, the midrash, the
Zohar, and the source critics all seek to use the different names of God
illustrated in the book of Exodus as a code by which to crack the
meaning of the Bible. But there really is only one name of God-YHWH-which
is not a name at all but an expression of the namelessness of
God.
(bold, underline
ours)
In the International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia, it honestly concedes that "[t]he pronunciation of YHWH
in the OT can never be certain, since the original Hebrew text
used only consonants" (bold ours). Later though, it goes on to suggest
that "the early Greek transliterations of the name by Clement of
Alexandria and Theodore!, respectively iaoue and iabe [(b
pronounced as an English v), have led scholars to the view that
'Yahweh' is probably the closest equivalent to the original
pronunciation".
According to Agape Bible Study, although
"Biblical scholars do not know how YHWH was originally pronounced
because its original pronunciation, which was part of the sacred Oral
Tradition of the Jews, was LOST when the Temple in
Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD ... The rendering of YHWH as 'Yahweh'
is a modern conjecture (first suggested in the 16th
century by biblical scholar Gilbert Genebrard, professor of Hebrew at
the College Royal in Paris) but which has been accepted by biblical
scholars today as the most likely rendering".
Though the rendering of "Yahweh" is being
pushed mainly by the Christian contingent, unsurprisingly given the
absurd ramifications of a "non-name" name of God, it is far from
conclusive. For example, the Handbook of Biblical Criticism
reveals:
Yahweh is a scholarly
reconstruction
of the vocalized Tetragrammaton current chiefly among
Christian academicians since the early 19th cent. Though still
current in biblical scholarship, it has scant basis in Christian
liturgical life and none at all in Jewish, and indeed is
regarded as distasteful or offensive by many Jews. In recent years many
writers (including the authors of this book) have discontinued its
use in favor of the unvocalized form of the name, YHWH.
(bold, underline
ours)
What is, therefore, apparent is that
although modern scholars have forwarded suggestions, the reality is that
no concrete evidence exists to substantiate the correct pronunciation of
this "no-name" name. Hence, although "[s]ome translations, though not
Jewish ones, have claimed that the evidence points to the pronunciation
of the Name as Yahveh ... there is no certainty in the matter".
Secondly, if for arguments sake Roudh was
correct, then what we have is Moses asking for God's name and Him
revealing to Moses an unpronounceable name?! If someone asked Roudh what
his name was and he replied: "RDH," how would anyone pronounce that in
the English language? You cannot even use the name to make a meaningful
call.
Consider for one moment the Lord of the
heavens and the earth contacting mankind and calling on them to worship
Him and CALL upon Him by His proper name during times of worship,
distress, help, need, etc., yet failing to provide a meaningful name. As
time went by, His followers resorted, for one reason or another, to
using secondary names (titles), such as, Elohim and Shaddai
in its place. If ever there was evidence of scriptural corruption, it is
in the example of this fancifully named Tetragrammaton.
According to the
Quran at the burning bush God revealed to Moses that His name is Allah
the Arabic name for God a name by which Moses in his Torah never calls
his God.
As we explained in our original article, there
is an obvious difference between the Arabic and Hebrew language; thus, a
Muslim, or anyone else for that matter, who understands and acknowledges
this obvious difference would never expect the Prophets from the
non-Arab line of Isaac to call upon God using a name in a language other
than their own.
Either God revealed
his name to Moses as Allah or as YHWH. Either the Quran is correct or
the Torah is correct.
The answer to that we thought would have been
obvious given that Roudh in this entire tract has failed both to give us
the vowel points for correctly pronouncing this unpronounceable name, as
well as a genuine reason why and how they were lost to begin with.
If God had revealed
to Moses that his name is Allah then we would expect to find Allah given
as God's name numerous times in the Torah and the rest of the Jewish
scriptures. What we actually find is that YHWH is given as God's one and
only name 1,600 times in Moses' Torah and the name Allah is never found
once. If God told Moses "Verily, I am Allah" then why does Moses
not call his God by the name Allah even once and why does he give YHWH
as God's only name in the Torah? The name YHWH is found in the Jewish
scriptures nearly 7,000 times and the name Allah is not mentioned once.
There is no evidence in either the Jewish scriptures or Jewish history
that the Israelites ever recognised Allah as a name for God. This proves
without any doubt whatsoever that Quran 20:14 is a lie, but Exodus 3:15
is supported by the evidence. This fact alone is sufficient to totally
annihilate Islam's credibility.
If one were to continue Roudh's line of
reasoning, one would also be forced to conclude that since this
mysterious Tetragrammaton is not to be found anywhere in the New
Testament Jesus, and by extension the so-called Apostle St. Paul, were
both false emissaries of God.
In fact, on this basis, could an argument not
be forwarded against the Sikhs who all, without exception, call upon
their God by the name Waheguru knowing full well that this word
is nowhere to be found in their holy book: Sri Guru Granth Sahib?
It proves that all
the narratives in the Quran where the Israelites call upon God as Allah
are fictitious. Not knowing any better the author of the Quran simply
put his own name for deity into the mouths of the Israelites. This
evidence proves that the Quran cannot be a divine revelation and
Muhammad was a fake. It proves that the author of the Quran fabricated
verses and passed them off as divine scripture.
The evidence proves
that the author of the Quran was a complete and utter fraud. The Meccans
were right all along when they said "Thou art but a forger".
A forgery, i.e. the Qur'an, which no Meccan
and no person from time immemorial has been able to emulate, let alone
surpass, in terms of eloquence and structure as defined in the Arabic
language. All these doubters had to do back then, if the Qur'an was a
cheap forgery and the imaginings of an illiterate, was take the
falsification test, which we have covered in detail in our article:
The Ragmala Controversy, and emulate or surpassing the eloquence
of the shortest chapter of the Qur'an comprising of only three short
lines.
One would have expected the best poets,
orators, or masters of the Arabic language to do better than the efforts
of an illiterate (Muhammad); and yet they failed.
Despite the fact
that the author of the Quran repeatedly accuses all who disbelieve his
Quran as being liars, the evidence proves that his Quran is the biggest
lie of all.
My presupposition
is not that the Arabic name of God: Allaah, is
immutable in the sense that it must be consistently used to address Him
for all time and in all languages. My point is that according to
YHWH his name is changeless:
"This (YHWH) is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation. (Exodus 3:15)
I believe that the
point you are making is that contrary to "my presupposition", God could
have revealed himself to the Israelites by a different name i.e. YHWH
and not necessarily Allah since this name is not immutable. The problem
with this argument is that according to the Quran, God revealed to Moses
from the burning bush that his name was Allah and not YHWH!
Just as God has revealed the equivalence of
His proper name in both Hebrew and Aramaic, respectively, there is
nothing peculiar or problematic in Him doing the same for Arabic, which
He did. Roudh's argument would only be applicable if Allaah contended
that He has always been known by a certain name across all languages and
all times, which, to our knowledge, He has never done.
Also the Quran
quotes the Israelites as calling upon God by many names including Allah
but never by the name YHWH, the only name for deity which they
recognised.
That is because the YHWH is not a name, not in
the proper sense anyway!
Similarly regarding your statement:
Muslims would have no qualms in accepting the
possibility that Allaah could have revealed his name to other non-Arabic
speaking nations that would be distinguished by an obvious difference in
pronunciation
Well Allah could
have revealed his name to other non-Arabic speaking nations that would be
distinguished by an obvious difference in pronunciation
(but I do not know of any nations to whom he did)
but not the Israelites, because
again if we are to believe the Quran, he
told them "Verily, I am Allah".
Since Allaah is conveying an
historical account to an Arabic speaking people, He would naturally use
His name in this language for such a purpose. After all, it would not
make much sense now would it for Him to use an unpronounceable "no-name"
name?
As for the proper name YHWH in the Tanakh, then
we wish to ask Roudh to provide the vowel points in order so that God's
name can be pronounced correctly.
If the author of the Quran was God, He would
have quoted the Israelites correctly by putting into their mouths the
only name for God that the Tanakh gives then we would have had the
correct pronunciation of the proper name
YHWH in the Tanakh.
Is Roudh conceding here that the correct
pronunciation is lost to the Israelites, and that Allaah should have
rectified this mistake for them? If he is, then the Torah is corrupt. If
he is not, then the conundrum still stands for Roudh to solve.
Jesus is recorded in the Gospels to have called
upon God in Aramaic: Eli and Eloi, which again sounds remarkably similar
to Allaah and al-Ilaah.
If, as the Quran states, God revealed his name as Allah to Moses and the
Israelites, then why did Jesus not call upon God as Allah?
This narrow minded fixation on the name
"Allaah" is turning into an act of desperation on Roudh's part.
