Thursday, November 24, 2011

Who is Muhammad?



A debate between Abdullah Kunde and Samuel Green. September 2011.

38 comments:

aaron said...

@ my christian brethren
How do we preach to muslims in a loving manner but yet expose the disturbing aspects of mohummed?

I end up having to delete one of my youtube because one muslim kept flaming me with horribly researched information which is wrong saying the oldest books of NT e.g. saying 2 vanticus was the oldest books and ignoring what i have to say. all this just because i said if i was to judge muhummed from a haddith then he is a bad man

Samuel Green said...

There were three things that made this debate difficult for me. I will share them to save others from having the same problems.

1. The references I had prepared for the rebuttal section were on my laptop but they had to use my laptop for the PPT of both speakers. I did not know this until after I had given my presentation. Therefore, I could not consult my references until much later in the debate. I have not memorized the key references like I should have so I could only speak in general terms not in specifics. I plan to have my key references in printed form next time and to memorize them.

2. The PPT display was behind the speakers heads which made it hard to read. I had printed out my notes for everyone but I was not able to follow Abdullah's PPT at points. The result was that I did not know what evidence he had put forward at some points. This was especially the case for his "age of Aisha" argument. Next time I will make sure that both speakers can follow the notes of each other before the debate begins.

3. I failed to fully prepare for Abdullah's approach to the Islamic sources.

Usama said...

OT

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qyNBvpxWNI

shows the truth of the "Arab Revolution" replete with al-Qaida flags, chants for Shari'ah and praise for Usama bin Laden... in Freedom-Loving™ Tahrir Square

I advise you to circulate it, it'll (God willing) be an eye opener for the Western world.

taomeano said...

Abdullah said Jesus whipped the money changers in the temple. Abdullah was wrong, Jesus made a whip of cords and drove the money changers out of the temple, there is no where in the verse where it says He whipped anyone. I was surprised Samuel did not refute that blatant lie.

Here is the verse in John 2:15
"When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen and poured out the changers' money and tables."

There is no where in this verse that Jesus is whipping anyone. The fact that Jesus made a whip of cords does not automatically mean He is about to whip someone with it. Automatically assuming this is wrong. For all practical purposes Jesus could have made the whip of cords to let the money changers know that He is serious about them not using the temple for commerce. It could have just being a scare tactic. Once again there is no where in the verse that Jesus is whipping anyone. Moslems are always misrepresenting the bible and that indicates that deep down they have no arguments against christianity.

Samuel Green said...

taomeano,

I agree with you about Jesus not whipping anybody. From the context it seems he used the whip to drive out the animals.

Regarding why I did not refute this, simple, Abdullah said it at a point in the debate when I could not reply (I spoke first) and nobody asked me about it in the question time. I have to play by the debate rules.

taomeano said...

Samuel
Thanks for the clarification about your inability to refute Abdullah regarding the so called Jesus whipping in the temple. As you indicated it is clear that He used the whip to drive the animals out of the temple. I mean Jesus was not about to persuade the sheep and goats by talking to them to leave the temple.

So thanks once again Samuel. By the way I have practically watched all your debates and they are truly fantastic. You come across as very respectful and patient, not irritated by the blatant misrepresentations on the moslem side. It is truly admirable. I am learning from you how to debate a moslem without loosing my cool.

Samuel you are on the front lines fighting the good fight and contending for the faith. May the LORD bless you greatly and use you to win moslems to JESUS CHRIST.

CristoTeAma said...

God Bless you brother Samuel, it easy for us to say "i would've said this or that" but i have been having some debates with some muslims friends (not schllar level ofc) and even when i know many way to refute their claims, sometime i fail in one because i am thinking about some other argument which i think may be stronger, so i can't even imagine myself doing that in front other ppl, i like your debates and kindness, God Bless You.!

CristoTeAma said...

I wrote a longer post but it got deleted by some error on the website, well in resume i just wanted to tell brother Samuel that he did a good job, and that i like the way he drives the debates, because we have differents styles from other like D. Wood sarcastic but realistic way, or the more agressive way of Sam Shamoun, or the ultra educated style of james Whitem and i think we were missing a style like yours, so we can reach all kind of persons for the glory of God. God Bless You.!

Sam said...

I am sorry to say this but this debate has now fully convinced me that Kunde is another deceptive taqiyyist. He is neither a scholar nor a serious student of Islam or Comparative religions, and he is simply dishonest.

