Saturday, December 27, 2008

Nakdimon vs. Yahya19 on Paltalk Today

Today at 7:00 P.M. (Eastern Standard Time) Nakdimon will be debating Yahya. To listen in, click here and log in.

41 comments:

David Wood said...

This was an interesting debate. I'll post a link when the recording is available.

It's clear from the passages cited that God's covenant is through Isaac. It's equally clear that God made a promise to Ishmael (a promise that was fulfilled during Old Testament times, not by Islam).

Yahya said that the reason Christians and Jews don't want Ishmael to be part of the covenant is that this would provide multiple paths to salvation. As a Christian, I can say that this is simply false. God's promise to Ishmael had nothing to do with salvation, so it's difficult to see why Ishmael could ever be considered a threat to salvation through faith in Jesus.

One question. Does anyone know which passage Yahya was referring to when he said that the Moabites are Ishmaelites?

Nakdimon said...

Hey David,

Glad you enjoyed it. It was obvious that this guy was shifting positions. he says one thing and when he gets pinned on it, he says another thing.

What was ur nick anyways? I'm planning to set up a debate with Sami on our strongest points: Prophethood of Muhammad and Divinity of Yeshua. I'm checking my schedule.

As for the reverence to Moabites being from Ishmael:

Genesis 19:36 - 37:
Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. And the firstborn bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same [is] the father of the Moabites unto this day.

Clearly making things up that he can't back up with texts. But thats how Islam reasons.

Bfoali said...

Greetings David,
I am not to sure, but are Yahya Heydor Seymour and Yahya 19 the same?
I am pretty sure Yahya 19 debated today, yet maybe im wrong.
If it was Yahya 19 who debated then I believe you should change the title. David I may be wrong so im sorry for any anoyance this post has given you, if I am false.

David Wood said...

Bfoali,

The debater didn't sound like the Yahya I know, so I think I need to change it. I emailed Yahya to check with him; I'm just waiting for him to respond. Do you know for sure that Yahya 19 is not Yahya Seymour? If so, I can change it now.

Bfoali said...

Greetings,
I am pretty sure that they are different people. I recall asking them the same question a while back.
So I think its best you do change it.
Regards

El-Cid said...

Nakdimon,

I didn't get a chance to listen in on the live debate, but I will be keeping an eye out for the posted link so I can hear the recording.

A question for you, Nakdimon:

Any possibility of a Messianic debate team being formed to dialogue with Muslims? I think there would be a lot of interest in an Acts17-style apologist group forming from a Messianic viewpoint. Just a thought.

David Wood said...

Ha! A Messianic debate team! That would only be, like, the coolest thing in all of history.

Matthew said...

I'm planning to set up a debate with Sami on our strongest points: Prophethood of Muhammad and Divinity of Yeshua. I'm checking my schedule.

Some thoughts on the divinity of Christ:
I noticed that muslims often point to passages in which Jesus says something about the father - for example:
"My father is greater than I"
But if they accept this passage because they think it shows that Jesus was not divine, an even bigger problem arises for them, because it confirms the christian belief that Jesus is the son of God, which contradicts islam.

This seems bizarre to me. But that's what muslims do. I once listened to Shabir Ally and he quoted from the gospel of John to support the idea of Muhammed in the bible. The source he uses to defend islam begins with "Jesus is God and created the universe"!!

I think you guys should nail islamic apologists on this when they bring up those passages, because they backfire on them.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Whether Muslims accept the Bible or refuse it, use it or don't use it, it still backfires.

The Bible is the biggest problem for Islam, it is simply a paradox they are unable to resolve.

If they follow the modern muslim faith and do not believe the previous Scriptures as they appeared and were read by the people of the Book in Muhammad's era, they disobey Allah's command in the Qur'an and can therefore not be Muslims.

But then if they reject the theories of modern muslim missionaries and obey the Qur'an and embrace the previous Scripture of that time (of Muhammad), they cannot be Muslims either.

So my question is: what is a Muslim?

Based on this Qur'anic problem, do Muslims even exist? Have they ever existed?

This is why we should call them muhammidians not Muslims.

So far we Christian apologists have laughed our way throughout the debate.

David Wood said...

Nakdimon,

I have a suggestion concerning the format of your next Paltalk debate. Paltalk debates are nice because everyone can be posting comments and such, but the final recording is kind of awkward because of the delays caused by switching between moderator, presenters, etc. Then, whenever someone starts to speak, he has to say, "Can everyone hear me?"

Here's my suggestion. Three people can go into a private room, and all three can have their mics on at the same time. This way, there's no switching mics on or off. One person moderates, and the other two debate. In the end, there will be a perfect recording with no gaps or lags. It will sound like a recorded radio debate. Then, the entire debate can be played for everyone else, and people can comment and ask questions.

Ibn said...

Hogan:If they follow the modern muslim faith and do not believe the previous Scriptures as they appeared and were read by the people of the Book in Muhammad's era, they disobey Allah's command in the Qur'an and can therefore not be Muslims.

What are you talking about?

Hogan:But then if they reject the theories of modern muslim missionaries and obey the Qur'an and embrace the previous Scripture of that time (of Muhammad), they cannot be Muslims either.