Firstly, Jesus did not speak Arabic. Why would
God expect a non-Arab speaking Prophet sent to non-Arabs to call upon
Him by a name that would only make sense in the Arabic language? It is
more reasonable to assume that an all-Wise Creator who is revealing the
clarity of Truth would facilitate ease in guiding His people by
revealing to them His name - of course with the vowel points included -
in their own language.
Secondly, Jesus, it seems, did call on
God by the Aramaic equivalent of the derivative of the name Allaah:
ilah.
If he could
miraculously call upon God as Allah from the cradle then why not later
when he became an adult when no miracle was required? Why did Jesus
later only manage to call upon God as Eli or Eloi
which again sounds remarkably similar to
Allaah and al-Ilaah and not Allah?
What Roudh is trying hard not to accept is
that the name of God in Arabic, Allaah, can also be found as equivalent
cognates - words that have a common etymological origin - in other
Semitic languages, proving that these names of God existed both
independently of and concurrently to the pre-Islamic Arabs. For example,
the equivalent cognate to Allaah in Biblical Aramaic is Elaha
while in Syriac it is Alaha, as delineated on
The Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon website for the search term
"God".
According to the Introduction to the
Semitic Languages, the proper name of God in Old Aramaic
and Biblical Aramaic
is elaha; and
in Syriac it is allaha.
Helmer Ringgren elaborates more fully:
Notwithstanding
the vast difference in the number of occurrences of Yahweh and Adonai in
the OT as it now stands (over 6700 occurrences of Yahweh, and
approximately 450 of Adonai), up until ca. 300 B.C. the divine names of
Yahweh and Adonai, at least to a great extent, were on equal footing and
appear side by side. But beginning ca. 300, Adonai gradually came to be
used more than Yahweh until finally it completely displaced it, in any
case in spoken language. The consonants of the Tetragrammaton came to be
pronounced 'adhonai, or if yhvh was preceded by 'adhonai, it was
pronounced 'elohim .... In this period, the book of Chronicles
often replaces the yhvh of the book of Kings, which was its earlier
model, by 'elohim, and a similar change takes place in Pss. 42-87. ...
Ecclesiastes uses 'elohim exclusively, while the book of Daniel (apart
from 'adhonai in 1:2 and several occurrences of yhvh and 'adhonai in
chap. 9, which for the most part is spurious) uses only 'elohim and
its Aramaic counterpart 'elaha'.
(bold, underline
ours)
Hence, Elohim came to be used in place of the
unpronounceable Tetragrammaton, thereby serving as a replacement to the
proper name of God, such as in the book of Ecclesiastes. Its Aramaic
equivalent, Elaha, is similar to the name Allaah; whilst the
Syriac equivalent Allaha is even more so.
D. B. Macdonald is quoted by
Islamic-Awareness as suggesting that the Arabic term for deity, "ilah
is certainly identical with eloah and represents an expanded
form of an element -l- (il, el) common to the semitic languages".
The website then
quotes Alfred Guillaume (Roudh may remember this man's name for a long
time to come) who declares:
The OLDEST
NAME for God used in the Semitic word consists of but two letters,
the consonant 'l' preceded by a smooth breathing, which was pronounced
as 'Il' in ancient Babylonia, 'El' in ancient Israel. The relation
of this name, which in Babylonia and Assyria became a generic term
simply meaning 'god', to the Arabian Ilah familiar to us in the
form Allah, which is compounded of al, the definite article, and
Ilah by eliding the vowel 'i', is not clear. Some scholars trace
the name of the South Arabian Ilah, a title of the Moon god, but
this is a matter of antiquarian interest.
In Arabia Allāh was known from Jewish and Christian sources as the
one god, and there can be no doubt whatever that he was known to
pagan Arabs of Mecca as the supreme being. Were this not so,
the Qur'an would have been unintelligible to the Meccans; moreover it is
clear from Nabataean and other inscriptions that Allah means 'the god'.
(bold, underline,
capitals ours)
We could carry on smashing Roudh with quote
after quote, including names of pre-Islamic Arab Jews and Christians
whose names incorporated the name "Allaah", but, God Willing, this will
suffice.
If Allah told Moses
"Verily, I am Allah" then
why do we have to wait 1,500 years to find a Jew who calls upon God by
the name Eli or Eloi
which again sounds remarkably similar to Allaah
and al-Ilaah?
Since Allah is never found anywhere in Jewish
scripture as a name for God, Muslims
have little choice but to find 'evidence' for Allah in the Bible through
words like Eli or Eloi which simply mean My God? If Islam is the true
religion why do Muslim need to resort to such desperate arguments to
defend their religion?
Or it could be possible that instead Roudh is
the desperate one clutching to any straws he can find to stay afloat.
The fact that there
is no evidence that Jesus or his Jewish contemporaries ever recognised
Eli, Eloi or Allah as a name for God, proves the Quran to be a lie.
Matthew 27:46 (New International Version)
46 About three in the
afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli,[a]
lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have
you forsaken me?").[b]
Mark 15:34 (New International Version)
34 And at three in the
afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lema
sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken
me?").[a]
I
should mention that Jesus either used the word Eli or Eloi as both these
verses report one and the same incident. The Hebrew word Eli and the
Aramaic Eloi both mean My God. There will be a term for My God in Arabic
(My ilah (?)) but I am sure it is not Allah.
Although that is the case, the point already
covered above is that the derivative for the word Eli and Eloi
in both Aramaic and Hebrew, respectively, is related to the same
derivative of the name Allaah: ilah.
Whatever that term is it cannot be said to be the name of God even if it
were to sound
remarkably similar to Allaah and al-Ilaah.
So how can a similar term in Hebrew or Aramaic
be said to be a name for God. Neither Eli nor Eloi were ever recognised
by either the Jews or Christians as names of God.
But the terms elaha and alaha
were recognised as names of God, as evidenced above.
The fact that Muslim's desperately need to find evidence for Allah in
the Bible, in order to legitimise their religion, cannot turn Eli or
Eloi into a name for God.
There's nothing to be desperate about. In
fact, we could not care less about this particular issue. The only
reason we are arguing our corner is because we are confronted by a
person who is disposed to forwarding arguments that are often based on
either misconstrued evidences or, worse still, no evidences at all.
The reason why Muslim's must link these words to Allah is the total lack
of evidence in the Bible that the name of the God of the Jews was ever
Allah. Since the evidence proves that the Israelites recognised only one
name for their God and it was not Allah, the Quran's baseless claim to
the contrary proves that it is not a divine revelation.
Jesus would have known that the only name of his God was YHWH and not a
word which meant My God. In fact the divine name is included in Jesus'
Hebrew name Yeshua (this is closer to his real name than Jesus) which is
a shortened version of Yehoshua, which means YHWH is salvation or
salvation is from YHWH.
This is nothing more than a desperate attempt
on Roudh's part at saving face and pre-empting perhaps what he already
knows, and that is: no where in the entire New Testament is the YHWH
mentioned. If this is the proper ("no-name") name of God and as
important as Roudh is eagerly attempting to show, then one would think
that this grand name would be inherited by Jesus and the early Christian
writers and mentioned at least once even as a token gesture of its
recognition. But instead there is nothing; absolute silence; as if the
ancient name was not important enough to warrant a place as part of the
so-called new covenant.
If it is that important, should
it not be present without desperately searching for other words that are
derived from the same root letters? In fact, Roudh could have done
better by referring to
John 8:58 where
Jesus allegedly states to the Jews: "Most assuredly, I say to you,
before Abraham was, I am (eigo emi)," which Christians claim is
equivalent to what God apparently revealed in Exodus 3:14.
Nowhere in the Jewish bible, Jewish literature or the New Testament is
Eli or Eloi ever recognised as a name for God. The Christians and Jews
have themselves never recognised Eli or Eloi as a name for God. In fact
to my knowledge no one recognises Eli or Eloi as a name for God except
Muslim apologists!
Not only has he grabbed a hold
of the wrong end of the stick, but his knowledge in this regard hardly
inspires admiration. In our original article, all we said was that "Jesus
is recorded in the Gospels to have called upon God in Aramaic: Eli and
Eloi, which again sounds remarkably similar to Allaah and al-Ilaah."
We used this example to show that it is possible that God could
have revealed his name or, to clarify our position further, a name(s) in
other languages that necessarily differs, given that Semitic
languages differ grammatically, to the name Allaah,
which we would have no qualms about.
As we said before, Jesus uses a name of God in
Aramaic and Hebrew to call upon Him; that much is without doubt. And as
we pointed out, it sounds remarkably similar to the name Allaah
or, more precisely, its derivative al-ilah. It seems reasonable
to say that it is completely understandable why Jesus did not to use the
unpronounceable "no-name" name: YHWH.