He shamefully brought up the old argument that certain sources such as Malik bin Anas place Aisha's age between 15-16 at the marriage, and he even misuses al-Bukhari to prove it.

These lies were soundly refuted by a Muslim scholar named Gibril F. Haddad who wrote a response to a Muslim website which made these same arguments. Here are the links to Haddad's responses:

http://www.defending-islam.com/page184.html

http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/d/aam2_e.pdf

Please study them and pass them on to others so that Muslims such as Kunde can be put in their place for lying to us and for using misinformation in order to cover up such a shameful marriage

Samuel Green said...

Sam,

Thank you for your research in all these areas. These ideas are being formulated into responses that are precise, clear and quick to present.

In Christ
Samuel

Irenaeus of New York said...

Abdullah asserts A equals B with very weak connections. In many cases it is a difference in both kind and degree.

For instance:

"Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am."

And he said it was like Jesus saying.

"I am a student"

The Jews took up stones to kill Jesus because they correctly understood He claimed equality with God. Even without that knowlege, both sentences are addressing completely different things. The first is addressing existence(and more), while the second is speaking to function. He seems to repeatedly use poor comparisons in the debate, but because he presents them confidently, they sound convincing when used to dismiss criticism.

David Wood said...

Sam said: "I am sorry to say this but this debate has now fully convinced me that Kunde is another deceptive taqiyyist."

Indeed. For some reason, I thought that Abdullah was going to be different, but he's falling into the same old pattern. Such errors would be understandable coming from a Muslim off the street. But when an apologist/debater utters this nonsense, we have to question his integrity.

I feel a video coming on . . . special Abdullah Kunde edition.

Ken said...

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/a-7th-century-war-on-terror/

Has anyone written a scholarly response to this?

AKunde said...

Greetings Sam and David,

I was directed to your comments by a colleague and because I initially planned to quote Sam's in an upcoming presentation, I felt it appropriate to pass my thoughts on to you both (seen as you won't see the presentation itself).

I think there has been a major misunderstanding with:

a) What I said with regards to the age of Aisha (ra)
b) The nature of Gibril Haddad's refutation
c) The relevance Gibril's statements have in light of my initial statements.

Firstly, I did not say that my opinion on Aisha's age is the only opinion. In fact, I said quite clearly, "We don't know 100%, but not all Muslims accept it... [including] Imam Malik"(45:30 in the debate video). I also said in the Q/A, "Even if [Aisha] was 9, we consider the age of maturity to be menarche".

With regards to Hajj Gibril's refutation, he acknowledges that Imam Malik (ra) had reservations about the hadith that detail Aisha's age as 9 (although, he focuses on different reasons) and also acknowledges that other scholars had similar attitudes to differing degrees.

Gibril also makes clear in both his refutations that there is no doubt Aisha had reached menarche by the marriage.

Given that this is basically what I said, I struggle to see where the 'lie' or 'deception' is?

I never once said that the opinion I presented was the only opinion, I made it clear that it is a disputed issue and Sam presenting an article that indicates there is argument supports this reality.

I also question the consistency Sam has displayed here. Obviously I find it highly inconsistent that I be called a liar (when I stated there is a difference of opinion) but I also ask how Sam can use the arguments of Gibril Haddad, a former Arab Christian, in refuting me? Does this mean Sam agrees with all of the arguments Gibril puts forward about ahadith? Does he agree with his methodology overall? Or is Sam merely being convenient to try and establish his point?

I'm glad that such discussions can take place after an event, and thank Sam, David and Samuel for the opportunity. But I resent being called a liar/deceiver and would like to know how such a claim can be maintained in light of what I actually said?

Kind regards,

Sam said...

This is a reply to Kunde:

Firstly, I did not say that my opinion on Aisha's age is the only opinion. In fact, I said quite clearly, "We don't know 100%, but not all Muslims accept it... [including] Imam Malik"(45:30 in the debate video). I also said in the Q/A, "Even if [Aisha] was 9, we consider the age of maturity to be menarche".