There is nothing in the Quran that says Muslims are required to embrace the previous scriptures, if by "embrace" you mean to follow its teachings. We confirm the revelations which you have, but we also recognize that they contain corruptions.


Hogan:So my question is: what is a Muslim?

A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Abraham(as) who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, and certainly not a polytheist.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Unbelievable Ibn, I thought you had decided not to waste more of your precious time on me.

It seems that I have touched a nerve as usual. I guess this time, I really touched a nerve.

Ibn wrote:

Hogan:If they follow the modern muslim faith and do not believe the previous Scriptures as they appeared and were read by the people of the Book in Muhammad's era, they disobey Allah's command in the Qur'an and can therefore not be Muslims.

What are you talking about?

Elijah replies:

I am pointing out that the Qur'an does not agree with the modern muslim claim of Bible corruption.

Ibn wrote:

There is nothing in the Quran that says Muslims are required to embrace the previous scriptures, if by "embrace" you mean to follow its teachings. We confirm the revelations which you have, but we also recognize that they contain corruptions.

Elijah wrote:

Really, are you saying that as a Muslim you are not to accept these books as the Word of God?

The Qur'an commands you to believe in these books, not just as they were revealed to Jesus but in their form and doctrine in Muhammad's own time:

Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: “ We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one”. (29:46)

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray (Sura 4:136)

Ibn wrote:

There is nothing in the Quran that says Muslims are required to embrace the previous scriptures, if by "embrace" you mean to follow its teachings.

Elijah replies:

Why do I again have to educate you about the Qur'an?

This is what the Qur'an states:

The Qur'an orders Jews and Christians to perform these books. Surely you will not tell me that following these books is disimilar to embrace these books:

Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord” (Sura 5:68-71)

The Qur'an orders Muhammad to consult these books if there is any doubt about the call and revelation of Allah.
Now why consult a corrupted book if the pure word of Allah fails to provide such assurance?:

If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU” (Sura 10:94).

The previous Scriptures in Muhammad's time are also sufficient for salvation:

Sura 2:62 says, "Those who believe (in the Qur’an). Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), And the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work Righteousness, - on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

So now I have answered your question.

Firstly None of these passages state that the previous revelations have been corrupted on a global scale by writing?

Secondly, why would Allah reveal such passage without the balance of refuting these books?

Now I know that certain passages refer to local Jews corrupting or fabricating Jewish scripture. We may here debate whether this refers to Jewish scripture globally and whether this not refutes the consistency in the Qur'an which elsewhere orders these scriptures to be believed in and followed.

We can also debate whether these are not simply local corruptions.

Now as to the Injeel this is even more problematic for a Muslim:

So my question here is: Can you show me a passage that confirms explicitly that the Injeel was corrupted by writing, and remained corrupted in Muhammad's time?

Can you show me a verse that says the Injeel is corrupted?

Can you show me a passage that says: reveal in the original Injeel but not the Injeel of today?

Can you also provide some explanation what you mean when you say that believing in these books as they appear and embracing them is a different thing?

I asked Ibn what a Muslim is:

Ibn wrote:

A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Abraham(as) who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, and certainly not a polytheist.

Elijah replies:

A Muslim according to the passages I posted is someone who believes in all the Revelations (as they appear and are read in Muhammad's time).

In that case a Qur'anic Muslim is not a Muslim, has never been a Muslim and will never be a true Muslim.

Fernando said...

Ibn said: «A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Abraham»... I woulde love to see extracted from the Biblle (not from the Quran or the pre-quranic an pagan arabian tradition that this one recollectes...) what's the "relegion of Abraham"...

Did he ever, for example, saide that Muhammad was God's profet? Don't thinque so... so he was note also muslim...

Dude!!! I'm enjoyien each more the postes from Yahya's disciple, mister Ibn the self-proclaimed SPIN DOCTOR n.º 1... loooool...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

What are Ibn and Yahya the same person?

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Well if Yahya and Ibn are the same person, we have a problem, since Yahya wants to debate me next year, and Ibn refuses to waste more time on me.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Don't tell me there are two persons in there.

Alforreca said...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said:

What are Ibn and Yahya the same person?

That's what I said a few days ago... in the "Denial ad Absurdum: When Muslims Undermine Their Own Religion" posts...

Ibn then said:

Fernando said:"Ibn or Yahya Seymor? Why do I say this? Because you are confused. Yahya and I are not the same person.

Dude... he even mixed up me with Fernando... I think it is so obvious: the same tactics, the same poor apologetics, the same "camouflage", the same twisting and shouting...

Ibn said...

Hogan:Unbelievable Ibn, I thought you had decided not to waste more of your precious time on me. It seems that I have touched a nerve as usual. I guess this time, I really touched a nerve.

I said I wasn't going to waste my time with you on that thread. I made my points, you made yours.

Hogan:I am pointing out that the Qur'an does not agree with the modern muslim claim of Bible corruption.