There are no depths to which these apologists are not prepared to sink
in their efforts to find Allah in the Bible and legitimise their
religion. This is the plight of those who try rescue the Quran from the
gross errors its author has made. Since the Jewish scriptures give and
the Jews recognised only one name for their God it is not credible that
Jesus called his God by any of these 'names'.
Jesus certainly never called God by the
Tetragrammaton and it is impossible for Roudh to produce evidence to
counter this assertion since no evidence exists. This is a point that
Roudh will do well to accept, rather than thick headedly argue on.
Your observation that the loss of pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton
came about due to the nonsensical
ancient Judaic rule that it was forbidden to pronounce His name outside
the Temple in Jerusalem
indicates the extent to which this name was revered by the Jews.
One can either shake one's head in utter
disbelief or throw it back in fits of laughter. To quote Roudh himself:
"There are no depths to which these apologists are not
prepared to sink in their efforts."
Yes; it was revered so much that the true
pronunciation of the greatest name of God, which Roudh believes to be
"changeless", from a book that Roudh claims to be unchanged and
uncorrupted, has been lost. So much for the name being changeless and
revered and the book being uncorrupted; it could not even preserve the
greatest name of God.
No other name was
revered in this way because no other name was considered to be the name
of God. In view of this it would not have been possible for Jesus to
recognise Eli or Eloi as a name for God? Muslims need
to understand that for a first century Palestinian Jew to claim that Eli
, Eloi or Allah for that matter was a name for God is not only
inconceivable but would have meant death by stoning. This again proves
that the author of the Quran lies when in some of his narratives he puts
Allah into Jesus' mouth.
The Arabic word ilah which means god does not become the name of God
just because it sounds like Allah. Just as the Hebrew word for oak
(tree) alah does not become a name for God just because it sounds very
much like Allah the Arabic name for God. So why must Eli or Eloi become
a name for God just because they may sound like Allah? We know perfectly
well what Eli and Eloi meant in Hebrew and Aramaic and they were never
recognised as names for God.
Now, unless Roudh is an expert in Hebrew and
Aramaic, or unless he produces evidence to counter what we have
furnished, his words are no more weightier than the one who claims that
the moon is made out of cheese!
If
the loss of pronunciation of the name YHWH was due to "the
nonsensical ancient Judaic rule",
how do you explain the fact that according to the Gospels even
Jesus himself never dared to utter this divine name? Why did 'Isa' not
condemn the scriptural corruption
of this name, and refuse to follow "the
nonsensical ancient Judaic rule",
by calling upon God as YHWH?
Roudh should be given credit for his attempts
at pussyfooting around this issue. Notice that, thus far, he has not
revealed whether he believes this name to have been lost to posterity.
One cannot blame him for trying. Instead, he attempts to shift the goal
post with red herrings. Roudh must know, and if he does not then let us
make it plainly evident, that if the YHWH's true pronunciation is
unknown, then the Torah, which he has been gallantly attempting to
defend, is corrupt and his entire argument falls flat on its face.
Roudh has miserably failed throughout this
entire response to provide the vowel points for the Tetragrammaton as we
initially asked, and has miserably failed to rebut our contention, which
we have subsequently strengthened in this response by providing further
evidence, that its true pronunciation is not just unknown, but will
never be known.
Roudh has greater problems to contend with
than asking why Jesus did not utter this name like answering why he and
the rest of the Gospel writers, both known and anonymous, failed to make
a single mention of the YHWH?
Why is it that Allah
never once addresses or condemns "the
nonsensical ancient Judaic rule"
and the extremely serious charge of the
scriptural corruption of 'his' name in
the Quran? The answer is simple: the author of the Quran was completely
ignorant of the divine name as given in Jewish scripture.
John 20:17 "I am ascending to my Father and
your Father, to my God and your God.'"
The only conclusion one can draw based on the
principle that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts is that if
the Creator has implicated the People of the Book of scriptural
corruption and we know that the corruption of God's name falls under
this general category, then this general charge of corruption
encompasses this and all other instances of corruption.
Besides, apart from increasing the volume and
size of the Qur'an, Allaah's highlighting every single instance of
corruption would not strengthen the overall charge itself. It is the
charge itself that matters, not a collation of every single detail that
makes up the charge. In this respect, Allaah said of the Jews and
Christians:
"O people of
the Book! Now has our Messenger come to you to expound to you much of
what you used to hide in the Book, and forgiving (or abolishing)
much. Now has come to you light from Allah, and a perspicuous Book."
(Qur'an 5:15)
Now, hearken to the commentary of Ibn Kathir who explains:
Allah states that
He sent His Messenger Muhammad with the guidance and the religion of
truth to all the people of the earth, the Arabs and
non-Arabs, lettered and unlettered. Allah
also states that He sent Muhammad with clear evidences and the
distinction between truth and falsehood. ... So the Prophet explained
where they altered, distorted, changed and lied about Allah. He also
ignored much of what they changed, since it would not bring
about any benefit if it was explained.
The above verse also provides evidence, in a
general sense, of Allaah's general charge of corruption against them. He
also says that they concealed and hid the truth. Recall the verse:
"They change
the words from their (right) places."
(5:13)
And Mujahid's interpretation:
Those who used to
alter it and conceal its truths; they were their scholars.
(bold, underline
ours)
In terms of the clarity of truth and guidance
that Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)
brought for humankind in general, and the Jews in particular, what could
be better for them in this case than revealing not just the true name of
God in Arabic, which in essence goes back to their forefather Abraham
and his eldest son Ishmael, but also the Truth in the absolute sense?
In
the above bold part of Jesus' words if we substitute Eli for God we will
get the following
To
my Eli and your Eli
This results in the following absurdity
I
am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my My God and your My God.
This was a particularly desperate attempt to locate Allah in the Bible.
Would Roudh care to point out the Greek or,
more appropriately, the original Aramaic word that Jesus used in this
instance or is he again expecting us to do the research for him?
In Greek, the word for "my" in Jn. 20:17 is
"mou" while the word for "God" is "theon".
The
Hebrew Bible has the word "elahi" as its equivalence for
"mou theon", which means "My God" and not just "God". Hence, in
Hebrew (the same is also true of Arabic: rabbee), the word "my"
in the phrase "my God" does not, as Roudh ignorantly claims, stand
separately from the word "God" as it does in English. Instead, they are
combined as a conjugation. The phrase "my God" is also found in Mark
15:34 where Jesus allegedly cries out at the ninth hour: "elahi elahi
lama sabaqtani - My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" The
Hebrew word for "God" by itself is, therefore, "elah" as we have
already shown above, and the Aramaic equivalent is "alah".
As for the proper name YHWH in the Tanakh, then
we wish to ask Roudh to provide the vowel points in order so that God's
name can be pronounced correctly.
I
being a mere mortal cannot do for "his" name what the 'mighty' Allah
himself failed to do for it in his Quran. By failing to confirm "his"
eternal name by which he wanted to be known by every generation and
forever, and by failing to restore its pronunciation, Allah revealed he
was nothing more than an impotent, delusional, ignorant, fictitious and
fraudulent pagan deity whom Muhammad tried to pass off as YHWH the God
of the Jewish bible.
What a cop out! This merely proves that it is
Roudh who, in reality, is the "impotent, delusional, ignorant ... and
fraudulent" miscreant who, when push comes to shove, is as easy to
refute and expose as the falsehood of the
Attributeless,
Nirgun-Sargun concept of Sikhism's deity: Waheguru. If only Roudh
had enough guts, fortitude and love to defend his own religion as he has done
with Judaism.
As we have shown, the Qur'an does not
contradict the Torah in this regard precisely because it does not
"confirm" it in toto. Hence, Roudh is correct this time round in
recognising that "[t]he two books could not be further apart"
(Qur'an
46:10) Say: "See ye? If (this teaching) be from Allah, and ye reject
it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its
similarity (with earlier scripture), and has believed while ye are
arrogant, (how unjust ye are!) truly, Allah guides not a people unjust."
Allah cites the
above as evidence to unbelieving Arabs in support of the Quran's divine
origins i.e. a certain Jew has testified that the Quran and Torah are
similar and has believed!
Let us look at
another translation
(Qur'an 46:10) Say:
"Tell me! If this (Qur'an) is from Allah, and you deny it, and a witness
from among the Children of Israel ('Abdullah bin Salam ) testifies that
this Qur'an is from Allah [like the Taurat (Torah)], so he believed
(embraced Islam) while you are too proud (to believe)." Verily! Allah
guides not the people who are Zalimun (polytheists, disbelievers
and wrong-doing).
Because most of the
Arabs probably could not read Arabic, let alone Hebrew, they could not
verify the Quran's claim to confirm previous scripture. So what Allah is
saying to them is look this Jew who is able to verify my claim
has testified that the Quran and the Torah are similar and has as a
result accepted that the Quran has been revealed by Allah and accepted
Islam. In other words by saying that the Quran and Torah are similar and
accepting Islam this Jew has verified the Quran's claim to confirm the
Torah, and yet you are denying the Quran when his testimony should be
sufficient evidence for you to believe. Therefore you now have no good
reason for not believing and it is only your pride and arrogance which
is preventing you.