This is where your problem begins. As far as your so-called authentic sources are concerned you absolutely do know with 100% certainty what her age is. In fact, as Haddad pointed out, this tradition is multiply attested, e.g. mutawatir:

G. F. Haddad:
Not so. In addition to the above four Madinese Tabi`in narrators, Sufyan ibn `Uyayna – from Khurasan – and `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya – from Tabarayya in Palestine – both report it. Nor was this hadith reported only by `Urwa but also by `Abd al-Malik ibn `Umayr, al-Aswad, Ibn Abi Mulayka, Abu Salama ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Awf, Yahya ibn `Abd al-Rahman ibn Hatib, Abu `Ubayda (`Amir ibn `Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud) and others of the Tabi`i Imams directly from `A’isha.

This makes the report mass-transmitted (mutawatir) from `A’isha by over eleven authorities among the Tabi`in, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, such as Ibn Mas`ud nor other major Successors that reported it from other than `A’isha, such as Qatada!


You can't get any more certain than that as far as Sunni Islam is concerned. Now if you have abandoned ship and have decided to become a Quran only Muslim then that's a different story.

Continued in the next section.

Sam said...

This is the 2nd part of my reply to Kunde:

With regards to Hajj Gibril's refutation, he acknowledges that Imam Malik (ra) had reservations about the hadith that detail Aisha's age as 9 (although, he focuses on different reasons) and also acknowledges that other scholars had similar attitudes to differing degrees.

No he doesn't. He nowhere says that Malik rejected the assertion of Aisha being 9 when Muhammad slept with her. The actual context is dealing with Malik's supposed reluctance of accepting narrations from Hisham bin Urwa. Here is the context:

“The Learner”:
Tehzibu'l-tehzib, one of the most well known books on the life and reliability of the narrators of the traditions of the Prophet (pbuh) reports that according to Yaqub ibn Shaibah: "narratives reported by Hisham are reliable except those that are reported through the people of Iraq". It further states that Malik ibn Anas objected on those narratives of Hisham which were reported through people of Iraq. (vol 11, pg 48 - 51)

G. F. Haddad:
Rather, Ya`qub said: "Trustworthy, thoroughly reliable (thiqa thabt), above reproach except after he went to Iraq, at which time he narrated overly from his father and was criticized for it." Notice that Ya`qub does not exactly endorse that criticism.

As for Malik, he reports over one hundred hadiths from Hisham (as is evident in the two Sahihs and Sunan!) to the point that al-Dhahabi questions the authenticity of his alleged criticism of Hisham.


You then say:

Gibril also makes clear in both his refutations that there is no doubt Aisha had reached menarche by the marriage.

This is a strawman since the issue wasn't whether she reached menarche but whether she was 9. So stop with the red herrings.

More importantly, do you want to debate whether your so-called reliable sources indicate that Aisha reached menarche? In fact, not only would I love to debate you on this issue, but I would also love to debate you on your gross distortions of Deuteronomy 18, John 1:19-21, and 2 John. I am even willing to come to Australia to face you on these subjects.

Continued in the next part.

Sam said...

Here is the third part of my reply to Kunde.

Given that this is basically what I said, I struggle to see where the 'lie' or 'deception' is?

That is not what you basically said. Do I need to quote your words here to see that you tried to cast doubt about her being 9 when Muhammad slept with her? In fact, here is what you said:

"Number one, did Muhammad marry a 9 year old girl? Well, first of all we need to appreciate there is a primacy of sources in Islam and, God willing, I will refer to that in my rebuttal in a little bit more detail. But the simple answer to the question is we don't know a hundred percent, okay.

“And the other fact is not all Muslims accept it. And by not all Muslims I don't mean 10 modern Muslims like me. I mean the earliest Muslims. So for example one of the greatest scholars of Islam who came only a hundred years after the prophet, Imam Malik, rejected the ahadith that refer to the prophet marrying Aisha as a 9 year old. And the reason why he rejected it is because there were stronger traditions that in fact Aisha would have been much older than 9 by the time they got married, okay.

“And in fact, someone may say but hang on this hadith about marrying her as a 9 year old is in Bukhari. Well there’s also a hadith in Bukhari that supports the other suggestion that she was closer to 16 or 19, okay. So bear that in mind particularly when I talk about the supremacy of sources in the rebuttal.”


So now that I have quoted your own words to prove that you w ere trying to cast doubt on Aisha being 9, do you take back your assertion that you were simply trying to prove that Aisha had reached menarche? More importantly, can you please cite from Malik where he explicitly says that he rejects the fact of Aisha being 9 when Muhammad slept with her? We would love to see that.