Not really. The Quran says in several places( 4:46, 5:13, 2:75, 2:79, 3:78, etc.) that the bible has undergone corruption. You might say that "Tahrif" is limited to misinterpretation only, but that is not the view supported by the Quran. As Dr.Hasanuddin Ahmed writes in his book, "Introducing the Quran", "The Quran...has used the word referring to corruption of text...it can be concluded that any change in the text by which purport has been necessarily changed is 'tahrif'. If the text is kept intact and if the meaning is changed by way of misinterpretation it cannot be treated as 'tahrif'." (p. 276)

Gordon D Newby concurs that "Tahrif", is "the practice....of substituting letters or otherwise changing the text to alter the meaning of the original." (A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, p.200)

Hogan:Really, are you saying that as a Muslim you are not to accept these books as the Word of God?
The Qur'an commands you to believe in these books, not just as they were revealed to Jesus but in their form and doctrine in Muhammad's own time

Yes, we believe in the revelations which are contained in the previous scriptures, as stated in 29:46; not the human elements that reside alongside God's revelations. Same explanation applies to 4:136.


Hogan:Why do I again have to educate you about the Qur'an?

You are the one in need of an education, Hogan.

5:68-71 is calling upon the People of the Book to observe the Torah, Gospel and the latest revelation, the Quran. If you truly believe in the Torah and Gospel, you will believe in the Quran as well.

Hogan:The Qur'an orders Muhammad to consult these books if there is any doubt about the call and revelation of Allah. Now why consult a corrupted book if the pure word of Allah fails to provide such assurance?

Actually, the verse (10:94) calls on Muhammad(saw) to consult those who possessed the Book, rather than the Book itself. After all, Muhammad(saw) was illiterate; he could neither read nor write.

Since Surah 10 is a Meccan Surah, I am right in believing that the Prophet(saw) did consult the holders of the Book who affirmed his mission. Otherwise, that would have been the end of him.

Hogan:The previous Scriptures in Muhammad's time are also sufficient for salvation:

Sura 2:62 says, "Those who believe (in the Qur’an). Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), And the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work Righteousness, - on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

It refers to the true monotheists. As Neal Robinson writes in his book, "2.62 must refer either to Jews or Christians who accept Islam, or those Jews and Christians of old who were genuine monotheists." (Discovering the Quran, p.68)

Here's a more comprehensive refutation of your assertion:
http://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/2008/12/07/262-of-the-quran-does-not-mean-that-those-who-had-blasphemous-beliefs-among-the-jews-and-christians-are-promised-paradise-2/

Hogan:So my question here is: Can you show me a passage that confirms explicitly that the Injeel was corrupted by writing, and remained corrupted in Muhammad's time?Can you show me a verse that says the Injeel is corrupted?Can you show me a passage that says: reveal in the original Injeel but not the Injeel of today?

The Quran implies in 5:14 that the true Injeel was lost, thereby implying corruption of the current New Testament. As Dr. Hasanuddin Ahmed writes, "The Injeel mentioned in the Quran as the Book revealed to Prophet Isa is not the New Testament......this original gospel....was lost and forgotten." (p. 283)

Hogan:A Muslim according to the passages I posted is someone who believes in all the Revelations (as they appear and are read in Muhammad's time). In that case a Qur'anic Muslim is not a Muslim, has never been a Muslim and will never be a true Muslim.

Nonsense!

Ibn said...

Fernando:I woulde love to see extracted from the Biblle (not from the Quran or the pre-quranic an pagan arabian tradition that this one recollectes...) what's the "relegion of Abraham"...Did he ever, for example, saide that Muhammad was God's profet? Don't thinque so... so he was note also muslim...

This is your argument. If Abraham was a Muslim, then it has to be shown from the bible that he believed Muhammad(saw) was God's prophet. He did not believe as such. Therefore, he was not a Muslim.

Why not apply this argument a bit further? If If Abraham was a Christian, then it has to be shown from the bible (Genesis) that he believed Jesus was God's prophet. He did not believe as such. Therefore, he was not a Christian.

Likewise, he did not believe in Moses. Therefore, he wasn't a Jew.

Fernando:Dude!!! I'm enjoyien each more the postes from Yahya's disciple, mister Ibn the self-proclaimed SPIN DOCTOR n.º 1... loooool...

Self proclaimed Spin Doctor? Where did I claim that? I know you are stupid, but today, I have learned that you are a liar as well.

Matthew said...

Self proclaimed Spin Doctor? Where did I claim that? I know you are stupid, but today, I have learned that you are a liar as well.

Muslims say the darndest things.

Nakdimon said...

El-Gid: "Any possibility of a Messianic debate team being formed to dialogue with Muslims? I think there would be a lot of interest in an Acts17-style apologist group forming from a Messianic viewpoint. Just a thought."

That would be VERY nice. I think there is a lot that we can learn from one another. I'm very anxious to see the Acts-17 project to start.

Nakdimon said...

David Wood: "Here's my suggestion. Three people can go into a private room, and all three can have their mics on at the same time. This way, there's no switching mics on or off. One person moderates, and the other two debate. In the end, there will be a perfect recording with no gaps or lags. It will sound like a recorded radio debate. Then, the entire debate can be played for everyone else, and people can comment and ask questions."

