Saturday, January 3, 2009

The Fogg is Lifted

Due to Uthman's systematic destruction of the early Quranic manuscripts, very little evidence remains of what the great pre-Uthmanic Quran teachers taught. Much of what we know has been saved through quotations and traditions faithfully recorded by early Muslim authors such as Ibn Abi Daud (none other than the son of Abu Daud, compiler of one of the collections of sahih sittah). As fortunate as we are to have these records of early variants, very little can replace the power and poignancy of manuscript evidence.

As fate would have it, however, a palimpsest was discovered which contained a few notable similarities to the supposed Ibn Masud manuscripts. (A palimpsest is a manuscript which has been washed out and written over; the original text can still be examined, however, via UV light imaging methods). Within this manuscript are no less than seven types of variances from the standard texts of today:

1 - Different sequences of words
2 - Omissions
3 - Different words
4 - Orthographical variants
5 - Scribal errors/corrections
6 - Explanatory additions
7 - Different contexts which are a result of omitted words.

Below is an image of Fogg's Palimpsest. Notice that the scripto secunda, or the overlying text of the palimpsest, was made to match the standard text; the scripto prima, or the older text, had different wording.



Why do Muslims continue to deny the existence of Quranic variants from early Islamic history? Well, it's because they must if the Quran's claim in 15:9 is to be defended. But just how long can Muslims continue to deny the existence of variants while staring at variants? Only time will tell.

43 comments:

Ibn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ibn said...

7 types of variances? According to Toby Lester's article on the Sana'a manuscripts, Puin(whose objectivity is question considering his blatant Christian bias) has detected only 4 "variances":unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. None of these really matter.

I don't know why you need to blow things out of proportion. This is not the first time that Muslims are hearing about the Sana'a manuscripts. If these were as significant as you make them out to be, there would be a lot of talk by now.

Why not apply Ockham's Razor and consider, as Professor Alan Jones of Oxford University has, that the Sana'a Quran is bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet?

Fernando said...

Ibn said (I thinke his other words thont even need a comment... more spin doctor tactics...): «Why not apply Ockham's Razor and consider(...)»...

because, I woulde say, the truth must be serchead where it is, note where one woulde like it to bee...

butt those who habe been castrated in their minds with an intoxicated formation can onlie see what is -- under a false and incomplete notion of simplicity -- more convenient, and thereafter don't grasp that reallity...

Ockham's Razor is not to fabricate simple explanatory theories -- as is the case with Professor Alan Jones's attempt --, but, among all the truthfull and accepted explanations chose the most simple...

In other wordes: in orther to aplly Ockham's Razor in this pecculiar case one should accept that Professor Jones's -- famous for his blatant muslim bias -- theory is correct... that has not been the case...

Why not simply sai that the Sana'a manuscripts are the original historical Qur'an? That would be the MOST simple explanation...

Ibn said...

It is funny that these Christians who accuse of rejecting our sources as they are not to our tastes are guilty of the same thing.

Notice Fernando's words about Professor Alan Jones, "Professor Jones's -- famous for his blatant muslim bias -- ." Famous? Name a few scholars who have questioned Alan Jones' integrity. If you can't, then you'll be guilty of lying.

Choose your words carefully, Fernando.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

Why not apply Ockham's Razor and consider, as Professor Alan Jones of Oxford University has, that the Sana'a Quran is bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet?

Elijah replies:

A bad copy, or simply a more original?

In Islamic standard of apologetics a bad copy of the Bible is a corruption. At the same time Muslims propose that every single word and letter of Qur'an has been left intact. Four variants of a Qur'an that preceded the revised standard version of Uthman's Qur'an simply does not indicate such preservation.

Do yourself the favour to apply the standard upon the manuscripts of your own religion, that will at least reduce the number of islamic inconsistency sligthly.

Fernando said...

«famous for his blatant muslim bias»... dear Ibn... I was makking a parrafrasis of your own comments to Doctor Gerd Puin work... but if you want a critic of Professor Alan Jones -- that you olie know, certainly, from Wikipeido and other simmilar cites (I put a bet here that you can't provide more quotes from any of his works on this subject that can't be found in Wikipeido or in the net...) -- please contacte Professor James W. Allan at the Nottigham University...

And Ibn... (not that tryieng to prove lyinge is against your muslim principles... which isn't...) could you provide us, not here off course (this is not the pointe of these posts...) a acholarly afirmation fromm a schollar that Professor Gerd Puin opinions should be ignored because of his christian believes?

It woulkd be greatte to ignore muslims opinions on the subject because they're from muslims faithfuuls...

Matthew said...

Maybe they will come up with a hadith in which 15:9 is abrogated?

Matthew said...

Given the large number of bloodstains we observe, it's obvious that Ockham's razor sliced Allah's throat.

Nakdimon said...

And the net is closing and closing on Islam.

btw. My assessment on the Ishmael debate is online:
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=2F9kxDMyst4

Peace,
N.

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Ibn:

This is not the one of the Sana'a manuscripts. This is Fogg's Palimpsest. Sana'a has its own host of variances with the modern Quran. If you want me to post on the variances of Sana'a, I will gladly oblige.

Ibn said...

Nabeel:This is not the one of the Sana'a manuscripts. This is Fogg's Palimpsest.

So where did Fogg's palimpset originate from?

Nabeel:Sana'a has its own host of variances with the modern Quran. If you want me to post on the variances of Sana'a, I will gladly oblige.

sure!

Ibn said...

Just for the record, I am aware of the variations Puin reported in his Die Dunklen Anfane. Show me something which I already don't know Nabeel.

Ibn said...

There was a discussion about the Sana'a manuscripts back in 1999 in another Islamic forum where one Christian (again with questionable motives) pretty much made the same case as the fundamentalists here. In response, one of the Muslim brothers argued:

If the older layer is "not readable" on what evidence do you base your
conclusion that "it is undoubtedly a Qur'anic text, too"?

As you well know, parchment was a precious material and it was common in
both the East and the West to use the same sheet more than once. Even
today, students in some countries write out Qur'anic texts with
water-soluble ink on wooden planks and then wash them off for re-use.

You say that the old layer is not readable and then conclude that it was a
Qur'anic text. You then make another unsubstantiated leap and conclude
that your supposed old-layer Qur'anic text was overwritten with another
because the first was unacceptable to those in power.

If you are correct--and that remains to be shown--perhaps the older layer
was full of errors, misspellings, or other wise defective. It would not
have been unusual to rewrite it correctly or to use the parchment for some
other use. That is exactly what happened in the West in Medieval
scriptoriums.

If you found a painting by a Renaissance master and discovered that it
covered an earlier painting, you would not immediately jump to
conclusions. You would simply try to reveal the under layer and through
careful examination and historical research try to determine if the two
layers were the work of the same artist and if there was any important
reason why the older layer not conserved.

Ibn said...

This is also worth reading

http://theinimitablequran.com/
respondingtodispacthes.pdf

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Ibn:

I will try to tell you things you don't know, but this blog is not solely dedicated to you. I hope you can glean truth from what is posted, but many people have never even heard of Sana'a, so I'll have to target my post to impact the most people in the most effective way.

I also find it interesting that you question Puin's motives, the motives of some unknown scholar, and the motives of the people on this site, calling them "fundamentalists". Instead of calmly answering the facts, you are attacking the people who are making the arguments, questioning their motives. This is called an "ad hominem" fallacy. I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but I did that yesterday when you did exactly the same thing on David's post. This seems to be an act of desperation. I believe it to be subconscious, so I'm simply drawing your attention to this so you can take note.

Some notes on Sana'a will follow soon - I'm looking forward to your response, my friend.

-Nabeel

Nabeel Qureshi said...

Ibn: So where did Fogg's palimpset originate from?

Fogg's palimpsest comes from a manuscript in the posession of Sam Fogg, an antiquarian in London who purchases old manuscripts and things of the like. Alba Fedeli, an Italian scholar, obtained permission from Fogg to examine and photograph two leaves of Quranic manuscripts that contained Hijazi script. These were her conclusions.

Ibn: If the older layer is "not readable" on what evidence do you base your conclusion that "it is undoubtedly a Qur'anic text, too"?