I never once said that the opinion I presented was the only opinion, I made it clear that it is a disputed issue and Sam presenting an article that indicates there is argument supports this reality.

This again shows you have a serious problem with accurately representing your sources. The articles that I linked to prove that as far as your earliest and most "reliable" sources are concerned there is no dispute concerning Aisha's age. The dispute is with modern Muslims such as yourself who are ashamed of what their sources say about Muhammad's character flaws.

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

This is the 4th part of my reply to Kunde.

I also question the consistency Sam has displayed here. Obviously I find it highly inconsistent that I be called a liar (when I stated there is a difference of opinion) but I also ask how Sam can use the arguments of Gibril Haddad, a former Arab Christian, in refuting me? Does this mean Sam agrees with all of the arguments Gibril puts forward about ahadith? Does he agree with his methodology overall? Or is Sam merely being convenient to try and establish his point?

Another straw man and red herring, as well as a genetic fallacy. Instead of asking me whether I accept all of what Gibirl states about the hadiths in general, the real question is whether you as a Sunni Muslim buy into your own hadith sciences. Can you kindly tell us what your scholars say concerning a narration which is classified as mutawatir?

I'm glad that such discussions can take place after an event, and thank Sam, David and Samuel for the opportunity. But I resent being called a liar/deceiver and would like to know how such a claim can be maintained in light of what I actually said?

I am sorry if my perception of your cheap debate tactics offends you, but I must call it as I see it. If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, well then it must be a duck.

Now please cite from Malik directly where he explicitly rejects the hadiths which list Aisha's age at 9 when a 54 year old Muhammad slept with her. We will be eagerly awaiting.

David Wood said...

Sam said: "I am even willing to come to Australia to face you on these subjects."

Standard Muslim Response: "No, no, no. We will not debate Sam Shamoun! He's too mean and forceful. We Muslims believe in Muhammad, who slaughtered his enemies, ridiculed and mocked their beliefs, and called them names. But we're highly sensitive and can't handle criticism."

AKunde said...

Greetings Sam,

You have quoted Gibril Haddad saying:

This makes the report mass-transmitted (mutawatir) from `A’isha by over eleven authorities among the Tabi`in, not counting the other major Companions that reported the same, such as Ibn Mas`ud nor other major Successors that reported it from other than `A’isha, such as Qatada!

You add your own words:

You can't get any more certain than that as far as Sunni Islam is concerned. Now if you have abandoned ship and have decided to become a Quran only Muslim then that's a different story.

You seem to have missed the question I asked, ‘Do you accept [Gibril Haddad’s] methodology when it comes to ahadith’? I asked this because it seems that the entirety of your argument rests on this statement. The reason why you need to answer this question is because when it comes to mutawatir ahadith, there are differences of opinion as to what qualifies a hadith as mutawatir.
Any hadith with kathrat ul asaneed (multiple chains of narration) may be considered potentially mutawatir. Before we go into the content of a hadith, we need to agree to terms as to what is the definition of multiple chains. Hajj Gibril has concluded that 11 in the second generation is suitable for establishing tawatur.
This is AN accepted view in ahlul sunnah but is not the common view. The common view is that 40 narrators in each generation is required in order to establish tawatur, with anything less falling under ‘mashur’. I briefly refer to this in the debate.

AKunde said...

I said:
With regards to Hajj Gibril's refutation, he acknowledges that Imam Malik (ra) had reservations about the hadith that detail Aisha's age as 9 (although, he focuses on different reasons)

You go on to say
No he doesn't. He nowhere says that Malik rejected the assertion of Aisha being 9 when Muhammad slept with her. The actual context is dealing with Malik's supposed reluctance of accepting narrations from Hisham bin Urwa…

Perhaps you missed the part I bolded?

You will note in the section you quote from Hajj Gibril that he accepts that various muhaditheen have concluded that Hisham ibn Urwa was less reliable as a narrator in later life, which is exactly the assertion made by Imam Malik (it is not my job to respond to the incorrect claim made by the ‘student’ Hajj Gibril was debating). Note:
Yaqub ibn Shaibah said, "narratives reported by Hisham ibn Urwa are all reliable, except after he went to Iraq, at which time he narrated overly from his father and was criticized for it ".
Imam Malik ibn Anas objected to recording the narratives of Hisham, which were reported through people of Iraq.

