Sunday, January 8, 2012

Is the Qur'an Miraculous?

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


Sam said...

Kunde doesn't realize it but he just proved that the Bible was aware and spoke of osteoporosis:

"Man is also chastened with (A)pain on his bed, And with unceasing complaint in his bones;" Job 33:19

"Be gracious to me, O LORD, for I am pining away; Heal me, O LORD, for (C)my bones are dismayed." Psalm 6:2

"My life is consumed by anguish and my years by groaning; my strength fails because of my affliction, AND MY BONES GROW WEAK (WASTE AWAY)." Psalm 31:10

There is no soundness in my flesh because of Your indignation; THERE IS NO HEALTH IN MY BONES because of my sin." Psalm 38:3

So here is another bit of information which the Quran "borrowed" from God's true Word.

Sam said...

Kunde referred to "a prominent Christian apologist" calling him a snake and said that Muslims are forbidden from speaking this way. This again confirms that this man has no business debating since he doesn't know his own religion. What does Kunde do with his false prophet Muhammad slandering and lied against God’s prophets and the Lord Jesus and for calling those who refused to believe in him dogs, pigs, swine, the worst creatures etc., solely because they didn’t buy into his false teachings:

And recite to them the tiding of him to whom We gave Our signs, but he cast them off; and Satan followed after him, and he became one of the perverts. And had We willed, We would have raised him up thereby; but he inclined towards the earth and followed his lust. So the likeness of him is as the likeness of a dog; if thou attackest it it lolls its tongue out, or if thou leavest it, it lolls its tongue out. That is that people's likeness who cried lies to Our signs. So relate the story; haply they will reflect. An evil likeness is the likeness of the people who cried lies to Our signs, and themselves were wronging. S. 7:175-177 Arberry

The likeness of those who have been loaded with the Torah then they have not carried it, is as the likeness of an ass carrying books. S. 62:5 Arberry

Evil is the likeness of the people who have cried lies to God's signs. God guides never the people of the evildoers. The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolaters shall be in the Fire of Gehenna, therein dwelling forever; those are the worst of creatures. S. 98:6-7 Arberry

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

What does Kunde dowoih the filthy mouth of Muhammad's companions?

... Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!” – al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship – “Would we flee and leave him?” … (The History of al-Tabari – The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76; bold and underline emphasis ours)

In fact, Muhammad even encouraged his companions to bluntly tell people to bite their fathers’ penises!

Ubayy b. Ka‘b told that he heard God’s messenger say, “If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, TELL HIM TO BITE HIS FATHER'S PENIS, AND DO NOT USE A EUPHEMISM.” It is transmitted in Sarah [sic] as-sunna. (Mishkat Al Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes By Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore, Pakistan, Reprinted 1994], Volume II, Book XXIV – General Behaviour, Chapter XIII. Boasting and Party-Spirit, p. 1021; bold and capital emphasis ours)

{Sidenote: Sarah is a misspelling for Sharh, so that it should have read Sharh as-sunna.}


And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to 'Urwah: "Suck Al-Lat's clitoris!"[2] – there is a permissibility of speaking plainly the name of the private parts if there is some benefit to be gained thereby, just as he [Muhammad] permitted a plain response to the one who made the claims of the Jahiliyyah (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), by saying: "Bite your father's penis!"[3] And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying. (Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma'ad), by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: September 2003], Chapter. Regarding the Story of Al-Hudaibiyyah, p. 383; source; words within brackets ours)

[3] Narrated by Ahmad, on the authority of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b. (Ibid.)

Continued in next post.

Sam said...

Finally, what does Kunde with the fact that sound hadiths claim that Muhammad actually cursed and insulted his followers, his own community?


A'isha reported that two persons visited Allah's Messenger and both of them talked about a thing, of which I am not aware, but that annoyed him AND HE INVOKED CURSE UPON BOTH OF THEM AND HURLED MALEDICTION, and when they went out I said: Allah's Messenger, the good would reach everyone but it would not reach these two. He said: Why so? I said: Because you have invoked curse and hurled malediction upon both of them. He said: Don't you know that I have made condition with my Lord saying thus: O Allah, I am a human being and that for a Muslim upon whom I invoke curse or hurl malediction make it a source of purity and reward? (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6285)

This hadith has been reported on the authority of A'mash with the same chain of transmitters and the hadith transmitted on the authority of 'Isa (the words are): "He had a private meeting with them AND HURLED MALEDICTION UPON THEM AND CURSED THEM and sent them out." (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6286)

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying: O Allah, I make a covenant with Thee against which Thou wouldst never go. I am a human being and thus for a Muslim whom I give any harm or whom I scold or upon whom I INVOKE A CURSE or whom I BEAT, make this a source of blessing, purification and nearness to Thee on the Day of Resurrection. (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6290)

Salim, the freed slave of Nasriyyin, said: I heard Abu Huraira as saying that he heard Allah's Messenger as saying: O Allah, Muhammad is a human being. I lose my temper just as human beings lose temper, and I have held a covenant with Thee which Thou wouldst not break: For a believer whom I give any trouble or invoke curse or beat, make that an expiation (of his sins and a source of) his nearness to Thee on the Day of Resurrection. (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6293)

Continued in the next part.