Ibn, it's like I said in my post. A palimpsest may not be "readable" by the naked eye, but UV photography can make the original texts clear. That's how we can know the scriptum primum is a Quranic text, too.

Ibn: perhaps the older layer was full of errors, misspellings, or other wise defective. It would not have been unusual to rewrite it correctly or to use the parchment for some other use.

Yes, perhaps. But it is awefully coincidental that the misspellings or errors would be the very things that Ibn Masud taught in his variants of the Quran, wouldn't you say? I would say it's too coincidental to be credible.

The earliest manuscripts have many variations when compared to the modern Quran. The Muslim, like you Ibn, cannot account for early variants, and so he has to explain them in light of unfortunate "errors" (as you have done). The non-biased investigator, however, interprets the evidence in light of the clear, early Muslim traditions which deny the immaculate collection of the Quran. Our view expects and easily accounts for the early Quranic variants.

Fernando said...

Ibn tried, in his typpical spin doctor tacttics, to direct attentions to "theinimitablequran"...

Dear mie! All around the world, and all arounde the times since that fonny acertation was made to trie to prove the divine origin of the Quran, many people had made better, and more beautifull, and more truth texts like those in the Qur'an...

One of the most famous case of all was the one of Abu Nuwas (who certainly is a well acointince of dearr Ibn); but there're others, such as Edward Said who reciteted some "fake" suras in an muslim assembly in Johanesbourg in November 2002 and no onne noticed ite...

Hey... look at that! No one could imitate Jackson Pollock method of painting... they're sure divine!!!

Bryant said...

Ibn said: "...unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. None of these really matter.

I don't know why you need to blow things out of proportion."

Its really frustrating when we have these dialogs and Muslims never seem to realize their inconsistencies in attacking Christianity. How can a Muslim type the above statement with a straight face. We, the Christians, are blowing things out of proportion? Really?

Muslims are the ones who look at manuscript variants of the New Testament and then, against all logic, conclude that the entire BIBLE is untrustworthy.

You conclude that verses the Quran doesn't agree with are interpolations, even though there are NO MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCES which would support you rejecting such verses; and yet, we, the Christians, are blowing things out of proportion.

You select verses from the bible which would seemingly support your unsubstantiated presuppositions and isolate them, twist and turn them, and then present to Christians the Jesus of the Quran. Yet it is the "missionary fundamentalists" who are blowing things out of proportion.

You look at passages in the Bible referring to Jesus being baptized, tempted by Satan, and Him calling His mother "woman" and then try desperately to make Jesus into a sinner just to make Muhammad look a little better. Yet, it is the Christians that are blowing things out of proportion.

Sunil said...

>> Muslims are the ones who look at manuscript variants of the New Testament and then, against all logic, conclude that the entire BIBLE is untrustworthy.

Making the argument (of textual variants of NT to declare it as untrustworthy) as some theoretical rhetoric wouldn’t have been such a bad thing morally (in itself), if not for the fact that they use the argument to negate and reject all the great moral commandments/teachings/salvation of Jesus (all the moral commandments/doctrines of Jesus are violated by the life/teachings of Muhammad). All these faulty "arguments" and the rhetoric has a moral component to it and should not be seen as merely some innocent/ignorant argumentation (just like the atheistic “arguments” against God has a moral component to it). They are in essence rejecting the highest moral standard set by Jesus using some false pretext (just as atheists are rejecting God's morality)

Nakdimon said...

Ibn wrote: "This is also worth reading

http://theinimitablequran.com/
respondingtodispacthes.pdf"

What doesn't stop amazing me about muslims is that they will attack everything and everyone that exposes islams flaws. They would do so much better if they would attack their fellow muslims whom they saw on the dispatches program "Undercover Mosque" instead of attacking dispatches who merely reported the despicable deception of muslims in those mosques.

Why do I get the strong impression that there is an extreme lack of self-criticism in the muslim mindset?

Like today, while watching CNN about the ordeal in Gaza, the Palestinian that they were interviewing, when asked what it would take to stop the violence, literally said that the voilence would only stop if Israel would stop the attacks and withdraw their troops from Gaza. Not even entertaining the fact that Israel is in Gaza because the rockets fired FROM Gaza, which started the Israeli response in the first place. And so it goes all the time with muslims: whenever things go wrong in their midst it is not because of their own policies. NO, of course not! It is always the Mossad, CIA, MI5, the Zionists, the Americans and the West.

Nakdimon

Alforreca said...

Nakdimon said: «I get the strong impression that there is an extreme lack of self-criticism in the muslim mindset»

"self-criticism" and "muslim mindet" are contradiction in terms...

Sunil said...

>> I get the strong impression that there is an extreme lack of self-criticism in the muslim mindset

Self-criticism comes only when one loves truth (rather than traditions/religion etc) and want to follow the truth wherever it leads to. The Pharisees of Jesus' time loved their traditions rather than truth/God. So they rejected the Messiah in the face of overwhelming evidence, while humble God fearing Jews accepted Jesus. The same applies to many muslims today. In love for their religion/traditions (or even lust for political power which Muhammad encouraged), they refuse to see evidence and extremely sensitive to criticism. Such people who love something else other than truth cannot be open to criticism, much less, self-criticism.

Muslims in my country (India) demand human rights, secular democracy, freedom of religion etc (which is good) and they strongly and often violently protest at any hint of a violation of these rights on Muslims in India or anywhere in the world. Why then they do not protest/agitate/demand that Muslim nations also follow the same human rights, secular democracy, freedom of religion etc that they rightly claim for themselves everywhere? They come on TV telling things like 'terrorism has nothing to with Islam', ‘all muslims should not be blamed for acts of a few terrorists’ and so on. Why can’t they then strongly criticize/protest/agitate against the violation of human rights, secular democracy, freedom of religion etc in Islamic nations and take them to task? The most moderate of them, when pushed hard will make some mild/ambiguous statement like ‘well, I have never demanded imposition of sharia’ etc. There is absolutely no self-criticism at all and on the top of it, any criticism will be dealt with deliberate violence, riots and innocent killings.

DAN12345 said...

This isnt really on the topic but i found it interesting:
St. John of Damascus lived at the beginning of Islam, and understood the movement pretty well, as he served in the court of the caliph.

There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: ‘Sara hath sent me away destitute.’ [99] These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabár, which means great. [100] And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, [101] devised his own heresy. Then, having insinuated himself into the good graces of the people by a show of seeming piety, he gave out that a certain book had been sent down to him from heaven. He had set down some ridiculous compositions in this book of his and he gave it to them as an object of veneration.

He says that there is one God, creator of all things, who has neither been begotten nor has begotten. [102] He says that the Christ is the Word of God and His Spirit, but a creature and a servant, and that He was begotten, without seed, of Mary the sister of Moses and Aaron. [103] For, he says, the Word and God and the Spirit entered into Mary and she brought forth Jesus, who was a prophet and servant of God. And he says that the Jews wanted to crucify Him in violation of the law, and that they seized His shadow and crucified this. But the Christ Himself was not crucified, he says, nor did He die, for God out of His love for Him took Him to Himself into heaven. [104] And he says this, that when the Christ had ascended into heaven God asked Him: ‘O Jesus, didst thou say: “I am the Son of God and God”?’ And Jesus, he says, answered: ‘Be merciful to me, Lord. Thou knowest that I did not say this and that I did not scorn to be thy servant. But sinful men have written that I made this statement, and they have lied about me and have fallen into error.’ And God answered and said to Him: ‘I know that thou didst not say this word.” [105] There are many other extraordinary and quite ridiculous things in this book which he boasts was sent down to him from God. But when we ask: ‘And who is there to testify that God gave him the book? And which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet would rise up?’—they are at a loss. And we remark that Moses received the Law on Mount Sinai, with God appearing in the sight of all the people in cloud, and fire, and darkness, and storm. And we say that all the Prophets from Moses on down foretold the coming of Christ and how Christ God (and incarnate Son of God) was to come and to be crucified and die and rise again, and how He was to be the judge of the living and dead. Then, when we say: ‘How is it that this prophet of yours did not come in the same way, with others bearing witness to him? And how is it that God did not in your presence present this man with the book to which you refer, even as He gave the Law to Moses, with the people looking on and the mountain smoking, so that you, too, might have certainty?’—they answer that God does as He pleases. ‘This,’ we say, ‘We know, but we are asking how the book came down to your prophet.’ Then they reply that the book came down to him while he was asleep. Then we jokingly say to them that, as long as he received the book in his sleep and did not actually sense the operation, then the popular adage applies to him (which runs: You’re spinning me dreams.) [106]

When we ask again: ‘How is it that when he enjoined us in this book of yours not to do anything or receive anything without witnesses, you did not ask him: “First do you show us by witnesses that you are a prophet and that you have come from God, and show us just what Scriptures there are that testify about you”’—they are ashamed and remain silent. [Then we continue:] ‘Although you may not marry a wife without witnesses, or buy, or acquire property; although you neither receive an ass nor possess a beast of burden unwitnessed; and although you do possess both wives and property and asses and so on through witnesses, yet it is only your faith and your scriptures that you hold unsubstantiated by witnesses. For he who handed this down to you has no warranty from any source, nor is there anyone known who testified about him before he came. On the contrary, he received it while he was asleep.’

Moreover, they call us Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: ‘The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’ But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost. And again we say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.’

They furthermore accuse us of being idolaters, because we venerate the cross, which they abominate. And we answer them: ‘How is it, then, that you rub yourselves against a stone in your Ka’ba [107] and kiss and embrace it?’ Then some of them say that Abraham had relations with Agar upon it, but others say that he tied the camel to it, when he was going to sacrifice Isaac. And we answer them: ‘Since Scripture says that the mountain was wooded and had trees from which Abraham cut wood for the holocaust and laid it upon Isaac, [108] and then he left the asses behind with the two young men, why talk nonsense? For in that place neither is it thick with trees nor is there passage for asses.’ And they are embarrassed, but they still assert that the stone is Abraham’s. Then we say: ‘Let it be Abraham’s, as you so foolishly say. Then, just because Abraham had relations with a woman on it or tied a camel to it, you are not ashamed to kiss it, yet you blame us for venerating the cross of Christ by which the power of the demons and the deceit of the Devil was destroyed.’ This stone that they talk about is a head of that Aphrodite whom they used to worship and whom they called Khabár. Even to the present day, traces of the carving are visible on it to careful observers.

As has been related, this Mohammed wrote many ridiculous books, to each one of which he set a title. For example, there is the book On Woman, [109] in which he plainly makes legal provision for taking four wives and, if it be possible, a thousand concubines—as many as one can maintain, besides the four wives. He also made it legal to put away whichever wife one might wish, and, should one so wish, to take to oneself another in the same way. Mohammed had a friend named Zeid. This man had a beautiful wife with whom Mohammed fell in love. Once, when they were sitting together, Mohammed said: ‘Oh, by the way, God has commanded me to take your wife.’ The other answered: ‘You are an apostle. Do as God has told you and take my wife.’ Rather—to tell the story over from the beginning—he said to him: ‘God has given me the command that you put away your wife.’ And he put her away. Then several days later: ‘Now,’ he said, ‘God has commanded me to take her.’ Then, after he had taken her and committed adultery with her, he made this law: ‘Let him who will put away his wife. And if, after having put her away, he should return to her, let another marry her. For it is not lawful to take her unless she have been married by another. Furthermore, if a brother puts away his wife, let his brother marry her, should he so wish.’ [110] In the same book he gives such precepts as this: ‘Work the land which God hath given thee and beautify it. And do this, and do it in such a manner” [111]—not to repeat all the obscene things that he did.

Then there is the book of The Camel of God. [112] About this camel he says that there was a camel from God and that she drank the whole river and could not pass through two mountains, because there was not room enough. There were people in that place, he says, and they used to drink the water on one day, while the camel would drink it on the next. Moreover, by drinking the water she furnished them with nourishment, because she supplied them with milk instead of water. Then, because these men were evil, they rose up, he says, and killed the camel. However, she had an offspring, a little camel, which, he says, when the mother had been done away with, called upon God and God took it to Himself. Then we say to them: ‘Where did that camel come from?’ And they say that it was from God. Then we say: ‘Was there another camel coupled with this one?’ And they say: ‘No.’ ‘Then how,’ we say, ‘was it begotten? For we see that your camel is without father and without mother and without genealogy, and that the one that begot it suffered evil. Neither is it evident who bred her. And also, this little camel was taken up. So why did not your prophet, with whom, according to what you say, God spoke, find out about the camel—where it grazed, and who got milk by milking it? Or did she possibly, like her mother, meet with evil people and get destroyed? Or did she enter into paradise before you, so that you might have the river of milk that you so foolishly talk about? For you say that you have three rivers flowing in paradise—one of water, one of wine, and one of milk. If your forerunner the camel is outside of paradise, it is obvious that she has dried up from hunger and thirst, or that others have the benefit of her milk—and so your prophet is boasting idly of having conversed with God, because God did not reveal to him the mystery of the camel. But if she is in paradise, she is drinking water still, and you for lack of water will dry up in the midst of the paradise of delight. And if, there being no water, because the camel will have drunk it all up, you thirst for wine from the river of wine that is flowing by, you will become intoxicated from drinking pure wine and collapse under the influence of the strong drink and fall asleep. Then, suffering from a heavy head after sleeping and being sick from the wine, you will miss the pleasures of paradise. How, then, did it not enter into the mind of your prophet that this might happen to you in the paradise of delight? He never had any idea of what the camel is leading to now, yet you did not even ask him, when he held forth to you with his dreams on the subject of the three rivers. We plainly assure you that this wonderful camel of yours has preceded you into the souls of asses, where you, too, like beasts are destined to go. And there is the exterior darkness and everlasting punishment, roaring fire, sleepless worms, and hellish demons.’

Again, in the book of The Table, Mohammed says that the Christ asked God for a table and that it was given Him. For God, he says, said to Him: ‘I have given to thee and thine an incorruptible table.’ [113]

And again, in the book of The Heifer, [114] he says some other stupid and ridiculous things, which, because of their great number, I think must be passed over. He made it a law that they be circumcised and the women, too, and he ordered them not to keep the Sabbath and not to be baptized.

And, while he ordered them to eat some of the things forbidden by the Law, he ordered them to abstain from others. He furthermore absolutely forbade the drinking of wine.

Endnotes
99. Cf. Gen. 16.8. Sozomen also says that they were descended from Agar, but called themselves descendants of Sara to hide their servile origin (Ecclesiastical History 6.38, PG 67.1412AB).

100. The Arabic kabirun means ‘great,’ whether in size or in dignity. Herodotus mentions the Arabian cult of the ‘Heavenly Aphrodite’ but says that the Arabs called her Alilat (Herodotus 1.131)

101. This may be the Nestorian monk Bahira (George or Sergius) who met the boy Mohammed at Bostra in Syria and claimed to recognize in him the sign of a prophet.


102. Koran, Sura 112.

103. Sura 19; 4.169.

104. Sura 4.156.

105. Sura 5.Il6tf.

106. The manuscripts do not have the adage, but Lequien suggests this one from Plato.

107. The Ka’ba, called ‘The House of God,’ is supposed to have been built by Abraham with the help of Ismael. It occupies the most sacred spot in the Mosque of Mecca. Incorporated in its wall is the stone here referred to, the famous Black Stone, which is obviously a relic of the idolatry of the pre-Islam Arabs.

108. Gen. 22.6.

109. Koran, Sura 4.

110. Cf. Sura 2225ff.

111. Sura 2.223.

112. Not in the Koran.

113. Sura 5.114,115.

114. Sura 2.

From Writings, by St John of Damascus, The Fathers of the Church, vol. 37 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1958), pp. 153-160. Posted 26 March, 2006.

Fernando said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernando said...

...«And they are embarrassed»...

That's righte brother John off Damascus...

that wass one off the begginings off all the spin doctor's twists that we know well know from modern muslim apologistes...

Fernando said...

Dear friends... I hebe an annontiation to make (and this not counts to a mention to you Yahya...)!!! Yahya Seemore is back and posting posts in previous entries!!!

As I said there: WELLCOME BACK!!!

I guesse we'll have some great funn...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I am informed that Ibn and Yahya Seymor are one and the same person, can that be verified?

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

no Ibn and I are seperate entities contrary to popular hear say.

ben malik said...

how ironic that Yahya is accused of having another identiy in light of his comments in the past concerning shamoun using ben malik as an alias. It just gets funnier and funnier.

So Yahya, are you ibn about not being Ibn?

Ohh, btw, you should read his response to the use of Muhammad Kalitsch which can be found here on Sami's site:
http://muslim-responses.com/Historical_Existence/Historical_Existence_

It's a good laugh.

ben malik said...

I meant, are you fibbin about not being ibn.

Dk said...

Thankyou Ben Malik for directing us to that laughable aricle.

The lis and deception of Yahya never cease to amaze me. This fake pseudo convert produces responses just as pathetic as his collegue Sami Zaatari.

Who on earth knows why Zaatari would let this shia scoundrel write for him?

And the irony of such filthy articles by the likes of Yahya, everything he accuses White and other christians of doing he himself does in his very own article.

This snake never learns and continues to mislead and lie and he thinks he will actually get away with such idiocy and pass it off as scholarship?

David said...

DK,

Perhaps you would benefit (as we all might) from the from the previous post by James White:

"...your language is getting in the way of your message, big time. Constant use of terms like "snake" and "liar" and the constant denigration inherent in your language is reprehensible...and as one whose stand against Islam cannot possibly be questioned in any rational fashion, and as an elder in Christ's church, I must tell you that your language has utterly overthrown your profession in this thread. Indeed, could anyone even figure out what the topic is supposed to be after so much bluster and emotionalism has been cast into the midst of it? The gospel of Christ is not proclaimed by means of hatred, sir, and it is hard not to conclude that given you begin with referring to someone as "this deceitful, lying Shiite" that you are hardly spending much time praying for this man's deliverance from the deception that blinds his eyes...If you think you have the right to mock, I exhort you to consider well the role your own flesh is playing in the matter. Give no place to it, brethren. Examine your motives. Examine your heart. Do you find pride? Arrogance? Hubris? Repent and confess it and ask God to fill you with His Spirit."

I believe we should all be admonished and reminded to heed the above advice. I hope to do so. Will you?

Dk said...

David,

My words have nothing to do with you, REFRAIN from commenting on me or my comments in the future.

Ben Malik might think he is mean't to be subordinate to James White out all due respect since they are both brothers under one Lord, but I on the other hand will not refrain from speaking the truth. Yahya is a fake, anyone can read his article and see his lies documented.

David said...

DK

Are you a Christian? I assumed that you are. If you are not I can see why the exhortation by J. W. would not be relevant to you. However, either way it does not facilitate dialogue or debate by calling others pejoratives. I am sure you can see that regardless of your allegiance. Also, if I choose to comment on your posts I will certainly do so. Last I checked this was not an autocracy with you elected sole ruler. Got that? Great. I am glad we got that settled.

Have a nice day.

David.

Dk said...

David the problem is you butt in when no body was talking to you.

What James White really should have done is expose you as the hypocrite and fraud you are.

Ben Malik was spot on about you. Pity Ben Malik stood down, since he was right about you and should have called your pastor for turning on your own kind and aiding the Muslim in there lies and deception.

El-Cid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dk said...

El-Cid you are confused, this David is not David Wood, this is another David who seems to constantly attack those who speak out the truth about the lies and deception of Yahya.

He has a habit of defending Yahya since David IS Yahya or believes Yahya is CIVIL.

David has never given Yahya the same advise he attempted to give me or ben malik to Yahya and that is because Yahya is more DIRECT on PALTALK and hides his true hypocracy on this forum, but more likely because Yahya is masquerading as David.

Well i'm honest about my behaviour and that of Yahya.

Yahya is a foul mouth demon, a lying hypocrite and more.

Now unless you are the administrator of this forum, I advise you stop giving me advice on how to behave, and start actually exposing those who ARE hypocrites.