It really does not matter how many
translations Roudh cites, the outcome, if he persists in eisegesis, will
always be the same: a complete and thorough dismantlement of his
arguments and an exposition of his ignorance.
Ibn Kathir records that "Ibn 'Abbas ... Mujahid,
Ad-Dahhak, Qatadah, Ikrimah, Yusuf bin 'Abdullah bin Salam, Hilal bin
Yasaf, As-Suddi, Ath-Thawri, Malik bin Anas and Ibn Zayd" understood
this certain Jew to be none other than 'Abdullah ibn Salam.
Unlike Roudh's preposterous exegetical attempt
in claiming that 'Abdullah ibn Salam "verified the Quran's claim to
confirm the Torah", Ibn Kathir explains the correct interpretation and
understanding of what Allaah intended by "testified to something
similar":
The previous
Scriptures that were revealed to the Prophets before me all testify to
its [Qur'an's] truthfulness and authenticity. They have prophesised,
well in advance, about things similar to that which this Qur'an
informs of.
Concerning Allah's statement: "and believed", this person who
testified to its truthfulness from the Children of Israel, due to his
realization that it was the truth.
"while you rejected (the truth)!"
Whereas you have arrogantly refused to follow it.' Masruq said: That
witness believed in his Prophet and Book, while you disbelieved in your
Prophet and Book.
Hence, the previous scriptures testified to
the truthfulness and authenticity of the Qur'an and prophesied similar
things found therein, such as, the description of the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him).
As for how 'Abdullah ibn Salaam "believed",
then we cite from Sahih al-Bukhari the following tradition
linked to said verse:
'Abdullah ibn
Salaam came and said: "I bear witness that you are the Messenger of
Allaah and that you have brought the truth. The Jews know that I am
the best of them and the son of the best of them, and I am the most
knowledgeable of them and the son of the most knowledgeable of them,
so call them and ask them about me before they know that I have become
Muslim, for if they know that I have become a Muslim, they will say
things about me that are not true."
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent for them
and they came to him. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of
Allaah be upon him) said to them: "O Jews, woe to you! Fear Allaah, by
Allaah besides Whom there is no other god, you know that I am truly the
Messenger of Allaah and that I come to you with the truth, so become
Muslim."
They said: "We know nothing about that." He said it three times... He
said: "What kind of man is 'Abdullaah ibn Salaam among you?"
They said: "He is the best of us and the son of the best of us; he is
the most knowledgeable of us and the son of the most knowledgeable among
us."
He said: "What would you think if he became Muslim?"
They said: "May Allaah protect him from that! He would never become
Muslim."
He said: "What would you think if he became Muslim?"
They said: "May Allaah protect him from that! He would never become
Muslim."
He said: "What would you think if he became Muslim?"
They said: "May Allaah protect him from that! He would never become
Muslim."
He said: "O son of Salaam, come out to them." He ['Abdullaah] came out
and said: "O Jews, fear Allaah! By Allaah besides Whom there is no other
god, you know that he is the Messenger of Allaah and that he has come
with the truth."
They said: "You are lying!" The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings
of Allaah be upon him) told them to leave.
Hence, the verse is not in any way, shape or
form suggesting that 'Abdullah ibn Salaam was confirming the Torah in
toto, but rather testifying to what the Torah indelibly pointed to
and convinced him of that Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) was a true Prophet of God.
Hence, Roudh is correct this time round in
recognising that "[t]he two books could not be further apart"
It
helps me to know that I have got something right, but Allah's 'proof'
(Quran and Torah are similar) and what I said "the
two books could not be further apart" could not be further apart.
So by saying that I am correct on this point you have inadvertently
contradicted Allah.
Ibid.
The Jewish scripture
that Quran 46:10. alludes to can only be referring to the Torah that
existed in the seventh century. It is
not credible that Allah was saying to these Arabs that they must accept,
as undeniable evidence for the Quran, Abdullah bin Salam's testimony
that the Quran is similar to the nonexistent (!)
Torah originally revealed to Moses before it was textually corrupted
(not the extant Tanakh, Pentateuch or the
Bible).
However Allah
confirms not only his own but also Abdullah bin Salam's ignorance, the
Quran's hellish rant is the polar opposite of Moses' Torah.
Since Allah's "proof" assumes an authentic Torah thereby annihilating
Islam's credibility, Muslim's must distort the clear meaning of this
verse to save their religion from it.
But Roudh has not seen any of our counter
arguments (unless he is referring to other Muslims, which would render
this a strawman). Now unless he's a closet seer of some sort, how has he
reached the premature conclusion that we will invariably "distort the
clear meaning" of said verse?
Both Al Kadhi's and Roudh's fault here is to
assume that Deut 18:18 was part of the original Torah revealed to Moses.
Until Roudh addresses the four questions vis-á-vis verse 7:157 we
posed above, his entire line of argumentation is flawed.
You have not
presented any evidence that questions the authenticity of these verses.
Verses cannot be rejected simply because they annihilate our cherished
beliefs.
"Annihilate"?! Roudh certainly likes to
exaggerate his position.
We have no reason to question the authenticity
of this prophecy or any other. From our perspective we believe we have
argued convincingly and presented enough evidence to show that the
Torah, as the Qur'an rightfully states, has been corrupted. As for said
prophecies, then they certainly existed in clear and explicit terms
without any ambiguity in the original Torah. However, following its
corruption, we believe that these now exist as general descriptions of
our Prophet.
It seems somewhat disjointed for Roudh to
readily affirm that the Tetragrammaton's correct pronunciation has been
lost to Judaism, and yet find fault with Prophet Muhammad (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) for being ignorant of a name lost to
posterity centuries before. As stated earlier, this lost knowledge would
come under the classification of scriptural corruption.
You need to understand it is not I but the God of Moses that finds fault
with your prophet. It is the Torah (Deuteronomy 18:17-20) that the Quran
claims to confirm that finds fault with your prophet. The pronunciation
of this name was lost to later generations of Jews but it was never lost
to the Jewish prophets, if YHWH could reveal his name to Moses then why
not Muhammad?
Once again, Roudh attempts, albeit deludingly,
to skirt around the crux of the argument, which is that the correct
pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton has been lost. Hence, given that the
YHWH has been lost, and there are no Prophets coming to remind us of its
correct pronunciation, ergo, the Torah is corrupt and Roudh's overall
argument has been falsified.
After all, is this not the name, according to the books of Moses, by
which God wanted to be known by every generation and forever?
No because as we have shown this name has been
corrupted along with the scripture it belongs to.
It
is the author of the Quran who is guilty of scriptural corruption when
he puts the Arabic name Allah into the mouths of the Israelites when the
evidence proves that they only recognised YHWH as a name for their God!
As
recorded in the Law of Moses all true prophets must speak in this name.
Any prophet who did not speak in this name the Israelites were ordered
to execute.
It would have been impossible anyway to speak
in a name whose pronunciation was not known. What remains to be said is
how a true Prophet would be able to prove his prophethood by attempting
to speak with a name whose pronunciation was unknown?
Muslims need to understand that if a prophet had arisen amongst the
Israelites who spoke in the name of Allah he would have been executed
for speaking in the name of a false god! The other criteria given
by Moses for judging a prophet is that all his prophecies must come
true. In other words the prophet must never fail to predict the future
correctly. But no amount of fulfilled prophecies or miracles could make
him a true prophet if he did not speak in YHWH's name!
A "no-name" name?!
The Jews knew that YHWH's name was revealed as the source of their
scriptures nearly 7,000 times. Allah's name was never mentioned.
This is one of the reasons why when engaging the Jews, Muhammad who was
ignorant of this divine name was on a mission impossible.
Muslims need to understand that for the Jews, Allah is as much a name
for their God as is Rama, Shiva, Hubal or Zod. Once this point is
understood, Muslims will realise the futility of trying to locate Allah
in the Bible through words like Elohim, Eli, Eloah etc because none of
these words are the name of the deity of the Jewish Bible.
We have refuted all this above.
The Jews were not prepared to reject the entire witness of their own
scriptures and history in favour of one ignorant and illiterate man's
testimony to the contrary.
The best of the Jews of Madinah, 'Abdullah ibn
Salaam, did.
15 God also said to Moses, "Say
to the Israelites, 'YHWHd]
the God of your fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God
of Jacob-has sent me to you.'
"This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation. Exodus 3:15
The Jews believed that YHWH was the one and only name of the true God
and this was his name forever and every generation. If Allah was an
all-knowing God he would have known that this is what the Torah teaches.
