Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Sahih Muslim 3240: Muhammad Sees a Woman

Here's an interesting Hadith:

Sahih Muslim 3240: Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her. He then went to his Companions and told them: The woman advances and returns in the shape of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.

The lesson Muhammad draws is that, when a man sees a woman and desires her, he should go have sex with his wife to satisfy his urges. But think about the irony here. Muhammad sees a woman and desires her, so he goes to Zainab, a woman who divorced her husband (Muhammad's adopted son) because she learned that Muhammad had desired her!

Notice also that, according to Jesus, Muhammad repeatedly sinned by committing adultery in his heart:

Matthew 5:27-8: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Apparently, Muhammad's numerous wives weren't enough to keep his desires in check.

34 comments:

Unknown said...

David,

Here is some news for you - im sure u already know it, but MUSLIMS do not belive that Muhammad was DEVINE or an ANGEL, we belive that he was 100% human.

Any normal male can and would feel desrie when looking at a pretty female... and what did Muhammad do? did he commit adultary? NO, he went back home to his lawful wife and fulfilled his desire.

I think this is a fantastic example for males the world over...

If this sort of practical advice was given by Jesus PBUH rather than casting out your eyes if they cause you to sin, then perhaps fornication would not be so common in 'christian' dominated countries.

regards
Khayyam

David Wood said...

Khayyam,

True, Muslims are supposed to believe that Muhammad was a human being. But Muslims also tell us that Muhammad was sinless. Here we find Muhammad lusting after a woman, and going to a woman he once lusted after in order to satisfy his desires.

Now, since you agree with me that Muhammad was a sinner and couldn't keep himself from lusting after a woman he saw, this passage isn't really for you. I posted it for Muslims who claim that Muhammad was sinless.

Unknown said...

The controversy surrounding the Prophet(saw)'s marriage to Zaynab(ra) has been thoroughly defused in the following post

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/
01/response-to-javier-on-child-brides.
html

Unknown said...

Wood, please start a thread on how the love of the Christian conception of God is superior to that of Allah.

David Wood said...

Ibn,

You have a strange concept of what "thoroughly defused" means. I think we need to examine Muhammad's relationship with Zainab more closely. (Note: In the Hadith I quoted in this post, we have clear evidence that Muhammad couldn't avoid lusting when he saw a woman. This would certainly have been the case when he saw Zainab practically naked. Thus, the Hadith here gives us some significant circumstantial evidence to consider. I'll put together a post sometime in the next few days.)

Unknown said...

Wood:In the Hadith I quoted in this post, we have clear evidence that Muhammad couldn't avoid lusting when he saw a woman.

So why didn't he lust after Zaynab(ra) when she was in her youth and more delectable?

If Muhammad couldn't avoid lusting when he saw a beautiful woman, he would have had many wives or affairs prior to his marriage with Khadijah(ra). As it turns out, he was single and not involved in any affairs-despite his handsomeness and charisma-two of the traits which surely would have made it easy for him to court the company of women. Therefore, Muhammad was in control of his passions.

For a philosopher Wood, you sure make some irrational claims.


Wood:This would certainly have been the case when he saw Zainab practically naked

If you want to use the hadith as a basis for predicting the behavior his comportment, then you might as well conclude that after Muhammad(saw) saw Zaynab, he went back home and satiated himself with one of the women he was already married to. Just as he did not pursue the woman in the hadith for marriage after having relieved himself, so did he abstain from desiring Zaynab.

David Wood said...

Ibn,

I still haven't read your "refutations" you keep referring to, so I hope they're better than the ones you've given us here.

Ibn said: "So why didn't he lust after Zaynab(ra) when she was in her youth and more delectable?"

For all we know, he did. What you fail to recognize is that Muhammad took more and more liberties as he got older. He wasn't very good at handling power. Thus, when he was younger, he married Zainab to Zaid. After several years of having his desires satisfied, however, Muhammad was used to getting what he wanted.

Ibn said: "If Muhammad couldn't avoid lusting when he saw a beautiful woman, he would have had many wives or affairs prior to his marriage with Khadijah(ra). As it turns out, he was single and not involved in any affairs-despite his handsomeness and charisma-two of the traits which surely would have made it easy for him to court the company of women. Therefore, Muhammad was in control of his passions."

Again, you ignore the fact that when a man starts getting whatever he wants, his desires become more and more corrupt. This is a fact.

You list two traits that would be significant for a marriage, but you fail to mention the most important traits: wealth and status. Muhammad wasn't very wealthy, which means that his options would have been limited prior to his marriage to Khadijah. Once he was rich and powerful, he took many wives. How do you not see a problem here? (Note: I don't think it's wise to bring up Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah when you're trying to prove that his motives were pure. Marrying a rich widow fifteen years older doesn't seem like good evidence of purity.)

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose there's a man named "Bob," who's married to a single wife. "Bob" later becomes convinced that he's a prophet, and his prophethood brings him much fame and fortune. Suddenly, Bob starts marrying women left and right and has sex with his slave girls. Would you really think nothing of this change?

By the way, I'm not the one saying that Muhammad had issues with lust. If you don't like the idea that Muhammad had such issues, I suggest you take it up with Sahih Muslim.

B said...

at the end of the comments section here
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/
01/response-to-javier-on-child-brides.
html

I already posted several links that refuted the Zaynab argument.

Unknown said...

Wood:For all we know, he did. What you fail to recognize is that Muhammad took more and more liberties as he got older. He wasn't very good at handling power. Thus, when he was younger, he married Zainab to Zaid. After several years of having his desires satisfied, however, Muhammad was used to getting what he wanted.


That's highly unlikely. If you didn't already know, Muhammad(saw) and Zaynab(ra) were cousins. If Muhammad had any desire for Zaynab, it would have been when she was younger and more delectable. Given that the Quran prohibits Muhammad's wives from remarrying, it is highly plausible that if he desired Zaynab from the start, he would have reserved her for himself rather than supervise her marriage to Zaid. He didn't reserve her. Therefore, he did not desire Zaynab from the start. As John Gilchrist, a prominent opponent of Ahmed Deedat and a critic of Islam, notes:

"The biography of at-Tabari suggests that Muhammad was visibly moved by Zaynab's beauty when he beheld her on this occasion and in many works this incident has led to a severe censure of Muhammad because it seems that he had caused the divorce between her and Zaid and had manipulated the situation so that he could marry her. This censure may well be unfounded. Zaynab was his own cousin and Muhammad had known her for many years and it is hard to believe that after all this time he was suddenly infatuated by an opportune view of her beauty. There seems to be much merit in the argument that Muhammad would have taken her in marriage himself at first rather than give her in marriage to Zayd."

Wood:You list two traits that would be significant for a marriage, but you fail to mention the most important traits: wealth and status. Muhammad wasn't very wealthy, which means that his options would have been limited prior to his marriage to Khadijah

I suppose it was the wealth of Joseph that led Potiphar's wife to seduce him. Yeah right!

Once again, it is documented that Muhammad(saw) had no sexual relations with women in any way prior to marrying Khaidjah. Such a feat of endurance is uncharacteristic of a man who you believe was a slave of his sexual desires.

Wood:Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose there's a man named "Bob," who's married to a single wife. "Bob" later becomes convinced that he's a prophet, and his prophethood brings him much fame and fortune. Suddenly, Bob starts marrying women left and right and has sex with his slave girls. Would you really think nothing of this change?

Bad analogy! BTW you didn't address the following argument in your last post:

"If you want to use the hadith as a basis for predicting the behavior his comportment, then you might as well conclude that after Muhammad(saw) saw Zaynab, he went back home and satiated himself with one of the women he was already married to. Moreover, just as he did not pursue the woman in the hadith for marriage after having relieved himself, so did he abstain from desiring Zaynab."

Unknown said...

Oh one more thing!

Wood:For all we know, he did. What you fail to recognize is that Muhammad took more and more liberties as he got older. He wasn't very good at handling power. Thus, when he was younger, he married Zainab to Zaid. After several years of having his desires satisfied, however, Muhammad was used to getting what he wanted.

BTW by the time Muhammad(saw) had married off Zaynab to Zaid, he himself was married to several women. Thus, he was in a position to keep Zaynab for himself. Hence, your argument fails.

As much as I hate to admit it, Fernando makes better arguments than you, Wood.

Fernando said...

Ibn said: «As much as I hate to admit it, Fernando makes better arguments than you, Wood.»...

Well my argumentation, since I dont master the englishe bocabulary and gramar, may look bery bad... when I read some of my posts i sometimmes recognize that...

but theyr're based in the truth and in the desire of telling the truth... one clearly sees that's not allways the same with muslims blogers who put theire noble argumentation in use onlie to camuflate the truth and presente a more convenient face of theire religion... the case of Xenias debate is a clear example...

And who is Khayyam? Does he believes in what he's saying (about Jesus teachings and Muhammad actions?... very foonie... or bery spookie...)

Yes... a post for a debate the differences of Allah's mercy to good muslims and “creating, for hell, many genii (races) of men, ….and they are like brute beasts” (7:179) versus God's essentialy being love and loving everyone since he "of your Father in heaven, for he causes his sun to rise on the bad as well as the good, and sends down rain to fall on the upright and the wicked alike" (Mt 5:45) would be great... perhaps in some muslim blog...

Untill satarday...

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

There seems to be no doubt from Qur'an and the Hadiths that Muhammad was a sinner.

Personally I think Muhammad would admit it if we asked. I guess also he would rebuke his present followers for elevating him to a level of total purity.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Ibn wrote:

Once again, it is documented that Muhammad(saw) had no sexual relations with women in any way prior to marrying Khaidjah. Such a feat of endurance is uncharacteristic of a man who you believe was a slave of his sexual desires.

Elijah wrote:

Can we be absolutely sure about that. Was he not caravan trader, did he not approve of Muta marriage. Is everything recorded about Muhammad's private life?

Islamic sources clearly describe him as a sinner, and believe me that is not undermining Muhammad as I am sure Khayyam would agree with me, Muhammad was not divine or an angel but a 100 procent human.

Indeed there are righteous people and holy people, and devout people. Yet how about completely pure people Both the Bible as well as the Qur'an seem to establish the doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ in contrast to Muhammad was sinless and pure.

Nakdimon said...

Ibn:"The controversy surrounding the Prophet(saw)'s marriage to Zaynab(ra) has been thoroughly defused in the following post"

Dude, you have defused NOTHING. All you did was put on your blue swing shoes and dance around the arguments that I presented.

Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Ibn:”So why didn't he lust after Zaynab(ra) when she was in her youth and more delectable?”

Why on earth is that relevant? So are you saying that Muhammad was not attracted to Zaynab? Is that what you are saying?

Nakdimon said...

Ibn: “He didn't reserve her. Therefore, he did not desire Zaynab from the start. As John Gilchrist, a prominent opponent of Ahmed Deedat and a critic of Islam, notes:”

LOL

This guy, Ibn, is really something! He totally and utterly repudiate his scholars: Qurtubi, Zamakshari, Jalalayn, Ibn Abbas, they all attest to the account of Tabari. And suddenly Gilchrist, a Christian (!), is his best friend, because he doesn’t like the implications of this account. Just look how he describes him. He does it in such a fashion (as if we don’t know who John Gilchrist is) to make sure that we get the fact that he is a “prominent opponent” of Deedat. But just for this account, his own scholars aren’t that “prominent”. Never mind them and never mind the fact that the Qur’an says that Muhammad had the whole thing hidden in his heart, let’s go with Gilchrist!

So not only can we quote Deedat and Naik as authorities for Ibn, but we can also quote Gilchrist as an authority for Ibn.

Unknown said...

Lol. Look who's talking! Nakdimon rejects Maimonides because he attested to the sanction of rape in the Mosaic law. And suddenly Nakdimon becomes a doubter of the Oral Law!

Never mind Maimonides and the other scholars, the fact that the Torah permits rape, let’s doubt the Oral Law!

Nakdimon said...

Ibn: “Lol. Look who's talking! Nakdimon rejects Maimonides because he attested to the sanction of rape in the Mosaic law. And suddenly Nakdimon becomes a doubter of the Oral Law!

Never mind Maimonides and the other scholars, the fact that the Torah permits rape, let’s doubt the Oral Law!“

Oh My Goodness!!! Why am I even addressing you?

Ibn, pay attention while I’m still in the mood of explaining basic things to you: I am a Messianic Jew. I am SOLA SCRIPTURA! I am NOT a rabbinic Jew. Therefore I do NOT follow the “Oral Law”. That is what Yeshua calls “the Traditions of the Elders” in the Gospels. The “Oral law” is a rabbinic invention!


Loooooong before I even knew who Ibn was, I rejected the oral law as authority. If you just go to this website:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/letsgetcritical.html

You will see me demolish every so-called reference from the Tenach to an oral law that rabbinic Jews appeal to, to prove that there was an oral law given on Sinai.

When will you get that! PLEASE go do you historical research before you even mention the Oral law again, because Maimonides doesn’t even have ANYTHING to do with the Oral law. He is centuries too late! But, just like the author of the Qur’an, you don’t know anything of the canon of the Scriptures. Your Qur’an places people in different timeframes, just like the Talmud does. With just one major difference: The Talmud has those people in different timeframes than the original sources, because it tries to communicate certain truths. In other words, it fabricates stories for the purpose of storytelling. But the author of the Qur’an didn’t know that, so he copied those stories, with the people in the same erroneous timeframes as the Talmud, but thinks that he actually gives us a historical account!

LOOOOOOOOOOOL


Nakdimon

Abdul Haziz said...

nakdimon said:

«Your Qur’an places people in different timeframes, just like the Talmud does. With just one major difference: The Talmud has those people in different timeframes than the original sources, because it tries to communicate certain truths. In other words, it fabricates stories for the purpose of storytelling. But the author of the Qur’an didn’t know that, so he copied those stories, with the people in the same erroneous timeframes as the Talmud, but thinks that he actually gives us a historical account!»

I never realized that...

Are you sure the historical misrepresentations in the Qur'an are due to the fact that Muhammad PBUH was influenced by the Talmud?

When I studied in Spain (my parents went to there from Morocco to get a better life) I became aware of some problems with the chronology presented in the Qur'an...

I even asked once about it to my parents... They were very hungry and prohibited me to talk about such things... they told me that a true Muslim don't ask questions about the faith... one simply accept them...

I don't think that is very important... but I really would like to know more things, reliable things (and the NET is full of stupid untruth things...), about the formation of the Qur'an...

As a Muslim, I must believe that the Qur'an says it was dictated to Muhammad PBUH, but (perhaps because of the years I spent in Spain's schools) I don’t think that (and that doesn't make me a non-Muslim or a bad Muslim...) I must believe that the Qur'an was dictated to Muhammad PBUH...

Anonymous said...

As a Muslim, [...] I don’t think that I must believe that the Qur'an was dictated to Muhammad PBUH...

Could you elaborate on that?

David Wood said...

Yes, please elaborate. I'm intrigued.

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

Abdul,

Think about it: If there are historical accounts from the prophets in the Bible and centuries later there comes a rabbi who uses the various stories to communicate some truths and wisdoms. Let’s say that he uses Moses and Abraham for this purpose. And he has them on the same bus, taking the same plane, etc. You know that this couldn’t have happened because 1) Moses and Abraham are historically generations removed and 2) there were no busses and planes at that time. And even later someone who has access to those original sources and the forgeries, but cant distinguish them from one another, has the same people in the same settings, but now he is claiming to give you the historical facts. Where do you think those stories come from? From the historical accounts or from the forgeries?

For example: The account of Allah raising up Mount Sinai in Surah 2:63 is not in the Torah but in the Babylonian Talmud. There, God threatens Israel to accept the Torah or else Mt. Sinai would become their burial place. All the more convincing is that the Qur’an doesn’t use the Arabic jabal for mountain, but the Aramaic equivalent of turah.

This story is just storytelling from the mind of the rabbis, there is nothing historical about this. You might wonder what it is doing in the Qur’an?


Another historical blunder: Surah 5:20 is historically impossible! Moses couldn’t have told the children of Israel that God had bestowed favors on them when God appointed prophets and kings to them prior to Moses, because there were no prophets and kings in Israel before him! Because of the simple fact that 1) Moses was the first prophet that God ever sent to Israel. Before Israel and his descendants were in Egypt they weren’t even a nation. And 2) there were no kings before Moses. King Saul was Israel’s first king and he lived hundreds of years after Moses. They couldn’t have had kings “bestowed onto them” because they were in slavery. The only “kings” they had were Egyptian kings. They could hardly have been viewed as “favors” from God.

Yet this is what the Qur’an claims to have really happened. And we can go on like this.

B said...

Rebuttal to Jochen Katz's Article "Qur'an Contradiction: Prophets and Kings in Israel before the time of Moses?"

Refutation Of The So-Called External Contradictions In The Qur'an

Nakdimon said...