These statements are found in Tahdhib al Tahdhib (refered to in the pdf you quoted as tehzibul tehzib). This is a text on hadith science written by Ibn Hajar al Asqalani. (Edition quoted: Daar Ihya al Turath al Islami 11(50). Hajj Gibril acknowledges that Imam Malik had these reservations (or at least that it is known as likely) and quotes a scholar that argues he did not have such reservations:
As for Malik, he reports over one hundred hadiths from Hisham (as is evident in the two Sahihs and Sunan!) to the point that al-Dhahabi questions the authenticity of his alleged criticism of Hisham.

You asked me to demonstrate where Imam Malik disagreed with the narrations that illustrate the age of Aisha (ra) was 9. The only narrations that reached him (that are recorded) are the ones from Hisham ibn Urwa through his father (Hence why these hadith are not recorded in any transmission of the Muwatta).
Ergo, even Hajj Gibril accepts that Imam Malik had this reservation (albeit, mentioning that it is questionable).

AKunde said...

As for Gibril’s readings on other scholars, it is not for me to comment.
To be quite honest, it is not for me to explain my position or to refute Gibril Haddad. I made a claim (i.e., that the age of Aisha is not 100% accepted) and that is clearly maintainable. I could quote a Roman Catholic scholar that suggests that the supremacy of Rome is clear from the Biblical Texts. Does that mean that you need to respond to it?
The primary issue here is that you called me a liar and a deceiver. To lie, one must know the truth and intentionally provide a false statement in its place.
Therefore, you must assert that I fully believe Aisha (ra) was 9 and that I intentionally mislead the audience.
As you can see, my statements are all maintainable. I repeat, at no time did I suggest to the audience that my view is the only view and I affirmed the status of the other view as being valid.
Sam, you are welcome to your view and you can argue your case in any way you like. But you can’t call everyone that disagrees with you a liar or a deceiver.
If you don’t feel the need to apologise, I will fully understand. I think I was expecting too much even replying to your suggestion in the first place.

Kind regards,

AKunde said...

Greetings David,

Is being called a liar/deceiver an ad hominem attack?

Kind regards,

David Wood said...

Abdullah said: "Is being called a liar/deceiver an ad hominem attack?"

Depends on what you mean by "ad hominem." Strictly speaking, any criticism of any person would be an ad hominem ("to the person"), even if it's perfectly true and totally relevant. So yes, in this broad sense, calling someone a "deceiver" would be an ad hominem.

However, we're usually thinking of a logical fallacy when we refer to an ad hominem. Here the term applies to the practice of bringing up some irrelevant detail about a person in order to discredit his point or argument. For instance, if Sam produces an argument against Muhammad, and you respond, "Don't listen to him, he's mean," you're guilty of the fallacy of ad hominem (because whether Sam is mean or not is irrelevant to whether his argument is sound). In this narrower sense of "ad hominem," calling someone a "deceiver" usually wouldn't be an ad hominem. That is, calling someone a "deceiver" would be true or false, probable or improbable, but not logically fallacious.

Why do you ask? Are you brushing up on logic? It's never to late, I suppose.

AKunde said...

Greetings David,

Thanks for your detailed response and for the introduction to argumentum ad hominem.

I wasn't trying to make any point from the question, other than Sam has made a claim which is impossible to substantiate (unless, of course, he had a certified statement from me that I firmly believe the opposite to what I stated during the debate).

If one were to give him the maximum benefit of the doubt, his claim that I am a liar could be considered probable. I would argue that the statements I made that Sam uses are indicative of the opposite (but, I'm drifting).

Is this typical Christian conduct (i.e., to attack the man in an undignified manner in an attempt o win the ball)? Is it typical Sam conduct? (I must admit, I always assumed that the videos on Youtube of Sam calling people 'idiots' and 'scum' were unfavourably edited).

Thanks, again, for the detailed answer.

Kind regards,

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Abdullah,

I want to personally thank you for your demeanor and willingness to debate with folks like Samuel Green. I find your debates to be very informative.

I hope you understand the importance of the charge that Sam is making here. If it can be demonstrated that you are deliberately misleading in those debates then every thing you say in that sort of venue is suspect.

I am clueless as to the science of the haddith. It sounds to me like the medieval arguments as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Often it seems to me as a outsider that basically it boils down to accepting what you like and rejecting what you find to be embarrassing.