How then did then did he expect the Jews to believe in a god who
identified himself as Allah along with many other names but never YHWH?
Allah's total incompetence in dealing with the Jews proves that he
cannot be God.
I myself will call to account anyone who
does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name
(YHWH). Deuteronomy 18:19
If Allah was an all-knowing God he would have
known that according to the Torah all true prophets must speak in
the name of YHWH. Why then did Allah ask the Jews to believe in Muhammad
who never spoke in YHWH's name? This proves that Allah was too foolish
to be God.
This is all repetition. Repeating things does
not make the argument any stronger.
But a prophet who presumes to speak in my
name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name
of other gods, is to be put to death. Deuteronomy
18:20
Any prophet who did not speak in YHWH's name
the Israelites were ordered to execute, because a god with a name other
than YHWH could only be false. If Allah was an all-knowing God he would
have known that this is what the Torah teaches. How then did the author
of the Quran expect the Jews to believe in Muhammad who spoke to them in
the name of a god other than YHWH? How can a god as incompetent as Allah
be God?
How could the Jews believe that Muhammad's god was YHWH when the Quran
was clearly contradicting the Torah's teachings? Did Allah not tell them
to observe the Torah?
Ibid.
(Qur'an 5:66) If
only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation
that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness
from every side.
Dawood - 5:68 - 69
Say: "People of the
Book, you will attain nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel
and that which is revealed to you from your Lord"...
So
when they did observe the Torah which compelled them to reject Muhammad
and his message why did Allah condemn them?
Refuted above.
The Torah taught that YHWH is God's only name for every generation and
forever, but the Quran not only contradicts the Torah by naming its
deity as Allah instead of YHWH but also gives him an additional 98
names. Since the Quran was blatantly contradicting their scriptures did
the Jews have any choice but to reject it? The only way that these Jews
could accept Muhammad was by abandoning the Torah, a book which Allah
keeps urging the Jews to follow. If Allah was an all knowing God then
why did he never address the Jews on these crucial issues? The fact that
Allah never addresses Exodus 3:15 and many other important teachings of
the Torah which contradict the Quran and yet condemns the Jews for
rejecting Muhammad proves that he cannot be an all-knowing and just God.
One of the problems was that whilst the author of the Quran knew that
the Jewish scriptures teach that there is only one God, he did not know
that they also teach that he has only one name.
Repeating things does not make the argument
any stronger.
And how did Allah expect the Jews to follow the Torah and the Quran at
the same time when they contradicted each other?
How could the Jews believe in a prophet who was not only ignorant of
their God's one and only eternal name but also spoke to them in
the name of a Meccan high god, Lord of the pagan Kaaba complete with its
360 idols and the daddy of three daughters?
These are unsubstantiated claims void of
proof.
Just because Muhammad came along and claimed that this Allah (who could
perform no miracles, could not any provide any evidence for his divinity
and was the most ignorant and foolish god ever presented to mankind) was
the God of the Torah could not make him so.
Poor old Roudh; he cannot help himself in
continuously resorting to making false or unsubstantiated claims.
In regards to the subject of miracles, then
there were many performed during Prophet Muhammad's (peace and blessings
of Allaah be upon him) tenure, such as, the splitting of the moon.
In
a way Allah was for the Jews what Ar Rahman was for the Meccans:
(Qur'an
25:60) When it is said to them, "Adore ye (Allah) Most
Gracious!", they say, "And what is (Allah) Most Gracious? Shall we adore
that which thou commandest us?"...
Like the Jews the Meccans were not prepared to worship just any deity
Muhammad presented to them. As far as the Meccans were concerned just
because Muhammad said Rahman and Allah were the same it did not make
them so.
Again a case of eisegesis leading again to a
false interpretation. We would correct this man, but since this has
nothing to do with the debate, we have no reason to.
Given the irreconcilable
differences between the Quran and the Torah the Jews told Muhammad:
"'For our part we don't see how your Qur'an
recitals are arranged anything like our Torah is.' Ishaq:
269
This can only be a
response to Muhammad's unfounded and shameless contention that his Quran
confirmed the Torah in the hands of the Jews. It is evident from their
comment that these Jews did not have an inkling that Muhammad was
claiming that the Quran was arranged like the nonexistent
Torah originally revealed to Moses before
it was textually corrupted (not the extant Tanakh, Pentateuch or the
Bible).
To the contrary, after all this, it is beyond
reasonable doubt that Roudh has very little inkling of what it means to
formulate well thought out and well researched arguments. He would do
well to rectify this character flaw if he has any shame and
self-respect.
If
Allah is the God of the Torah then is it not extremely odd that he
revealed YHWH as his name 7,000 times in the Jewish Bible and then never
mentions this name or this fact even once in the Quran? Even when
narrating the story of Moses and the burning bush he claims, contrary to
all the evidence, that he told Moses that his name is Allah and not
YHWH. Muslims need to understand that for these Jews this re-telling of
their story could not be anything but complete non-sense and that would
be putting it mildly! How could the Jews believe that God told Moses
Verily, I am Allah when Moses never mentions the name Allah once
in his Torah? Allah is never recognised as the name of their God
anywhere in Jewish literature religious or otherwise.
In the light of this how Allah did expect the Jews of seventh century
Arabia to reject Exodus 3:15 in favour of Quran 20:14? Whilst telling
them to abide by the Torah did Allah not know that the Torah also
contained Exodus 3:15? This proves beyond any doubt that Allah was far
too ignorant, incompetent and unjust to be God?
Why is this man repeating himself over and
over like a broken record?
If
God told Moses Verily, I am Allah then
why did Israelites revere the name YHWH so much that they
made its pronunciation punishable by death? If God told Moses
Verily, I am Allah then why did the Israelites not revere the
name Allah so much that they made its pronunciation punishable by
death? If God told Moses Verily, I
am Allah then why
is the nonsensical ancient Judaic rule
that it was forbidden to pronounce His name outside the Temple in
Jerusalem about the name YHWH?
Why is it not about the name Allah?
These are all just simply begging the
question.
Why is it that when addressing the Jews the author of the Quran
invariably fails to mention the only name which they recognised for the
true God. What was the point of the author of the Quran telling the Jews
that he was Allah when the Jews considered this to be the name of a
pagan god? Does this not prove that the author of the Quran was far too
foolish and clueless to be an all-knowing God? It is not surprising that
the Jews said to him,
'O Muhammad, you
have not brought us anything we recognize and God has not sent down to
you any sign that we should follow you'.
In
other words you have produced zero evidence for your claims, you are
clueless about many of the basic teachings of our faith and you speak in
the name of a pagan god.
And yet the best of them, 'Abdullah ibn
Salaam, converted to Islam!
It does not follow that a claim to truth is
falsified on the basis of a certain number of people deciding not to
accept it unless it is objectively proven to be false; thus, Roudh's
argument is fallacious.
He
could have told them to "Produce a Surah like it" but it would not have
cut any ice with these Jews because YHWH had already given them their
criteria for judging a prophet, and he had said nothing about "producing
a Surah like it" (Deuteronomy 18:21,22).
Plus the fact that the Torah was originally
revealed in Hebrew while the Qur'an was revealed in Arabic. Has Roudh
actually seriously sat down to think through these arguments?
Since Allah had told them to observe the Torah how then did he expect
the Jews to abandon the criteria given in Deuteronomy for judging a
prophet and replace it with "produce a Surah like it". This again proves
that Allah was not YHWH and the Jews were right to reject him. Muhammad
though, did have the last word with these Jews as they paid dearly for
their disbelief because Allah did not take kindly to those who rejected
his prophet.
Refuted above.
The following verse contradicts the teaching of the Jewish Bible which
gives only one name for God.
(Qur'an 17:110)
"Say: Call upon "Allah or call upon "Rahman"; By whatever name ye call
upon Him (it is well): for to Him belong the most beautiful names."
The Meccans had a problem with the name "Rahman" that Muhammad was
calling his god. In some of the earliest Surahs the name Ar-Rahman is
used more often for God than the name Allah. The Meccans obviously
recognised Allah since he was their highest deity but they wanted
nothing to do with Muhammad's "Ar-Rahman", and when they were told to
worship him they refused.
(Qur'an
21:36) When the Unbelievers see thee, they treat thee not except
with ridicule. "Is this," (they say), "the one who talks of your gods?"
and they blaspheme at the mention of (Allah) Most Gracious! (alrrahmani)
(Qur'an
25:60) When it is said to them, "Adore ye (Allah) Most Gracious!",(
alrrahmani) they say, "And what is (Allah) Most Gracious?
(alrrahmanu) Shall we adore that which thou commandest
us?" And it increases their flight (from the Truth).