El-Cid said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

DK

You certainly seem to have a lot of really bad information. I have never spoken to or responded to Yahya even once. Do you have any evidence to the contrary or do you simply make false accusations and move along? Everybody makes mistakes, so simply admitting that you are wrong is not that hard. However, you don't seem to be disposed to that type of noble behavior. Let's get this straight. All I ever said was calling people names is not productive. I am constantly amazed how some of you people like to fight without consideration of what would be average decent behavior. All of this just because I said, "don't use pejoratives". That was really horrible, wasn't it?

I appreciate your diagnosis of the problem, but I haven't noticed everyone always talking to you when you are posting. I also probably would not be likely to suggest that Muslims act like Christ. That would not be overly cerebral, would it?

I do not frequent other forums so I cannot comment on the behavior elsewhere. What I see here is pretty childish. If you really think it is productive to act this way... well, that speaks volumes. I am not a J. W. follower but at least he is civil and pretty accurate.

I hope I have not caused you too much problem by speaking to you without solicitation as you seem to require. I think I'll just go back to watching the circus. This is entertainment except for DW or the other authors. Simply amazing.

Have a great day.

Yahya Hayder Seymour said...

BEN MALIK
how ironic that Yahya is accused of having another identiy in light of his comments in the past concerning shamoun using ben malik as an alias. It just gets funnier and funnier.


Perhaps it does get funnier, but so radically different is the writing style of “Ibn” and his beliefs clearly contrast my own that even the blogs own producer Professor Wood has been able to attribute his statements to a different author, shame certain people don’t profess the intelligence to do such.

So Yahya, are you (f)ibn about not being Ibn?

Nope, try and find one place where he links to any of my work and attributes it to himself, which has been done with certain other people, i.e a certain Ben Malik linking to a certain Assyrian Christian’s work and attributing it to himself. (or at least from what I’ve heard of several reliable Muslims)

Ohh, btw, you should read his response to the use of Muhammad Kalitsch which can be found here on Sami's site:
http://muslim-responses.com/Historical_Existence/Historical_Existence_


Thanks for posting it, didn’t really intend for you to read it, I guess it was aimed as advise for my Muslim Colleagues, however I did direct some of our more sincere Christian Apologists to the link.

It's a good laugh.

Thanks for the feedback, at least it’s not vile and worthy of rebuking from any co-religionists unlike certain people’s temper tantrum ridden posts.


ATHEIST ISLAMOPHOBE (DK)

Thankyou Ben Malik for directing us to that laughable aricle.

The lis and deception of Yahya never cease to amaze me. This fake pseudo convert produces responses just as pathetic as his collegue Sami Zaatari.


Lol “Pseudo convert” sir? Well I assure you Professor Wood has met me and can most probably verify that I am a convert in the sense of being someone who has come to Islam from non-Islam.
Secondly closely observe as our friend DK who’s hatred for Islam has kept him in the company of Christians despite his open profession of non-belief. 1) He likens my work to Sami Zaatari’s which he explains in his view is just as mutually “pathetic”

Who on earth knows why Zaatari would let this shia scoundrel write for him?
2) Then he attempts to appeal to divide and conquer, by attempting to appeal to Sami with “why associate with him” type tactics.
3) To top it off the Sectarian Card is constantly played.

And the irony of such filthy articles by the likes of Yahya, everything he accuses White and other christians of doing he himself does in his very own article.
Certain Posters on this thread demonstrate their use of intellectual and engaging vocabulary by using complex words like “filthy” every two minutes, could Dk demonstrate where I have used any “filth” or profanity or the like in my reflections.

This snake never learns and continues to mislead and lie and he thinks he will actually get away with such idiocy and pass it off as scholarship?

Where have I once claimed to pass off any of my work as Scholarship?

Ibn said...

Man this site gets visited by some of the most paranoid Christians!

Fernando said...

Ibn said...: «Man this site gets visited by some of the most paranoid Christians!»...

that kinde of unhuman attitude is the prefect exemple of a personne who doens't habe anything else to do than accept his deffet... I'm sorrie that you have decided to follow that ruaod deaar Ibn...

Bassam said...

The Fogg is Lifted


Read This 1

Read This 2

Read This 3

Read This 4

Read This 5

Read This 6