This is a very good suggestion. It would be very interesting to see the reaction of the people when I bring this up. But I doubt that they will concede. I don't even think that it's possible to have everyone on the mic at the same time. But we'll see.

El-Cid said...

Ibn wrote:

"There is nothing in the Quran that says Muslims are required to embrace the previous scriptures, if by "embrace" you mean to follow its teachings. We confirm the revelations which you have, but we also recognize that they contain corruptions."

Elijah wrote:

"The Qur'an commands you to believe in these books, not just as they were revealed to Jesus but in their form and doctrine in Muhammad's own time...[quotes Surah 29:46, 4:136, Sura 5:68-71, 10:94,2:62]"

Hogan,

It seems most modern Muslims prefer to follow the theological position of ibn Hazim al-Andalusi as aposed to Muhammad or the Quran.

Fernando said...

Ibn, said:

(...)Therefore, he was not a Christian. Likewise, he did not believe in Moses. Therefore, he wasn't a Jew

Precisely... who ever saide he was suche thinggs? I didn't... It was YOU, deare Ibn who said thate Abraham was ann islamic believer since a muslim is -- in your words... -- an adherent off Abraham's religion... ((A=B; B=C; then A=C... muslims follows islamism; muslims follow Abraham religion; then Abraham folows islamism...))

Presposterous!!! Dear Ibn... WAKE UP!!!

Then Ibn continuoss:

Self proclaimed Spin Doctor? Where did I claim that?

Dearre Ibn... one can proclaime one thingg through words or deeds... as you said before: an muslim apostate is a person that inflicts visible harm... not only by words, but also by works... You proclaimed yourself the n.º1 Spin Doctor not by sayingue "I'm the n.º 1 SPIN DOCTOR", but showing that you are it by the constant spins in your posts...

Ibn, then saide in his tipycal muslim actitude of insulting others ((bie the way, dearr IBN, thanks to this oportinity of showing precisely this... it's on record...)):

I know you are STUPID, but today, I have learned that you are a LIAR as well.

No Ibn... I never lyie... It's agains my religion, which -- against what is commun is muslim relligion -- forbides anykind of lies... even dose that could be used to get to others religious benefitts... as I said: it was you who, by your actions thar proclaimed yourself the n.º 1 Spin Doctor...

And Ibn... thanks to call me stupid... as a muslim famouse schollar said: «only those who are one thing recognise that thing in another»...

On the other hand Jesus said that his true disciples would be accused falsely... Thanks again Ibn...

El-Cid said...

"A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Abraham.."

The Quran teaches the worship of YHWH and sacrifice upon alters? I must have missed that Surah.

David Wood said...

Nakdimon said: "I don't even think that it's possible to have everyone on the mic at the same time. But we'll see."

Yes, it is. I only went on Paltalk one other time, but I chatted with Nabeel for a few minutes with both of us on the mic.

I think I'll do a Paltalk debate with a moderator and all three people on the mic. The recording will be flawless (provided I can figure out how to record).

David Wood said...

Ibn said: "Actually, the verse (10:94) calls on Muhammad(saw) to consult those who possessed the Book, rather than the Book itself. After all, Muhammad(saw) was illiterate; he could neither read nor write."

But those people would have judged Muhammad based on the contents of the corrupted message, right? Do you see how odd this is, Ibn? Allah commands Muhammad to go to people with a corrupted revelation so that he can make sure he's a prophet!

So how corrupted to you believe the message is? Did Allah tell Muhammad to go to people with a revelation that was 5% corrupt? 10%? 20%? 50%? 100%? How much corruption will Allah permit among the people he sends his prophet to for guidance?

But since you've admitted that Islam is to be confirmed or denied by Christians and Jews, I'll go ahead and answer this for you. Muhammad was a false prophet. Do any Christians or Jews out there disagree?

Matthew said...

Muhammad was a false prophet. Do any Christians or Jews out there disagree?

I think there are some people with a rather bizarre worldview who would disagree, but since we know that there are muslims (with a really high knowledge on islam) who deny the existence of Muhammed ... (SWEET SWEET IRONY!)

Sami Zaatari said...

David, this is a different Yahya, not Yahya heydor.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hogan:I am pointing out that the Qur'an does not agree with the modern muslim claim of Bible corruption.

Not really. The Quran says in several places( 4:46, 5:13, 2:75, 2:79, 3:78, etc.) that the bible has undergone corruption.

Elijah replies:

Sura 4: 46 says:

Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few.

The passage speaks about local Jews who are contemporaries of Muhammad. They do not add to the Torah they change words out of their context by distoring it with their tongue.

This does not verify corruption by writing. Or corruption universally. But local corruption as to context by verbal distortion.

Now if you claim that this passage refers to the ancient Jews who allegedly corrupted the Torah prior to the birth of Jesus, then you have the problem with the last sentence, which confirms that some Jews still believe.

Nevertheless the passage does not confirm written or universal corruption!

You also mentioned Sura 5: 13, which says:

But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

Again there is not actual reference to corruption by writing. The wording is the same as in the previous verse, they change words from their context.
You may think that forgetting the message is corruption. But forgetting is not corruption. Adding to a message, such as Jesus' death or resurrection, or divine sonship, would in this case be corruption; that is not what the passage is referring to.