The translators have
added Allah in brackets to indicate their belief (contrary to what the
Meccans believed) that Allah and Ar-Rahman are the same deity. But the
translation can be misleading, the Meccans were neither questioning
Allah's identity nor blaspheming him since he was their chief deity, it
was Ar-Rahman whom they did not recognise, that they were blaspheming
and rejecting (i.e. when it is said to them 'adore ye
alrrahmanu' they ask 'and what is alrrahmanu'?).
Roudh must have worked out by now what our
response is going to be to this bizarre interpretation. Correct;
eisegesis.
Before we provide a holistic breakdown of the
history surrounding this subject, we wish to pose a simple question: is
it possible that the pagan Arabs rejection of "ar-Rahmaan" was
predicated on it being used as a name as opposed to some altogether
separate deity from the one they recognised to be "their
highest deity": Allaah? After all, there was no disagreement
between Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him),
his fellow Muslims and the pagan Arabs over who the supreme deity of all
things was:
"Say: 'Whose
is the earth and whosoever is therein, if you know?' They will say: 'It
is Allah's.' Say: 'Will you not then remember?' Say: 'Who is (the) Lord
of the seven heavens, and (the) Lord of the Great Throne?' They will
say: 'Allah.' Say: 'Will you not then fear Allah.' Say: 'In Whose Hand
is the sovereignty of everything? He protects (all), while against Whom
there is no protector, if you know?' They will say: '(All that belongs)
to Allah.' Say: 'How then are you deceived and have turned away from the
truth?' Nay, but We have brought them the truth, and verily, they
(disbelievers) are liars." (Qur'an 23:84-90)
If both parties, Muslims and the pagan
disbelievers, were agreed that Allaah is the supreme deity, the only
point of disagreement was that Allaah is the only true deity worthy of
all worship. Hence, did it not seem incredulous for Roudh to understand
these verses to mean that the pagans rejected this hitherto unknown
third deity introduced by the Prophet?
The problem with this bizarre approach is that
even Margoliouth, whom Roudh quotes below, hints at "ar-Rahmaan" being
an "identification" and "a title", not a deity in and of itself.
When we turn to Tafseer Ibn Kathir,
we discover that what the pagans implied by raising the rhetorical
question "And what is Ar-Rahman?" was that "[t]hey did not like to call
Allah by His Name Ar-Rahman (the Most Gracious)" (bold ours).
Why?
[T]hey objected on
the day of (the treaty of) Al-Hudaybiyyah, when the Prophet told the
scribe: "Write: In the Name of Allah, Ar-Rahman (the Most Gracious),
Ar-Rahim (the Most Merciful)."
They said, "We do not know Ar-Rahman or Ar-Rahim. Write what you used to
write: Bismika Allahumma (in Your NAME, O Allah)."
So Allah revealed the words:
"Say: 'Invoke
Allah or invoke Ar-Rahman, by whatever NAME you invoke Him
(it is the same), for to Him belong the Best Names'."
(17:110).
meaning, He is
Allah and He is the Most Gracious. And in this Ayah [verse], Allah said:
"And when it is
said to them: 'Prostrate yourselves to Ar-Rahman!' They say: 'And what
is the Ar-Rahman?'."
meaning: we do not
know or approve of this Name.
The following hadith
is further evidence:
"Abu Jahl met the Apostle
and said, 'by Allah,
Muhammad, you will either stop cursing our gods or we will curse the god
you serve' (Ishaq:162).
Where is the proof in
this citation that Abu Jahl is making a distinction between Allaah and
ar-Rahmaan? Does he make a mention of ar-Rahmaan? Since he does not, how
is this "further evidence"
that the Meccans did not recognise this alleged second deity?
Given that no mention is
made, Roudh has once again read too much into an evidence, thus,
misapplying it.
It would certainly be
more reasonable and accurate to say that what Abu Jahl meant is his
rejection of the foundational concept that the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) was articulating, i.e. the 360 gods
wrongly housed in the Ka'bah are false, their worship forbidden, and
that only Allaah is the one true God worthy of all worship.
(Abu Jahl seems to distinguish between Allah and Muhammad's god).
The great God Allah was already regarded as
Lord of the Ka'aba by the Meccans and the shrine was known as
al-baitullah - the house of Allah. Apart from the repudiation of
idols it appears that the Quraysh had yet other reasons for opposing
Muhammad's preaching:
From some texts and traditions we should
gather that the Meccan objection was not to the glorification of
Allah but to the identification of their familiar deity with him
whom the Jews called Rahman (the Merciful), a title applied to
pagan deities also. (Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam,
p. 143).
Ibid.
Then the Apostle summoned `Ali and told him
to write 'In the Name of Allah the Compassionate the Merciful'. Suhayl
said "I do not recognise this; but write 'In thy Name, O Allah'". The
Apostle told him to write the latter and he did so.
(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p.504)
Incredible! A clue staring Roudh square in
the face and he still missed it: "In thy Name, O Allah".
The Meccans appear to distinguish between Allah and Ar-Rahman so the
Quran tries to persuade the Meccans that Rahman is not an ilah
besides Allah.
(Qur'an 17:110)
"Say: Call upon "Allah or call upon "Rahman"; By whatever name ye call
upon Him (it is well): for to Him belong the most beautiful names."
Refuted above.
The Meccans did not
recognise Muhammad's "Rahman" as a name for god, just as the Jews did
not recognise Allah as a name for their God.
Truly astonishing to witness this man's
jumbled and confused state of reasoning.
Roudh was at first arguing against "[t]he
translators" for having "added Allah in brackets to indicate their
belief (contrary to what the Meccans believed) that Allah and Ar-Rahman
are the same deity". So what is it going to be Roudh: are you siding
with the pagan Meccans by arguing that Allaah and Ar-Rahmaan are two
separate deities, or are you arguing that they did not recognise this to
be "a name for god", or both?
Whatever the case, these pagans never objected
to Allaah as a deity, nor had they ever come close to suggesting that
Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had introduced a
hitherto unknown second deity called ar-Rahmaan, but rather an objection
based on nothing save falsehood (they were pagan worshippers after all)
against two specific names: ar-Rahmaan and ar-Raheem.
What is bizarre is that these pagans denied
the attribute of mercy by rejecting these two divine names, which,
incidentally, the Jews and Christians acknowledge a priori.
However, Allaah provides a reason for this counterintuitive position.
Ibn Kathir states in relation to verse 21:36:
Allah tells his Prophet:
"And when those
who disbelieved see you,"
meaning, the
disbelievers of the Quraysh, such as Abu Jahl and his like.
"they take you
not except for mockery,"
means, they make
fun of you and insult you, saying,
"Is this the
one who talks about your gods!"
meaning, is this
the one who insults your gods and ridicules your intelligence!
Allah says:
"While they
disbelieve at the mention of the Most Gracious. While they disbelieve at
the mention of the Most Gracious."
meaning, they
disbelieve in Allah and yet they mock the Messenger of Allah. As Allah
says:
"And when they see you, they
treat you only in mockery (saying): 'Is this the one whom Allah has sent
as a Messenger? He would have nearly misled us from our gods had it not
been that we were patient and constant in their worship!' And they will
know, when they see the torment who it is that is most astray from the
path!"
(25:41-42)
Hence, this approach was not grounded on any
rational basis, but only used for yet another excuse, knowing that they
could not defeat him from an intellectual and objective standpoint (as
is the case with Roudh), to unjustifiably mock and ridicule the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon). As a matter of fact, from an
intellectual perspective, Allaah refutes this approach stating:
"Say" O Muhammad,
to these idolators who deny that Allah possesses the attribute of mercy
and refuse to call Him Ar-Rahman,
"lnvoke Allah
or invoke Ar-Rahman (the Most Gracious), by whatever name you invoke Him
(it is the same), for to Him belong the Best Names."
[17:110]
meaning, there is
no difference between calling on Him as Allah or calling on Him as
Ar-Rahman, because He has the Most Beautiful Names, as He says:
"He is Allah, beside Whom
none has the right to be worshipped but He, the All-Knower of the unseen
and the seen. He is the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."
(59:22)
We wonder how serious a Jew or Christian would
have taken an argument predicated on the idea that the supreme deity did
not possess the attributes of mercy!
With regards to this
consider the following.
(Qur'an 2:245) Who is he that will loan to Allah a beautiful loan,
which Allah will double unto his credit and multiply many times? It is
Allah that giveth (you) want or plenty, and to Him shall be your return.
Ishaq:263
"Abu Bakr went into a Jewish school and found many
pupils gathered around Finhas, a learned rabbi. Bakr told the Jews to
fear Allah and submit. He told them that they would find that Muhammad
was an Apostle written in the Torah and Gospels.
(Abu Bakr does not seem to know (!) that the Jews
would not have cared whether Muhammad was written in the Gospel/s or
not) "Finhas replied, 'We are rich compared
to Allah. We do not humble ourselves to Allah. He humbles himself to us.