Bassam,

Was that it? I honestly expected a thorough refutation of Jochen’s article.
Let's look at some of your points and see how much sense they actually make.

The quote from As-Suyuti: "And, mention, when Moses said to his people, 'O my people, remember God's favour to you, when He established among you, that is, from among you, prophets, and established you as kings, possessing servants and retinues, and gave you such as He had not given to any in all the worlds, in the way of manna and quails, the parting of the sea and other things. "

Sorry Bassam, but Israelites WERE SERVANTS THEMSELVES! They weren’t made kings. As-Suyuti can claim all he wants, but historically that is impossible. As said, the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and had no kings among them. Notice that Moses claims that in the past Allah supposedly bestowed kings upon Israel. WHEN? WHERE? WHO?
The children of Israel had prophets among them. WHEN? WHERE? WHO?

Quote from tafsir Al Kabir: “Al Suddi said: It means and we made you free persons who own themselves after you were in the possession of the Copts as people of the Jizya, and no one would conquer you successfully.”

And what does this mean exactly? And to what part of the text does this refer to. I want to know for sure before I refute this. So that’s why I ask.

“Secondly: Every person who was a Messenger or Prophet was a king because he owned the command of his community and he owns the right to behave the way with them as he pleases. He had a piercing and effective control over them, so he was a king over them and that is why Allah said:

Or do they envy mankind for what God hath given them of his bounty? but We had already given the people of Abraham the Book and Wisdom, and conferred upon them a great kingdom. (Surah 4:64)”



Bogus. Moses was not a king, nor was Joshua, nor was the prophet Samuel, nor was Isaiah, nor was Jeremiah, nor was Elijah, nor was Mal’achi, nor was Daniel, etc, etc, etc. And the quote doesn’t say that every prophet was a king either. So this tafsir in not even true to the text to begin with.

“Thirdly, their ancestors and successors had kings and great people, and it could be said to those who have kings in their ancestry or in future generations "You are kings by way of borrowing"”

What kings did Israel have in the past? What prophets did Israel have before Moses? The questions are still not answered! Your sources try hard, but I’m afraid that they do nothing else than beating around the bush.

“Fourthly, whoever is independent in terms of his living and is not in need for anyone, he is a malik. Al Zajjaj said: The malik is he who has people enter upon him with his permission. Al Dahhak said: Their houses used to be spacious and it had running water, and they had a lot of money and servants doing what they ordered, and whoever is like that is a malik. (Fakhar ad-Din ar-Razi, Tafsir Al Kabir, Commentary on Surah 5:20”

Desperate but no success. Someone who is independent is “malik”. Sure, you can conjure up all sorts of definitions to make a story stick, but this will just not work. But even if we go with this explanation: WHEN, BEFORE MOSES, WAS ISRAEL INDEPENDANT? ISRAEL WAS A NATION OF SLAVES BEFORE MOSES TOOK THEM OUT OF EGYPT! So even with the fictitious definition of this tafsir the Qur’an is STILL not rescued.


“Imam Razi has done an excellent job explaining the different possible meanings of the word malik and how all of them could be easily harmonized with Surah 5:20 in light of history.”

What were you talking about the quote directly above? Is that excellence? In Holland we have a saying that basically comes down to this in English: “the hand of a child is quickly filled”. If you didn’t get it, it says that small children are easily satisfied.

Come on, Bassam, this was far from excellent! You are just saying that because you want this obvious problem solved. But imam Razi made four attempts and all four fell way short. And we don’t have to look at the quote from Ibn Kathir either, because he has the same futile explanation that you just called “excellent”, to help Allah out.

Let’s look @ your final objection to try to help the Qur’an from this historical blunder:

“Jochen might argue back that we must examine the word malik according to the language that Moses (peace be upon him) was speaking. However, we don't know exactly what word Moses (peace be upon him) used. We don't know if he used the word "king" in his language. So when the Qur'an translates Moses's (peace be upon him) statement into Arabic, we must examine the words according to the Arabic language and not the language of Moses (peace be upon him).”

Well, that’s easy. I happen to speak Hebrew, which so happens to be the language that Moshe would be speaking, and since the Arabic word “malik” is the equivalent of the Hebrew “melech”, which only meaning is “king”, we don’t have to belabour this point any further. The word “melech” SIMPLY HAS NO OTHER MEANING IN HEBREW. PERIOD! That’s why all those explanations of the word malik are so utterly farfetched and simply incorrect. So we are quite done, I’m afraid.


Face it! Allah goofed, the Qur’an challenges us to look for errors and if we find them we can draw the conclusion that the book is not divine. AND SO WE DO! We have looked and we have found the errors in the Qur’an and therefore, by it’s own criteria, just like I said in my audio rebuttal to you, the Qur’an can’t live up to it’s own standards of divine revelation!

And the argument against the Qur’an still stands. Moshe Rebeinu just could have never spoken those words.

Nakdimon

Abdul Haziz said...

Nakdimon... thanks for your answer...

but my true doubts persist (I don’t know the Talmud, and I think I won’t ever be able to reed it): are you sure, and could you give me more examples, that the chronological errors that exist in the Qur’an are based in the Talmud?

Matthew and David Wood asked me to elaborate the fact I made a distinction between believing that «the Qur’an really says X» (you just have to reed it and acknowledge it does), and believing in «X»

I don’t know what to say… really… isn’t that clear? Where? My faith is based in what the Qur’an says: I have to trust in the Qur’an… I have to believe that the Qur’an says Allah is the only God; I have to believe that the Qur’an says Muhammad is Allah’s prophet; and so on…

Isn't this clear? Please: could you tell me why?

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

Hi Abdul,

I would like to recommend you to get the book called:

"Judaism and the Koran : Biblical and Talmudic Backgrounds of the Koran and its Commentaries" by Abraham Katsh.

One more example: The dead give away is the most noble verse in the Qur'an: Surah 5:32. Which says the following.

“For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men”

This is found in the Talmud. Now you must understand that the Talmud compilation was finalised in the fifth century. You also must understand that the Talmud exists of two sections. The one is the Mishnah and the second is the Gemarrah. The Gemarrah is the rabbinic commentary on the Mishnah. But it is exactly in the Gemarrah that we find this story. It is found in Tractate Sanhedrin 37a of the Babylonian Talmud where it says:

“Whosoever destroys a single soul of Israel, scripture imputes to him as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosoever preserves a single soul of Israel, scripture ascribes to him as though he had preserved a complete world.” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 37a)

Now here is where the rabbi got it from: He was looking at the account of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4. By the time he got to verse 10 he found a strange phrase. The word for “blood” is “dam” in Hebrew. But in Genesis 4:10, this word is not in the singular, but in the plural. It says “D’MEI achicha”. So the rabbi concluded that, since the word for blood is in the plural, then God didn’t only considered Abel’s blood, but also the blood of all his potential descendants as well. So there fore he came to the conclusion that “whosoever destroys a single soul…”. Now this conclusion makes sense in light of the analysis just presented.

But the Qur’anic quote just floats there. It has no significance and no direct ties to the context it’s in. It just pops up and disappears. But the funniest thing of the entire quote is that whoever put that in the Qur’an, claims that this is what ALLAH revealed to the children of Israel. But in reality, such a revelation from God never existed! It was a rabbinic thought, not a divine revelation. Obviously, God would know what He revealed to His people? But somehow, Allah has a hard time remembering what he revealed to whom and when.

I’d say, that the Qur’an is NOT a divine revelation at all. It has all the traits of a plagiarized human book with bad editing.

Nakdimon

B said...

Abdul Haziz, pay no real attention to Nakdimon. These arguments have been refuted and Nakdimon isn't consistent since things in his Bible are found in sources earlier than his Bible as I have shown in the third section here Does The Qur'an Mentioning Stories Found In Previous Writings Threaten Its Credibility?

As for his other argument it has been refuted here Does The Qur'an Mentioning Stories Found In Previous Writings Threaten Its Credibility?


Brother Abdul Haziz I am not able to track these comments sections very often, so if Nakdimon or anyone else tries to confuse you with these stupid arguments again, please email me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com to clear your doubts.

Salam

B said...

looool Nakdimon you answered bits and pieces of my article.

You said: Sorry Bassam, but Israelites WERE SERVANTS THEMSELVES!

Yes, but there were those amongst them who also possessed servants at the same time, hence being kings in that regards, which is correct according to the Arabic language.

You said: Bogus. Moses was not a king, nor was Joshua, nor was the prophet Samuel, nor was Isaiah, nor was Jeremiah, nor was Elijah, nor was Mal’achi, nor was Daniel, etc, etc, etc. And the quote doesn’t say that every prophet was a king either. So this tafsir in not even true to the text to begin with.

No point responding here since you clearly can’t comprehend what you are refuting.

You said: What kings did Israel have in the past? What prophets did Israel have before Moses? The questions are still not answered! Your sources try hard, but I’m afraid that they do nothing else than beating around the bush.

Pay attention Nakdimon, the commentator said:

“Thirdly, their ancestors and successors had kings and great people, and it could be said to those who have kings in their ancestry or in future generations "You are kings by way of borrowing"”

You said: Desperate but no success. Someone who is independent is “malik”. Sure, you can conjure up all sorts of definitions to make a story stick, but this will just not work. But even if we go with this explanation: WHEN, BEFORE MOSES, WAS ISRAEL INDEPENDANT? ISRAEL WAS A NATION OF SLAVES BEFORE MOSES TOOK THEM OUT OF EGYPT! So even with the fictitious definition of this tafsir the Qur’an is STILL not rescued.

Who said that it is speaking about before Moses took them out of Egypt? The commentators believe that it is referring to the Exodus event itself (i.e. they became “kings” after their escape)


You said: Well, that’s easy. I happen to speak Hebrew, which so happens to be the language that Moshe would be speaking, and since the Arabic word “malik” is the equivalent of the Hebrew “melech”, which only meaning is “king”, we don’t have to belabour this point any further.

That’s not evidence that Moses used that Hebrew word. Moses could have used another word in Hebrew to communicate the meaning of what the verse in Arabic is trying to say by using the word malik.

Your arguments are worthless. I don’t have patience or time for speaking with people like you who are too stubborn and just go in circles.

Fernando said...

Bassam said: «Nakdimon isn't consistent since things in his Bible are found in sources earlier than his Bible»...

I read bery attentious the eschange of words between Nakdimon and Abdul (greetings to you mie friend... bery gald to see your in a good pathe to the truth...) and nowhere the argument was if the Qur'an had or not quottes from antien texts, rather if these quottes are false... then jews and Christians believe God inspired humnas, not that he dictatted his words to them... so the fact that the Bible quotes ancient texts it's in no way ore forme analougous to wghat happens in the Qur'an...

then he saide: «so if Nakdimon or anyone else tries to confuse you with these stupid arguments again»... whie stupids? Do you reallie thinke they're stupids r do you want to make an intelectual blocade in the pathe of Abdul?

Abdul: listten to your heart, listten to your soull, listen to your conscience... then feel totally free to acepte the true wherever you find it...

I'll be praying for you...

Nakdimon said...

Bassam, I'm not at home right now, but I will be later. Let's have a convo about all these points. That should be interesting.

But before I start to comment. You claimed that I responded to bits and pieces of your article. Actually I responded to those pieces that are relevant to the article, namely your so-called "proofs". But since you find that insufficient, maybe you should brake down which relevant portions of your article I "conveniently" skipped because they are supposedly irrefutable.

later,
Nakdimon

Nakdimon said...

Bassam: ”Abdul Haziz, pay no real attention to Nakdimon. These arguments have been refuted and Nakdimon isn't consistent since things in his Bible are found in sources earlier than his Bible as I have shown in the third section here Does The Qur'an Mentioning Stories Found In Previous Writings Threaten Its Credibility?

As for his other argument it has been refuted here Does The Qur'an Mentioning Stories Found In Previous Writings Threaten Its Credibility?


Brother Abdul Haziz I am not able to track these comments sections very often, so if Nakdimon or anyone else tries to confuse you with these stupid arguments again, please email me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com to clear your doubts.”



Bassam,

I don’t have problems with the earlier sources from the Bible at all. In fact, it affirms what I my stance was all along. Namely, that God always keeps some of His witness on earth. Be it with Gilgamesh or any other event, God always keeps his testimony with his creation. He eventually chose Moses to write all of His testimonies down as it really happened which we find in the Torah. No problems at all. We also see that in the New Testament, where Yeshua, the Son of God, uses the language of the people to communicate God’s message. Teachings such as “the evil eye”, which stands for stinginess, and the phrase “do not do unto others what you don’t want others do unto you” is a saying from rabbi Hillel.

My objection to the Qur’an is, therefore, not that it uses older sources as a witness. My problem with the Qur’an is that it uses OLDER EMBELLISHED STORIES as it’s witness! We KNOW FOR SURE that those stories in the Qur’an COULD NOT have happened in any way shape or form, because we know who made them up. The rabbinic sources use the original sources, the TENACH, take from the TENACH and uses certain characters as means to communicate wisdoms, folklore and biblical truths that can be applied in real life. So we KNOW that these stories aren’t authentic. We KNOW that historically Abraham wasn’t thrown into the fire or that he smashed the idols of his people. That is a mere conjured up story for the sole purpose to be a true witness of God to the people, even if you have to hurt their feelings and suffer their wrath, just like the Prophets of Old have done, such as Elijah, Jeremiah and Daniel (who was literally cast into the burning oven). Yet this is exactly what we find in the Qur’an: Not the original from which the Talmudic account is drawn from, but the very Talmudic fabrication is presented as divine revelation.

And that goes for all those other embellishments as well. We KNOW that those are just rabbinic commentary on either the Tenach or the Mishnah and NOT accounts that are rooted in history.

Nakdimon said...

Bassam: “looool Nakdimon you answered bits and pieces of my article.”

Again, Bassam, I would like to know what I failed to address that you find my response so laughable.

“Yes, but there were those amongst them who also possessed servants at the same time, hence being kings in that regards, which is correct according to the Arabic language.”

Sorry Bassam, but who were the slaves that had slaves? Second, how can slaves be kings? Third, Moshe didn’t speak Arabic, so your point doesn’t work.


“No point responding here since you clearly can’t comprehend what you are refuting.”



I agree, there is no point in responding because you have no point. That tafsir claimed that every prophet was a king. I refuted that by pointing to all the prophets that weren’t kings. What don’t I comprehend?


Pay attention Nakdimon, the commentator said:

“Thirdly, their ancestors and successors had kings and great people, and it could be said to those who have kings in their ancestry or in future generations "You are kings by way of borrowing"”


Bassam, that commentator can say all he wants, but he isn’t true to the text. The text says clearly: “And when Musa said to his people: O my people! remember the favor of Allah upon you when He raised prophets among you and made you kings and gave you what He had not given to any other among the nations.”
Talking about PAST TENSE, NOT future tense! That is what that tafsir makes up because it is aware of the dilemma the text is facing. But that will not work. So I’ll ask again: When is a nation of slaves actually to be regarded as having kings? And who were those prophets that were raised up unto Israel prior to Moses?

“Who said that it is speaking about before Moses took them out of Egypt? The commentators believe that it is referring to the Exodus event itself (i.e. they became “kings” after their escape)”


Bassam, this will not work! This is what Islam does, I’m afraid. It declares everyone a prophet and it declares everyone a king, just to fit it’s agenda. Sorry, Bassam, but I’m just being honest. Adam is a prophet, Ishmael is a prophet, etc. And now the entire nation of Israel are kings! Why? Because if they are not, then Islam is a sham. Sorry, but the Israelites weren’t kings. They were just freed as slaves and didn’t have a homeland.


That’s not evidence that Moses used that Hebrew word. Moses could have used another word in Hebrew to communicate the meaning of what the verse in Arabic is trying to say by using the word malik.

Your arguments are worthless. I don’t have patience or time for speaking with people like you who are too stubborn and just go in circles.


Isn’t this funny? You first claim that the word “king” in Moshe’s language is unknown. Because Moshe was a Hebrew who spoke Hebrew and we know what the only word for king in Hebrew is, namely melech, the case is closed! But you simply dismiss that and go “it is no evidence that Moses used that Hebrew word, he could have used another Hebrew word”. It’s painfully obvious that you only say that because if you acknowledge that I’m right, you will have to admit that your Qur’an has goofed and you can throw it out. I have given you the only word in Hebrew for “king”. Not only that, but it is the Hebrew equivalent for the Arabic “malik” also, which happens to be the exact word that is used in the Arabic text. Therefore you have no reason other than theological bias to reject my argument. Yet YOU call ME stubborn and accuse ME of arguing in circles!

Well since you apparently are that smart and you don’t go in circles, then I suggest you come up with another Hebrew word for “king” that is the equivalent to the Arabic “malik”. I gave you the facts. You have to show us that there is another Hebrew word for “king”. If you can’t, we all can consider your objection and your entire article worthless and the Qur’an errant.

Nakdimon