That some are still bent of conceit only reveals two things, firstly, only a few allegedly resort to corruption, secondly it is allegedly taking place locally under Muhammad’s knowledge

Hence we are not told that this is corruption by writing, or universal, but oral and local!

Furthermore If forgetting is corruption, then the Qur'an is corrupt:

087.006
YUSUFALI: By degrees shall We teach thee to declare (the Message), so thou shalt not forget,
PICKTHAL: We shall make thee read (O Muhammad) so that thou shalt not forget
SHAKIR: We will make you recite so you shall not forget,

087.007
YUSUFALI: Except as Allah wills: For He knoweth what is manifest and what is hidden.
PICKTHAL: Save that which Allah willeth. Lo! He knoweth the disclosed and that which still is hidden;
SHAKIR: Except what Allah pleases, surely He knows the manifest, and what is hidden.

According to Sahih Muslim, 300 reciters had forgotten an entire chapter of the Qur’an which is still missing (Muslim: book 5, number 2286)

’Ibn Umar al–Khattab said: "Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available
The Itqan" by Suyuti Part 3, Page 72

In Bukhari: volume 1, book 8, number 394, we read: Narrated 'Abdullah: ... (Muhammad said) I am a human being like you and liable to forget like you. So if I forget remind me ...

Then Ibn refers to Sura 2: 75:

Have ye any hope that they will be true to you when a party of them used to listen to the word of Allah, then used to change it, after they had understood it, knowingly? (Sura 2: 75)

First of all we are here looking at a party of Jews, not all Jews, hence again we are not looking a universal corruption but a local; this is what I educated you about in my previous post.

In fact the Qur'an verifies that some Jews in Muhammad's time did not pervert the Torah in any way:

"Not all of them are alike. Some of the People of the Book are an upright people. They recite the signs (or verses) of God in the night season and they bow down worshipping. They believe in God and the last day. They command what is just, and forbid what is wrong and they hasten in good works, and they are of the righteous. S. 3:113-114

The question here is, these evil Jews, are they corrupting the Torah or sayings of the prophet Muhammad?

Indeed there are references to corruptive practice of the Qur'an within Muhammad's lifetime:

"Such as We send down for those who make division, Those who break the Qur'an into parts."(Sura 15: 90-91)

On the other hand they could also be playing a trick with Muhammad, and corrupting the Torah by tongue:

And when they fall in with those who believe, they say: We believe. But when they go apart one with another they say: Prate ye to them of that which Allah hath disclosed to you that they may contend with you before your Lord concerning it? Have ye then no sense? (Sura 2: 76)

That some of these are local evil Jews (supposedly) who simply conceal passages in the Torah from Muhammed is revealed in the next verse:

Are they then unaware that Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim? (Sura 2: 77)

There are however some who fabricate scripture, but the Qur'an again verifies as I mentioned before that this is local corruption not universal.

Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess. (Sura 2: 78)

Furthermore these Jews are illiterate and know not scripture. Now if they do not know Scripture, how can they corrupt it.

The passage actually confirms what I say here. Because these do not corrupt scripture at all, they fabricate scripture, based not up the Torah but hearsay, furthemore they guess.

Notic however that Sura 3:113-114 claried that there are Jews within this same time who still read and follow the actual Torah, not this local corruption.


Finally Ibn posted sura 3: 78:

And lo! there is a party of them who distort the Scripture with their tongues, that ye may think that what they say is from the Scripture, when it is not from the Scripture. And they say: It is from Allah, when it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly. (Sura 3: 78)

This passage only confirms what I have said, that corruption was oral and concerned a party of Jews only.

Also you failed to consider the context, whicha reads in Sura 3: 84:

Say (O Muhammad): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which was vouchsafed unto Moses and Jesus and the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered (Sura 3: 84).

Hence local and oral corruption may take place, even fabrication of Scripture, yet only a party of Jews are involved with these.

Another party of Jews still read and follow the true Torah, and as a Muslim this passage commands you to believe in all scripture.

Ibn you are extremely confused about your own book!!!

Nothing you have offered here even indicates that the Torah we read today is corrupted!

Furthermore you failed to answer my original question, I asked you to provide a passage from the Qur’an that confirms the corruption of the Injeel.

So I will ask again:

Can you provide us a passage that clearly confirms the corruption of the Injeel?

Ibn wrote:
You might say that "Tahrif" is limited to misinterpretation only, but that is not the view supported by the Quran. As Dr.Hasanuddin Ahmed writes in his book, "Introducing the Quran", "The Quran...has used the word referring to corruption of text...it can be concluded that any change in the text by which purport has been necessarily changed is 'tahrif'. If the text is kept intact and if the meaning is changed by way of misinterpretation it cannot be treated as 'tahrif'." (p. 276)
Gordon D Newby concurs that "Tahrif", is "the practice....of substituting letters or otherwise changing the text to alter the meaning of the original." (A Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, p.200)

Elijah replies:
Yeah but the passages you posted refer to local oral corruption, not written universal---do you see the difference?

And the fabrication is related hearsay not the Torah.

Furthermore, the Qur’an confirms that Jews at this time still adhered to the true Torah.

Actually you have proven nothing, and your use of Dr Hasanuddin and Newby fell very short.

Ibn wrote:
Yes, we believe in the revelations which are contained in the previous scriptures, as stated in 29:46; not the human elements that reside alongside God's revelations. Same explanation applies to 4:136.

Elijah replies:

Ok hold it right here. Now show my from these two passages where it openly states that the previous revelations contain human elements which are to be rejected?

I want you to prove your assertion here, from these two passages, because you are committing eisegesis here, by a reading major hypothesis into the meaning.

Ibn wrote:
Hogan:Why do I again have to educate you about the Qur'an?
You are the one in need of an education, Hogan.

Elijah replies:
As far as I can see, I have educated you again. I ought to charge you for this.

Ibn wrote:
5:68-71 is calling upon the People of the Book to observe the Torah, Gospel and the latest revelation, the Quran. If you truly believe in the Torah and Gospel, you will believe in the Quran as well.

Elijah replies:
No I don’t, I don’t believe the Qur’an to be the Word of God. On the contrary the passage informs you that the Torah and the Gospel is to be observed.

Ibn wrote:
Hogan:The Qur'an orders Muhammad to consult these books if there is any doubt about the call and revelation of Allah. Now why consult a corrupted book if the pure word of Allah fails to provide such assurance?

Actually, the verse (10:94) calls on Muhammad(saw) to consult those who possessed the Book, rather than the Book itself. After all, Muhammad(saw) was illiterate; he could neither read nor write.

Since Surah 10 is a Meccan Surah, I am right in believing that the Prophet(saw) did consult the holders of the Book who affirmed his mission. Otherwise, that would have been the end of him.

Elijah replies:
Good grief, come on Ibn, if your theory holds, the people of the provided him with the message of these corrupted books!

Ibn wrote:
Hogan:The previous Scriptures in Muhammad's time are also sufficient for salvation:

Sura 2:62 says, "Those who believe (in the Qur’an). Those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), And the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work Righteousness, - on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

It refers to the true monotheists. As Neal Robinson writes in his book, "2.62 must refer either to Jews or Christians who accept Islam, or those Jews and Christians of old who were genuine monotheists." (Discovering the Quran, p.68)

Elijah replies:
All I can see is, that if you believe in the Jewish Scriptures, which you assert are corrupted, you are saved—does not sound like corruption to me.

I can’t care less about the opinion of Neal Robinson here, is he above the Word of Allah?

Ibn wrote:
Hogan:So my question here is: Can you show me a passage that confirms explicitly that the Injeel was corrupted by writing, and remained corrupted in Muhammad's time?Can you show me a verse that says the Injeel is corrupted?Can you show me a passage that says: reveal in the original Injeel but not the Injeel of today?

The Quran implies in 5:14 that the true Injeel was lost, thereby implying corruption of the current New Testament. As Dr. Hasanuddin Ahmed writes, "The Injeel mentioned in the Quran as the Book revealed to Prophet Isa is not the New Testament......this original gospel....was lost and forgotten." (p. 283)

Elijah replies:
No it was not!
The passage says
From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done.
Hence the Qur’an claims that the Christians allegedly forgot a good part of the message, but not all of it.
And there is not mention here of written or universal corruption!
The Injeel mentioned in the Qur’an is the same Gospel we read today, that is the fact, and you failed to provide the slightest evidence to support your case.

My conclusion is,Ibn you are not a true Muslim, according to 4: 136 you have gone astray!!!

Once more I have educated you about the true teaching of Islam!!!

Keep an open mind bro, you may learn something!!!

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

As to another debate concerning the Qur'an and the formation of sperm, Ibn wrote:

I said I wasn't going to waste my time with you on that thread. I made my points, you made yours.

Elijah replies:

Actually that is not what happened.

What happened was, we teared your theory and arguing into pieces and you ran.

Anyone who reads that debate quickly realises that the Qur'an lost its integrity and scientific reliability.

Ibn said...

Let's start with the verses from Surah 2. Regarding 2:75, Hogan wrote:
First of all we are here looking at a party of Jews, not all Jews, hence again we are not looking a universal corruption but a local; this is what I educated you about in my previous post.

Not really. The verse is telling the believers not to be surprised at the refusal of Jews to acknowledge the Truth since their ancestors also behaved in the same way,even when Moses was in their presence as described in the verses prior, going so far as tamper with Allah's word. The eminent Shiite commentator, Tabatabaei writes, "The context shows that the unbelievers, and especially those of Medina, thought that the Jews were the likeliest people to help and support the Apostle of Allāh at his advent. The pagan tribes of Aws and Khazraj lived with the Jews of Medina, and they knew that the latter followed a divine religion and a revealed book. Thus it was not too much to expect them to believe in the latest in the series of divine religions and books. This was the basis of their hope that the Jews would accept the Apostle of Allāh as the true prophet, and would strengthen the cause of religion, and actively participate in the propagation of truth. But no sooner did the Prophet migrate to Medina than the Jews showed their latent hostility. The hope was shattered and the expectation turned to disappointment. That is why Allāh addresses the believers, saying: "Do you then hope that they would believe in you?" Concealment of truth and alteration of divine words was their deep-rooted life-pattern. Why wonder if they go back on what they used to say before the advent of Islam?" (Al Mizan, Volume 1)

The change in Scriptures which the ancient Jews made is described in the Arabic text as "yuharifoona" which is a variant of "tharif". As noted earlier, "tharif" is specifically the alteration of text, not misinterpretation.