We are independent of him, while he needs us. Why does your god ask us
to lend him money as your master pretends.' Bakr was enraged and hit
Finhas hard in the face. Were it not for the treaty between us I would
cut off your head, you enemy of Allah. So Allah said, 'They will taste
Our punishment of burning.'"
It is clear from Rabbi Finhas' disparaging
remarks that for him, Allah was nothing more than a pagan deity, whom
Muhammad pretended was asking the Jews for a beautiful loan.
Rabbi Finhas was completely unaware that his God had told Moses at the
burning bush "Verily, I am Allah".
Refuted above.
But can we blame
Finhas for thinking that Allah was a pagan deity?
(Qur'an
53:19-20) Have ye seen Lat. and 'Uzza, And another, the third
(goddess), Manat?
(Qur'an
53:23) These are nothing but names which ye have devised,- ye and
your fathers,-
Just like the name
Allah that the Meccans and their fathers had also devised for the daddy
of these goddesses, long before Muhammad came along and claimed that he
was the only true God without partners.
How does verse 53:19-23 prove that Allaah was
a pagan deity or that the name was invented by the pagans? Does the
verse state that Allaah was "devised" by the pagans?
Roudh is firing off verses and making
assertions without reasoning through his arguments. There is nothing
here except unsubstantiated claims.
There is a reason
why unlike the prophets of the Jewish Bible Muhammad joins his own name
to that of his deity i.e.
(Qur'an 4:136) "Obey
Allah and His Messenger" (2:32) and "Believe in Allah and His
Messenger."
For a false prophet
it is of paramount importance that his prey not just accept his deity
but also the prophet himself. After all this is the primary purpose of
his charade. The Meccans believed in Allah because they had invented
him, it was Muhammad whom they rejected, so they are repeatedly told to
believe and obey both.
Unsubstantiated claims.
(We have clipped the rest of this diatribe
including the opinion of Margoliouth
since it has nothing to do with the subject matter)
Despite the fact that Allah could not perform any miracles or provide
any credible evidence for his divinity, the Quran continuously and
repeatedly claims that he is all-powerful and all-knowing. This attempt
to counter the obvious is based on the principal that if you tell a lie
often enough and long enough in time it will come to be perceived as
truth.
Repetition. Covered above.
Even if the pronunciation of the name had become lost, an all-powerful
God could easily have restored it by sending a new revelation so Allah
was without excuse. If YHWH had been sending revelations to Muhammad for
23 years he would have restored the pronunciation of his name.
Ibid.
Regarding scriptural corruption of this name, because this name remains
exactly as Moses wrote it in his Torah that is why its pronunciation has
been lost. Most other words in the Torah (also in the Quran I believe)
have been changed by adding vowels and other grammatical marks but this
is one word which has remained unchanged. In other words the lost
knowledge of this name has resulted because unlike many other words in
the Torah nothing has been added to this name. It remains just as it was
written on the stone tablets.
Refuted above.
Hence, Roudh is mistaken to say that Allaah is
the "God of the Jewish scriptures". This assertion may reveal why
Roudh's entire line of reasoning is so jumbled and absurd. If he
understood that Allaah is the God of the Torah originally revealed to
Moses before it was textually corrupted (not the extant Tanakh,
Pentateuch or the Bible), then perhaps he might have saved himself all
this trouble.
I
did not say that Allah is the God of the Jewish scriptures. What
I actually said was that it was Muhammad who claimed that he received
his revelation from the God of the Jewish scriptures.
Roudh is correct and we retract this oversight
and will remove it immediately from the original article as per our
rules of debate, i.e. Islam-Sikhism will remove from its website
anything refuted and shown to be false.
It
is Muhammad who identified Allah with the God of the Jewish scriptures.
He tried to pass off the primary deity of his tribe the Quraysh, the
Lord of the pagan Kaaba as the God of the Jewish scriptures.
The Ka'bah, as acknowledged by the pagans, was
originally built by the Prophets Abraham and his son Ishmael. Abraham
was the forefather of the Israelites and the Arabs; both he and his sons
were certainly not pagans. It was the Arabs who later transformed the
House of Allaah, which was originally established for his true worship,
into a place for pagan worship. This is historically attested in the
biography of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by
Ibn Ishaaq:
Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. al-Harith al-Tamimi told methat Abu Salih al-Samman told him that he heard Abu Hurayra say: I heard the apostle of God saying to Aktham b. al-Jaun al-Khuza'i, 'O Aktham I saw 'Amr b. Luhayy b. Qam'a b. Khindif dragging his intestines in hell, and never did I see two men so much alike as you and he!' 'Will this resemblance injure me?' asked Aktham. 'No,' said the apostle 'for you are a believer and he is an infidel.
He was the first to change the religion of Ishmael, to set up idols, and institute the custom of the bahira, sa'iba, wasila, and hami.
They say that the beginning of stone worship among the sons of Ishmael was when Mecca became too small for them and they wanted more room in the country. Everyone who left the town took with him a stone from the sacred area to do honour to it. Wherever they settled they set it up and walked round it as they went round the Ka'ba. This led them to worship what stones they pleased and those which made an impression on them.
Thus as generations passed they forgot their primitive faith and adopted another religion for that of Abraham and Ishmael. They worshipped idols and adopted the same errors as the peoples before them.
Yet they retained and held fast practices going back to the time of Abraham, such as honouring the temple and going round it, the great and little pilgrimage, and the standing on 'Arafa and Muzdalifa, sacrificing the victims, and the pilgrim cry at the great and little pilgrimage, while introducing elements which I had no place in the religion of Abraham. Thus, Kinana and Quraysh used the pilgrim cry: 'At Thy service, O God, at Thy service! At Thy service, Thou without an associate but the associate Thou hast. Thou ownest him and what he owns.' They used to acknowledge his unity in their cry
[but] and then include their idols with God, putting the ownership of them in His hand.
(bold, underline ours)
It is, thus, not the Ka'bah that was
pagan, but the ignorant ones later through the eons who transformed it
into a place of false worship. Nonetheless, it was later restored back
to its original status by the brother of Abraham, Prophet Muhammad
(peace and blessings of Allaaah be upon him).
He
managed to fool some of the illiterate Arabs but not the learned Jews.
Again this is untrue since the most learned of
them in Madina, 'Abdullah ibn Salaam, converted to Islam after sincerely
recognising the truth.
The overwhelming testimony of the Quran is that the scriptures in the
possession of the Jews and Christians in the seventh century were
authentic. The notion that "Allaah
is the God of the Torah originally revealed to Moses before it was
textually corrupted (not the extant Tanakh, Pentateuch or the Bible)"
is nowhere found in the Quran.
The Quran never distinguishes between a nonexistent pure and original
Torah and the one which existed in Muhammad's time. Since the only book
known to historians and scholars that has ever been called the Torah by
the Jews is the one in their possession today, Muslims need to produce
some evidence of the 'once existent' pure and original book that
supposedly went by this name.
Repetition and thoroughly refuted above.
If the author of the Quran believed
that the Bible had been corrupted then we would have expected this to
have been one of the most dominant and repeated themes of the Quran,
because if the Bible has not been corrupted then Islam cannot be true.
This convoluted argument makes no sense. Roudh
is contending that the level of belief of the Qur'an's author over the
corruption of the Bible is dependent upon the frequency with which this
theme appears in the Qur'an. In other words, the more it is mentioned,
the greater the belief in said accusation?! Stating something once is
not enough in the irrational world of Roudh. Perhaps this is the reason
why he has been repeating his arguments over and over to convince us or, perhaps
as the case more accurately maybe, himself that he truly believes them.
But what we find is
the exact opposite.
Who would have guessed?!
Muslims are pressed
hard to find verses which teach the textual corruption of the Bible, but
there are many verses which teach the opposite. The few (ambiguous)
verses upon which Muslims must rely to support their charge of
corruption are used to interpret the many clear verses that teach
otherwise. The opposite ought to happen but that would destroy Islam's
credibility. The Muslim charge of corruption is not based upon a
scholarly assessment of the evidence, it has resulted from the necessary
presupposition required to maintain the validity of the Quran.
Refuted above.
If we, for arguments
sake, reject the testimony of the Quran, many hadiths, early Muslim
scholars, manuscript evidence etc, and assume that the Bible has been
textually corrupted, then one question does come to mind. Since Allah
says we must accept all of his revelations and not just a part of them,
why did Allah if he was an all powerful God only safeguard part of his
revelations and not all of them?
We have been instructed by our Lord to accept
the truth found therein, not to just accept them blindly; and there is
no evidence to say that Allaah ordered acceptance of all scriptures
in toto. After all, if this was the case, one would be spoiled for
choice given the existence of the huge number of apocryphal books and,
not to mention, the difference of opinion that exists, for example,
between the Roman Catholics and Protestants over how many books to
include in their canon: 73 or 66.