I want to encourage you to continue to interact with Sam on this one so that the issue can be cleared up for folks like me.

You are uniquely talented at making obscure Islamic doctrine intelligible.


Peace

David Wood said...

Abdullah said: "I wasn't trying to make any point from the question, other than Sam has made a claim which is impossible to substantiate . . ."

I agree to some extent. When a Muslim gives an inaccurate or outright false response, there are multiple possible explanations, e.g. (1) the Muslim is being deliberately deceptive, (2) the Muslim hasn't really studied the issue, and is speaking without knowledge, (3) the Muslim has studied the issue, but his unquestioning allegiance to Muhammad clouds his judgment, etc.

I think what Sam and I were saying is that when a Muslim is intelligent and has apparently studied an issue, and he makes an obviously false claim, the "deception" option becomes more probable, especially since deception plays such a prominent role in Islam. We can't absolutely prove that a Muslim is being deliberately deceptive, but we can appeal to facts which point in that direction.

Abdullah said: "Is this typical Christian conduct (i.e., to attack the man in an undignified manner in an attempt o win the ball)? Is it typical Sam conduct?"

I can't speak for Christians in general, but yes, when an intelligent person, who has studied an issue, and is allowed by his religion to deceive unbelievers, starts to utter false claims, Sam usually begins to suspect deception. (So do I.)

BTW, while we're asking about typical behavior, is it typical Muslim behavior to be easily offended by criticism, even though Muslims believe in a book that calls Christians and Jews the "worst of creatures," commands Muslims to violently subjugate Jews and Christians, etc.? I would expect people who believe in such violent, intolerant teachings to have thicker skin.

benckunde said...

Greetings David,

I'm not sure that your question is really relevant?

Regardless of if I were offended or not, it boils down to a Christian making a claim against a Muslim's character that cannot be substantiated, no matter how beautiful or intricate the sophistry used to justify it.

I might have a bit to learn in logic, but I can distinguish between puting forward arguments against the religious belief an individual happens to adhere to and making statements against their character. There is no value whatsoever in me doing the latter.

Nevertheless, thanks for acknowledging (albeit in a roundabout way) that Sam's assertion is impossible to substantiate and would be considered offensive by most (reaction to that offense aside).

Greetings FMM,

I would encourage you to read a basic primer on hadith methodology, such as Nukhbat al Fikr. I would assume it is available online as a pdf and it gives a solid explanation of the science of ahadith according to Orthodox Muslims.

Kind regards,

Sam said...

This for Kunde:

You seem to have missed the question I asked, ‘Do you accept [Gibril Haddad’s] methodology when it comes to ahadith’? I asked this because it seems that the entirety of your argument rests on this statement. The reason why you need to answer this question is because when it comes to mutawatir ahadith, there are differences of opinion as to what qualifies a hadith as mutawatir. Any hadith with kathrat ul asaneed (multiple chains of narration) may be considered potentially mutawatir. Before we go into the content of a hadith, we need to agree to terms as to what is the definition of multiple chains. Hajj Gibril has concluded that 11 in the second generation is suitable for establishing tawatur.
This is AN accepted view in ahlul sunnah but is not the common view. The common view is that 40 narrators in each generation is required in order to establish tawatur, with anything less falling under ‘mashur’. I briefly refer to this in the debate.


You seem to have missed my point, much like you have been "missing" the point made by your own sources. It is irrelevant as to what I believe about your sources. What is relevant is what YOU AS A SUNNI MUSLIM should believe about them. Instead of sidestepping the issue you need to come to terms with the fact that Aisha's marriage on the age of 9 is classified as mutawatir or a multiply transmitted tradition, and therefore is completely and thoroughly sound ACCORDING TO YOUR SUNNI BELIEFS.

Therefore, you need to take it up with Haddad, your fellow Muslim scholar, not with us.

Sam said...

This is a further reply to Kunde.

You again try to side step the issues by mentioning the fact that Haddad himself even acknowledge that Hisham's memory wasn't as good in his later life without bothering to mention Haddad's response to your assertion and how this doesn't affect the traditions concerning Aisha's age. Do I really need to quote his entire articles here in order to show how you are simply evading his refutation of your claims?

Moreover, Haddad clearly showed that the reports concerning Aisha's age came from various sources, some of whom were from Medina, and not simply from Iraq where Hisham's memory is said to have started to slip due to his older age, so your argument is non sequitur anyway.

Let me repeat that part of Haddad's response:

“The Learner”:
All the narratives of this event have been reported by narrators from Iraq, where Hisham is reported to have had shifted after living in Medinah for seventy one years.

G. F. Haddad:
NOT SO. In addition to the above FOUR MADINESE Tabi`in narrators, Sufyan ibn `Uyayna – FROM KHURASAN – and `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Yahya – FROM TABARAYYA IN PALESTINE – BOTH REPORT IT. NOR WAS THIS HADITH REPORTED ONLY BY `URWA BUT ALSO BY `ABD AL-MALIK IBN `UMAYR, AL-ASWAD, IBN ABI MULAYKA, ABU SALAMA IBN `ABD AL-RAHMAN IBN `AWF, YAHYA IBN `ABD AL-RAHMAN IBN HATIB, ABU `UBAYDA (`Amir ibn `Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud) AND OTHERS OF THE TABI`i IMAMS DIRECTLY FROM `A’ISHA.


This refutes your attempt to use this to establish your case that Malik rejected aisha's age being 9 due to the fact that he objected to reports of Hisham through people from Iraq since there were others outside of Iraq narrated this report on Aisha's age, as well as other Muslims besides Hisham who narrated it.

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

This is my third response to Kunde.

This now leads me to your response to my challenge to provide an explicit statement from Malik stating that he objected to the tradition of Muhammad marrying Aisha when she was 9.

You asked me to demonstrate where Imam Malik disagreed with the narrations that illustrate the age of Aisha (ra) was 9. The only narrations that reached him (that are recorded) are the ones from Hisham ibn Urwa through his father (Hence why these hadith are not recorded in any transmission of the Muwatta).

Ergo, even Hajj Gibril accepts that Imam Malik had this reservation (albeit, mentioning that it is questionable).


I am going to be charitable and assume that you aren't familiar with logical fallacies which is why you commit so many.

In the first place, you didn't simply claim that Malik rejected the hadiths from Hisham. You explicitly stated that he denied the fact of Aisha being 9 when a 54 year old Muhammad slept with her. Here are your words again:

“And the other fact is NOT ALL MUSLIMS ACCEPT IT. And by not all Muslims I don't mean 10 modern Muslims like me. I MEAN THE EARLIEST MUSLIMS. SO FOR EXAMPLE one of the greatest scholars of Islam who came only a hundred years after the prophet, IMAM MALIK, REJECTED THE AHADITH THAT REFER TO THE PROPHET MARRYING AISHA AS A 9 YEAR OLD. AND THE REASON WHY HE REJECTED IT IS BECAUSE THERE WERE STRONGER TRADITIONS THAT IN FACT AISHA WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH OLDER THAN 9 BY THE TIME THEY GOT MARRIED, OKAY.

The context of your statements is clear. You not only explicitly said that Malik is one of your earliest scholars who rejected Aisha's age t the time of marriage being 9, you even clearly said that the reason he did so is because there were other stronger traditions which stated she was older than that.

Therefore, in light of your own assertions I am going to need to once again challenge you to provide the direct quotation from Malik himself where he explicitly stated that he doesn't accept Aisha's age being 9 due to these other hadiths which say she was older.

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

This is my 4th response to Kunde.

The other problem with your assertion concerning Malik is that it doesn't logically follow that since he supposedly rejected Hisham's traditions that this therefore proves that he also rejected the notion Aisha was 9 when Muhammad slept with her. Malik could have rejected while still believing that Aisha was 9 when Muhammad slept with her when he was 54 years of age.

After all, as Haddad showed there were other people besides Hisham who narrated this tradition, and there were other Muslims from places other than Iraq which passed on this tradition.

Therefore, you need to do more than simply infer from Malik's rejection of Hisham or argue from his silence concerning Aisha's age that this proves he rejected this tradition. You need to provide an explicit quotation from Malik himself where he comes right out and says that he rejects the fact of Aisha being 9 due to some other stronger narrations which says she was older, especially when this is the exact argument you made in your debate.

Sam said...

This is will be my final comment to Kunde for now.

You say:

To be quite honest, it is not for me to explain my position or to refute Gibril Haddad. I made a claim (i.e., that the age of Aisha is not 100% accepted) and that is clearly maintainable. I could quote a Roman Catholic scholar that suggests that the supremacy of Rome is clear from the Biblical Texts. Does that mean that you need to respond to it?

It seems you really have a thing for false analogies since you often make them in your debates and dialogues.

Your analogy is a false one and not at all similar to what I have done. To quote a Roman Catholic scholar to prove the primacy of the papacy from the Holy Bible is not the same as you denying the primacy of your own so-called authentic texts which place the age of Aisha at 9.

At least I accept the Holy Bible and would never throw any of the authors of Scripture under the bus in order to refute your hypothetical Roman Catholic scholar, which is unlike what you have bee doing with your own so-called authoritative texts.

I quoted Haddad to show that you were simply being dishonest by making claims about the nature and authority of the texts which place Aisha's age at 9.

In other words, your debate wasn't with the interpretation of your texts, but with their validity and authority. Whereas in your false analogy the debate wouldn't be on the authority and veracity of the texts, but on their interpretation.

Finally, you made a claim which is demonstrably false and which cannot be maintained, at least if you are going to be honest and consistent.

With that said, I am again ging to reissue my challenge to you to provide an explicit statement from Malik where he explicitly says that Aisha wasn't 9 when Muhammad slept with her, but considerably older due to other reports which are much stronger.

I will be eagerly waiting for you to shoulder the burden of proof which is required from you in light of your assertions.

Sam said...

BTW Kunde, I am nearly done with a response to your assertion in the recent James White debate that mediation limits God where I cull from your so-called authentic primary sources to prove that your own deity accepts mediation and that Muhammad functions as an intercessor/mediator.

I will be using these quotes to show the readers how you again inconsistently apply one set of arguments against Christianity without ever bothering to see whether such arguments can be used more forcefully against your own beliefs.

As Dr. White says, inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. And you definitely need to start learning to be consistent.

Ken said...

Since the debate was "Who is Muhammad?" - and his example inspired Omar and others after him to attack Persia and the Byzantine areas of Christiandom (Surah 9:29), even beyond the 7th Century, it would very interesting to have a detailed and scholarly response to this paper by Adnan Rashid.

It is interesting that the article I cited earlier ("A 7th
Century War on Terror" by Adnan Rashid) has been moved to this spot:

http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/a-7th-century-war-on-terror/

As of Nov. 27, 2011 (today), it is now the lead article.

It is also at the Hittin Institute:

http://www.hittininstitute.com/Article.aspx?ID=22

I have my suspicions that it was not just at all; and, it may be true that at first, some of the Miaphysites (or Monophysites) in Syria and the Coptic Church in Egypt welcomed the Arabs "as liberators" from the Byzantine Chalcedonians, but I have met Evangelical Coptic Egyptians tell me that the Muslims deceived them and later, they treated them wrongly. Dhimmitude is not just at all; so it is a misnomer to call the Islamic innovations "A 7th Century War on Terror". Trading one form of oppression for a worse one is not justice.

It is deception to say that Christians are well treated in Muslims lands and have equal rights to follow their own religion. They do not have freedom to evangelize or teach apologetics or criticize Islam or build new churches, therefore the claim that they were just to the Christians and Jews is just false.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Abdullah,

you said,

I would encourage you to read a basic primer on hadith methodology,

I say,

Thank you for the suggestion but it would be more useful to see how you a "real life" Muslim decides which hadith to accept and which to reject when it comes to an embarrassing event like this.

It seems to me that Sam has provided a strong case that your contention that Aisha’s young age is a matter of dispute is suspect given the hadith evidence.

I would be very interested in learning why you think he is wrong and how exactly you arrive at your view.


Peace

Ken said...

oops;; typo

so it is a misnomer to call the Islamic innovations "A 7th Century War on Terror". Trading one form of oppression for a worse one is not justice.

should have been:
so it is a misnomer to call the Islamic invasions "A 7th Century War on Terror". Trading one form of oppression for a worse one is not justice.

Hemel said...

Kunde,its about 3 years since I saw you making a youtube video commenting on bro Sam's debate .Now I think the time has come to debate the giant Sam Shamoun.You know what a gladiator he is on debate stage,that even the most well known debater Zakir Naik is running away from him for 11 years.If muslims were peaceful people like christians,brother Sam could have do journey throughout the world like Deedat did.The difference is Deedat spread lies,and Sam will spread truth