Regarding 2:76-77, you said that these verses are referring to misinterpretation. Fine. I will grant you that the Jews of Muhammad's time purposely misconstrued verses from their Scriptures so as to not acknowledge the prophecy of Muhammad(saw). However, 2:75 clearly says that the previous Jews had actually tampered with the text. Therefore, the Scriptures possessed by the Jews of Yahtrib were already corrupted, and those parts which confirmed Muhammad(saw)-they misinterpreted.

The accusation of textual corruption is even more explicitly made in verse 79 (which you ignored in your post). Read in the light of verse 75, there is no doubt that this refers to an already corrupted Scripture.

Now lets look at the verses you (mis)quoted from other Surahs. Regarding 3:113-114, you wrote:In fact the Qur'an verifies that some Jews in Muhammad's time did not pervert the Torah in any way

Where does the verse say the Torah is not corrupted?

Hogan:You also mentioned Sura 5: 13, which says....Again there is not actual reference to corruption by writing. The wording is the same as in the previous verse, they change words from their context.

The Arabic word for "change" in that verse is, once again, "yuharifoona" which denotes tampering with the text. So not only did the Jews of old forget a good part of the message, but they also adulterated the knowledge which they retained.

Hogan:Furthermore If forgetting is corruption, then the Qur'an is corrupt: Surah 87:6-7

Neal Robinson writes, "The clause, 'except what Allah wills'...may simply be intended to safeguard Allah's sovereign freedom; it need not necessarily imply that He did in fact cause Muhammad to forget any part of the Quran." (p.68)

Muhammad Asad also agrees.

As for the reports you quoted from Shahi Muslim and Suyuti, the traditional response is that they refer to abrogation (which I don't necessarily agree with). However, the second report from Al Suyuti is suspect. Mufti Taqi Usmani writes, "Imam Suyuti (Rahimahullah) himself mentions in Al Itqaan that one of the narrators is weak. Imam Suyuti (Rahimahullah) also mentions in Jaami’us Sagheer that the narration is weak. This narration is also mentioned in Al Mu’jam Al Awsat Li Al Tabrani, but with the same chain of narrators."

Hogan:In Bukhari: volume 1, book 8, number 394, we read: Narrated 'Abdullah: ... (Muhammad said) I am a human being like you and liable to forget like you. So if I forget remind me ...

Since the Prophet(saw) was reminded whenever he forgot, there was no scope for corruption. Moreover, the Prophet(saw) used to recite the whole Quran every Ramadhan. This is more evidence that, unlike the Jews, Muhammad(saw) and the Muslims did not forget much of the MESSAGE.

Hogan:Indeed there are references to corruptive practice of the Qur'an within Muhammad's lifetime:
"Such as We send down for those who make division, Those who break the Qur'an into parts."(Sura 15: 90-91)

As usual, you are deceptively quoting out of context. Muhammad Asad explains, "This is apparently a reference to the followers of the Bible, who "believe in some parts of the divine writ and deny the truth of other parts" (cf. 2:85)-i.e., who act in accordance with those principles of the Bible which suit their inclinations and the prevailing social trends, and disregard the others, thus denying, by implication, their validity.This, according to the Tdj al= Arus (art. `adiha and `adawa) is the meaning of `idin in the above context: an interpretation also advanced by Tabarl and Rdzi (in the last paragraph of the latter's commentary on this verse). Another interpretation -equally acceptable from the purely linguistic point of view - is "[those] who cut up the Qur'an into separate parts": i.e., accept (on the analogy of the Jews and the Christians) some of it as true and regard the rest as Muhammad's invention. But since - as Tabari points out - those who refuse to believe in the divine origin of the Qur'an do not accept any of it as true, the first interpretation is by far the preferable."

Hogan:Ibn you are extremely confused about your own book!!!
Nothing you have offered here even indicates that the Torah we read today is corrupted!

Empty rhetoric won't work on me!

Hogan:Furthermore you failed to answer my original question, I asked you to provide a passage from the Qur’an that confirms the corruption of the Injeel.

I did actually. Here is what I said:The Quran implies in 5:14 that the true Injeel was lost, thereby implying corruption of the current New Testament. As Dr. Hasanuddin Ahmed writes, "The Injeel mentioned in the Quran as the Book revealed to Prophet Isa is not the New Testament......this original gospel....was lost and forgotten." (p. 283)To which you replied:Hence the Qur’an claims that the Christians allegedly forgot a good part of the message, but not all of it. And there is not mention here of written or universal corruption!

That's just nonsense. God didn't take a covenant from the Arabian Christians. He took it from the ancient ones. Since your scriptures descend from these old Christians, and they forgot a good part of the message, your scriptures are therefore incomplete as well as adulterated. Simple logic!

Regarding 5:68-71, Hogan writes:No I don’t, I don’t believe the Qur’an to be the Word of God. On the contrary the passage informs you that the Torah and the Gospel is to be observed.

No, the passage says Jews and Christians don't have anything to stand upon unless they perform the Torah, Gospel and the Quran. Since only Muslims believe in these scriptures, the verse is actually inviting the Jews and Christians to embrace Islam by recognizing all 3 revelations. It is as simple as that!

Regarding 4:136, Hogan writes:
Ok hold it right here. Now show my from these two passages where it openly states that the previous revelations contain human elements which are to be rejected?

I have already established that the Quran confirms textual corruptions of the previous scriptures. Regarding the authentic revelations, the Quran claims that is the "Muhaymin". So we are to use the Quran to determine the true words of the previous scriptures from the false ones. Those parts that agree with the Quran are genuine, those that not are false.

Hogan, regarding 10:94:Good grief, come on Ibn, if your theory holds, the people of the provided him with the message of these corrupted books!

No, they did not provide him with the MESSAGE. Rather, they acknowledged that he was prophesied in their books which also the Quran claims. Thus, there were some Jews and Christians who recognized him as God's prophet. Some converted, some didn't.

Hogan:All I can see is, that if you believe in the Jewish Scriptures, which you assert are corrupted, you are saved—does not sound like corruption to me.
I can’t care less about the opinion of Neal Robinson here, is he above the Word of Allah?

No, it says the previous authentic Jews and Christians will be saved. Did you visit the link I provided? Guess not.

In conclusion, I haven't seen any good reasons to believe that the Quran confirms the authenticity of the bible in its entirety.

Ibn said...

Fernando:You proclaimed yourself the n.º1 Spin Doctor not by sayingue "I'm the n.º 1 SPIN DOCTOR", but showing that you are it by the constant spins in your posts...

Your poor comprehension of the English language is the major reason why your posts reflect the mentality of a retard. First, you claimed that I claimed for myself the title of the number 1 spin doctor. Then you say I didn't actually claim as such, but you got the feeling I did from reading my posts. As is obvious, you are creating artifices to escape capture.

Fernando:Ibn, then saide in his tipycal muslim actitude of insulting others

This is truly amazing. You initiate the ad hominems by calling me a spin doctor, and when I retaliate, you become all emotional.

Fernando:No Ibn... I never lyie... It's agains my religion, which -- against what is commun is muslim relligion -- forbides anykind of lies..

If lying isn't in your religion (it actually is), then you are not a very good Christian as you have been caught lying.

This guy is hilarious!

Fernando said...

No Ibn...

I nevere lyied... You proclaimed yourself the n-º 1 Spin Doctor by your argumentation's spins... It's not just a personal impression... the facts spoke by themselfs... A murderer claims himself to be a murderer when he kills someone... not by saying "I'am a murederer"... I was not cought lyieng, just because I didn't lie... and I'm not running, deare Ibn...

And, Ibn, thise is not an insult... as calling another personne "stupid" and "lyier" and retarded is... its a typical Yahya's attitude...

No where in my religion is allowed lyieng... that'a founny afirmation...

I'll be prayieng for your recoperation, Ibn...

Ibn said...

Fernando, you are a fool. Peace!

El-Cid said...

Ibn said: "Your poor comprehension of the English language is the major reason why your posts reflect the mentality of a retard."

Incredibly low class, ibn. I think someone forgot to properly teach you manners. That's really not acceptable.

Bad form. If you have integrity you should offer an apology, and move on by addressing CONTENT, not giving insults.

Bryant said...

It's OK Fernando. They can call you whatever they want. Just know that Christ calls you a King, friend, and heir to the inheritance. Moses' speech wasn't perfect but he was a prophet who did mighty things for God.

"Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and falsely say every kind of evil against you because of Me. Be glad and rejoice, because your reward is in heaven. For that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you." ~ Jesus Christ

Matt 5:11-12

The Fat Man said...

Just got done listning to the debate. Excellent Job Nakdimon.
Here is a link to the audio.
http://www.explorethetruth.org/
I cant believe they actualy posted it and claim victory.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

Nope Hogan,

Ibn is not me, he seems to be Sunni from viewing his posts; secondly he wastes his time by even bothering responding to Fernando who never fails to mention me every second post for some reason.

However I did make an announcement explaining I would be away from the site for quite some time.

Fernando said...

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

«Nope Hogan, Ibn is not me»...

I've to recognize that's the truth. It was an hipothesis that reveled itself to be incorrect... the two IP don't matche...

And Yahya... Welcome back!!! I'll trye to avoid mentioning you every two sentences!!! That's a promisse!!! Even if I did that in the past it was becausse I found you realli funny... A good year to you Yahya!!!

Nakdimon said...

Guys here is the assessment. It's been placed two weeks ago but nonetheless relevant next time someone wants to make a claim for Ishmael: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2F9kxDMyst4