Our sincere advice to Roudh would be to not
only thoroughly familiarise himself with Islaam, if he truly intends on
living up to the boast of disproving its superiority, but also Judaism.
I
hope it can be seen that to a considerable extent I have used the
Islamic sources themselves to show that they expose Islam to be a false
religion.
He has used them and greatly abused them at
the same time.
I
do however recognise that Islam is probably the world's fastest growing
religion and it could become the world's largest religion. Impressive
though this may seem, I also recognise that if this were to happen, it
would be despite the evidence and not because of it.
Based on Roudh's knowledge of Islam, Judaism
and Christianity, we are not surprised by his final conclusion. We pray
that we have done enough, however, to dispel his ignorance, much of
which sadly may be of a compounded nature; but we hope, as we always do
for our fellow brothers and sisters in humanity, that Allaah make them
sincere towards the truth and guide them towards accepting it.
Finally, what we would urge Roudh, and Sikhs
like him, not to do is be overly reliant on the efforts of the
Christians. If Roudh believes that this is a case of "the enemy of my
enemy is my friend", then he will be in store for a rude awakening every
time. If there are Christians known for having notoriously
misrepresented Sikhism, as some Sikh scholars have recognised through
the ages, is Roudh somehow under the false illusion that Islam is an
exception to their nefarious approach? Roudh's attempt in dressing these
arguments up with his own rhetoric is not fooling anyone and neither
should he delude himself into thinking that. What he should consider is
that the inherent problem in uncritically repeating such errant
arguments is that not only will he be perpetuating their mistakes, but
also exposing himself to being thoroughly refuted and embarrassed.
Al-Mutlaq Wal-Muqqayad:
A mutlaq
(lit., 'unconditional') verse is one that is absolute in its
scope, not limited to what it applies. It differs from the 'aam
in that the 'aam applies to all members that are included
in its meanings simultaneously without exception, whereas the
mutlaq can only apply to one member of its meaning. In other
words, 'aam applies to all the members of a specific set,
whereas mutlaq only applies to any one member of that
set. ...
The
muqayyad (lit., 'qualified') occurs when a mutlaq is
specified by an adjective.
(A. A. Y. Qadhi (2003),
op. cit.,
p.229)
Al-Mantooq wal-Mafhoom:
The mantooq
of a verse is the apparent meaning that can be understood
directly from the words in the sentence. ...
The mafhoom
of a verse, on the other hand, is an understanding of the verse
that is not explicit in the words of the sentence.
(A. A. Y. Qadhi (2003),
op. cit.,
p.230)
Al-Haqeeqee wal-Majaazee:
If a word is
used in its literal sense - in other words, its original and
primary intent - then this is referred to as its haqeeqee
meaning. ...
On the other
hand, if a word is used in a metaphorical sense - in other
words, a meaning or connotation that is not the primary use of
the word - then this is the majaazee meaning.
(A. A. Y. Qadhi (2003),
op. cit.,
p.224)
Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet said: There is no prophet
between me and him, that is, Jesus. He will descend (to the
earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height,
reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if
drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet.
He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break
the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all
religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will
live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The
Muslims will pray over him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, 37/4310)
"And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of
Resurrection): 'O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men:
Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?' He will
say: 'Glory be to you! It was not for me to say that which I had
no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would have
surely known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do
not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the
All-Knower of all that is hidden and unseen. Never did I say to
them aught except what You (Allah) did command me to say:
"Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." And I was a witness over
them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You
were the Watcher over them, and You are a witness to all
things.'" (Qur'an 5:116-7)
Allah will
also speak to His servant and Messenger, Isa son of Maryam,
peace be upon him, saying to him on the Day of Resurrection in
the presence of those who worshipped Isa and his mother as gods
besides Allah ... This Ayah also shows the crime of the Christians
who invented a lie against Allah and His Messenger, thus making
a rival, wife and son for Allah. Allah is glorified in that He
is far above what they attribute to Him. (S. R. Al-Mubarakpuri
(2003), Tafsir Ibn Kathir Abridged, Volume 3,
(Darussalam), pp.303-4.)
Fn.4: Ibn Abi Hatim 1:245.
Fn.5: Fath Al-Bari 5:244, 13:345 & 555.
S. R. Al-Mubarakpuri (2003), Tafsir Ibn Kathir Abridged,
Volume 1, (Darussalam), pp.273-4.
Abridged M. N. ar-Rafa'i (2000), op. cit. - Part 6, p.200.
Ibid., pp.205-6.
B D. Ehrman (2005), Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who
Changed the Bible and Why, (HarperCollins Publishers),
p.220.
B D. Ehrman (2009), Jesus, Interrupted, Revealing the Hidden
Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don't Know About Them),
(HarperCollins e-books), p.152-3.
B. M. Fagan, C. Beck (1996), The Oxford Companion to
Archaeology, (Oxford University Press), p.170.
L. H. Schiffman, J. C. VanderKam (2000), Encyclopedia of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, (Oxford University Press), pp.385-6.
J. P. Lange (1872), A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures:
Psalms, (C. Scribner & Co.), p.9.
A chart showing a breakdown of the authors of the 150 songs can
be seen here:
Chart of the Book of Psalms.
P. W. Flint, P. D. Miller, A. Brunell
(2005), The Book of Psalms: Composition and Reception,
(Brill Academic Publishers), p.53.
B. Zawadi,
Evidence That Islam Teaches That
There Was Textual Corruption of The Christian and Jewish
Scriptures, (Call-to-Monotheism).
Fn.1: At-Tabari 2:245.
S. R. Al-Mubarakpuri (2003), op. cit.,
Volume 1, pp.268-9.
Ibid., p.273.
Fn.4: Ibn Abi Hatim 1:245.
Fn.5: Fath Al-Bari 5:244, 13:345 & 555.
S. R. Al-Mubarakpuri (2003), op. cit., pp.273-4.
B. Zawadi (2011),
Refuting The Argument Regarding
"Allah's Words Do Not Change",(Call-to-Monotheism,
11 Mar.)
Fn.12: Tafseer at-Tabari: Vol.13, p.164 and Sahih al-Bukhari:
Vol.4, p.342.
Sunan at-Tirmidhi, 3/247.
B. Zawadi (2007),
Refuting the Argument That The
Prophet Claimed That The Corrupted Torah Was Revealed From God,
(call-to-monotheism).
Ibn Anwar,
Elohim. One or Plural?,
(Muslim Responses).
Homonym: is, in
the strict sense, one of a group of words that share the same
spelling and the same pronunciation but have different
meanings.
M. Maimonides, M. F. (2009), The Guide for the Perplexed,
(Digireads.com Publishing), p.64.
Ibid., p.245.
G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren (1990), Theological Dictionary
of the Old Testament, Volume 6, (Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing), p.68.
K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P. W. van der Horst (1999), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, (Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing), p.287.
J. Pelc (2008), The Jewish Bible, (Jewish Publication
Society), pp.118-9.
G. W. Bromiley (1982), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J,
(Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing), p.502.
M. Hunt (2003),
The Many Names of God,
(Agape Bible Study).
R. N. Soulen, R. K. Soulen (2002), Handbook of Biblical
Criticism, (James Clarke & Co), p.188.
M. Baker (2001), Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, (Routledge),
p.272.
G. Bergstrasser, P. T. Daniels (1983), Introduction to the
Semitic Languages: Text Specimens and Grammatical Sketches,
(Eisenbrauns), p.80.
Ibid., p.93.
Ibid., p.80.
H. Ringgren (1974), Theological Dictionary of the Old
Testament, Volume 10, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing), p.71.
Fn.115: D. B. Macdonald, "Ilah"
in B. Lewis, V. L. Menage, Ch. Pellat and J. Schacht (Eds.),
Encyclopaedia of Islam (New Edition),
1971, Volume III, E. J. Brill (Leiden) & Luzac & Co. (London),
p. 1093.
Fn.128: A. Guillaume, Islam,
1956, Penguin Books: London, p. 7.
M. S. M. Saifullah, M. E. N. Juferi, A. David (2006),
Reply To Robert Morey's Moon-God
Allah Myth: A Look At The Archaeological Evidence,
(Islamic Awareness; last modified: 15 Sept. 2007).
S. R. Al-Mubarakpuri (2003), op. cit.,
Volume 3, p.131.
Fn.1: At-Tabari 2:245.
S. R. Al-Mubarakpuri (2003), op. cit., Volume 1, pp.268-9.
Biblos.com,
Text Analysis, (John 20:17).
S. R. Al-Mubarakpuri (2003), op. cit., Volume 9, pp.52-3.
Imam al-Bukhari records the following tradition where the
companion Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqaas said:
