Monday, July 28, 2008

David Wood and Bassam Zawadi on "Iron Sharpens Iron"

Bassam and I were on Chris Arnzen's "Iron Sharpens Iron" today. We gave a general overview of some similarities and differences between Christianity and Islam. Free MP3 files can be downloaded here. We'll be going into more detail tomorrow.

**UPDATE** The MP3 for Part Two can be downloaded here.

6 comments:

BlackBaron said...

Mr. Wood,

I thought that you did a nice job during both interviews and I hope you do well in your debate.

I thought it was funny during the first interview when Bassam said something about possibly being converted by you.

Thanks for your hard work.

ben malik said...

What was interesting is Zawadi's assertion that the seven ahruf were dalects in light of what his own Salafi shcolars say:

Thirdly:

Some of the scholars said that what was meant by ahruf was the dialects of the Arabs, but this is far-fetched, because of the hadeeth of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab who said: “I heard Hishaam ibn Hakeem reciting Soorat al-Furqaan in a manner different from that in which I used to recite it and the way in which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) taught me to recite it. I was about to argue with him whilst he was praying, but I waited until he finished his prayer, and then I tied his garment around his neck and seized him by it and brought him to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, I heard this man reciting Soorat-al-Furqaan in a way different to the way you taught it to me.’ The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to him, ‘Recite it,’ and he recited it as I had heard him recite it. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ Then he said to me, ‘Recite it,’ so I recited it and he said, ‘It was revealed like this.’ This Qur'aan has been revealed in seven different ways, so recite it in the way that is easiest for you.’”

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 2287; Muslim, 818)

It is known that Hishaam was Asadi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani Asad in Quraysh) and ‘Umar was ‘Adawi Qurashi (i.e., from the clan of Bani ‘Adiyy in Quraysh). Both of them were from Quraysh and Quraysh had only one dialect. If the difference in ahruf (styles) had been a difference in dialects, why would two men of Quraysh have been different?
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/5142

This pretty much puts to rest Zawadi's point since the differences cannot be variations which existed among the various Arabic dialects when both Umar and Hishaam spoke the same exact dialect!

Dk said...

Ben, lol. Ah yes Bassam knows more than his own Salafi scholars.

Bassam said...

Ben Malik doesn't realize that he actually strengthens my case by putting forth that hadeeth, since he shows that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) approved of the differences in recitation. Therefore, the Muslims could be at peace with the fact that there were differences, but they were approved by the Prophet.

As for the dialects, that is only one of the 2 or 3 strongest opinions out there. I didn't have time to mention all opinions. I personally do not adhere to the dialects opinion, but something else. But because the dialects opinion is quite prominent, I was explaining that on the show. But even after Shamoun got off the line when he called during the show, I explained why there isn't a problem even though we don't know exactly what the ahruf were.

As for the quotation from Sheikh Munajjid, well it is a good argument but not very strong. It is possible that someone from the Qurayshi tribe would have recited it in a different dialect if he were living among other tribes.

For example, I know many Palestinians who speak in the Egyptian accent because they either lived in Egypt or hung around with too many Egyptians. Similarly, someone could originally be Qurayshi but speak in another dialect.

I am not passionately arguing that the ahruf were dialects, since that it is not important for my case anyways.

Peace

ben malik said...

Ben Malik realizes more than you know. Your analogy with the palestinians speaking with egyptian accent is a very desperate one since you need to prove that the members of the Quraysh spoke in different dialects, which you can't since they didn't. Besides, wouldn't your own scholars have known this? If so why would they then set forth the example of Umar and Hisham as proof that the seven ahruf were not variations among the different dialects.

So just admit you go caught and were mistaken.

Moreover, what kind of religion is this that claims that its main scripture was "revealed" in seven ahruf but can't explain what these are? More importantly, which of has seven ahruf is actually the version found in the heavenly tablet? Or do we really want us to buy the claim tat all seven are contained in the heavenly book? What kind of god would leave his community in such confusion and chaos?

Finally, you still need to explain why Umar destroyed six of the seven ahruf when he wasn't inspired to do so, especially when Muhammad himself approved and sanctioned the reading or recitation of all of them.

Sunil said...

I think both speakers need to be commended for speaking respectfully. One hopes that such freedom exists in islamic nations. For that to happen, the idea of islamic theocracy and sharia needs to be given up (which to many, means the end of religion itself).

On the issue of wars by Muhammad/Caliphs, the idea of forming religion-based communal armies to war against those who not accept Muhammad itself is questionable. On the top of it, fighting/killing until/unless the opponent converts or politically submits to religion is even more reprehensible, to put it mildly. Even if one assumes that it is the opponent who started the war, and even if one assumes that God allows war for religious persecution (which Jesus did not), the purpose of the war should be to counter the attack and not make religious conversion a condition of sparing the lives of the opponent. Surrendering can be a condition for sparing the life, but not acceptance of Muhammad as prophet. That is reprehensible and equal to conversion by sword (as is apostate killings).