Sam said...

It get's worse for Kunde. ry as a result!

Anas b. Malik reported that there was an orphan girl with Umm Sulaim (who was the mother of Anas). Allah's Messenger saw that orphan girl and said: O, it is you; you have grown young. MAY YOU NOT ADVANCE IN YEARS! That slave-girl returned to Umm Sulaim weeping. Umm Sulaim said: O daughter, what is the matter with you? She said: Allah's Apostle has invoked curse upon me that I should not grow in age and thus I would never grow in age, or she said, in my (length) of life. Umm Sulaim went out wrapping her head-dress hurriedly until she met Allah's Messenger. He said to her: Umm Sulaim, what is the matter with you? She said: Allah's Apostle, you invoked curse upon my orphan girl. He said: Umm Sulaim, what is that? She said: She (the orphan girl) states you have cursed her saying that she might not grow in age or grow in life. Allah's Messenger smiled and then said: Umm Sulaim, don't you know that I have made this term with my Lord. And the term with my Lord is that I said to Him: I am a human being and I am pleased just as a human being is pleased and I lose temper just as a human being loses temper, so for any person from amongst my Ummah whom I curse and he in no way deserves it, let that, O Lord, be made a source of purification and purity and nearness to (Allah) on the Day of Resurrection. (Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6297)

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

Now let us break down Muhammad's pathetic justification for cursing people who loved him more than their own lives. First, Muhammad’s excuse that he was no more than a human being is no justification for abusing and harming people who loved him more than their own selves. There are human beings who are not prophets that are able to control their rage and anger, and do not lash out against their family and friends the way Muhammad did. Therefore, how much more control should Muhammad have had over his sinful impulses and rages, especially when he was supposed to be protected by his god?

This leads to us to the second problem. Muslim scholars claim that prophets are guarded and protected (isma/masum) from committing sins. If so then why did Allah fail to protect his prophet from his unrighteous and unjustified anger? Why didn't Allah give Muhammad complete mastery over his sinful rage so as to not verbally abuse and curse his followers who loved him more than they loved themselves?

Third, instead of controlling his tongue, or instead of Allah giving him victory over his rage and foul mouth, Muhammad justifies his cursing, attacks and insults on people by saying that Allah will bless anyone he harms, curses, and/or beats! Thus, instead of rebuking and chastening him for his sins Allah actually condoned Muhammad’s cruelty and vileness by agreeing to bless anyone he curses and harms! Why did Allah allow Muhammad to revel in his sin by accepting his deal to bless anyone he curses? What kind of god would accept such an agreement thereby allowing Muhammad the freedom to justify and continue with abusing and cursing his own followers, such as that poor innocent orphan girl? Doesn’t this make Allah complicit in Muhammad’s sins? Doesn’t this show that Allah was actually Muhammad’s servant since he acquiesced to and granted the latter’s whims and desires?

Even more troubling is Muhammad’s arrogance in presuming that Allah will automatically accept his conditions. The above hadiths give no evidence that Allah agreed to Muhammad’s demands. These narrations merely report what Muhammad said and take it for granted that Allah gave in to his messenger’s desires.

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

In fact, in the last hadith it is merely a request he makes. Notice, once, again Muhammad’s statements:

I have made condition with my Lord …

O Allah, I make a covenant with Thee against which Thou wouldst never go.

O Allah, Muhammad is a human being. I lose my temper just as human beings lose temper, and I have held a covenant with Thee which Thou wouldst not break:

Aren’t those very presumptuous formulations? Muhammad unilaterally makes a covenant. It is not Allah who offers a covenant to Muhammad. Muhammad simply declares this rule and claims that Allah would certainly never go against it. This is nothing but sheer arrogance on Muhammad’s part. Fallible, sinful creatures are simply in no position to demand from God to endorse or justify their sinfulness, and yet Muhammad thinks he has such a right.

In particular, Muhammad is exempting himself from the obligation to ask for forgiveness from the people he has cursed, beaten, or otherwise harmed. (After all, he only caused blessings…) The Biblical principle is that we have to ask for forgiveness for our wrongs, both of the person we have harmed and of God. That requires humility and acknowledging that one is wrong. Clearly, Muhammad does not want to apologize and admit that he was wrong in anything. With this trick now, he can say: “Why do you complain? I actually caused you to be blessed!” And thus, in the final analysis, he is calling evil good, destroying the very basis of morality.

Fourth, Muslims often quote the following verse to prove that Muhammad only spoke by inspiration:

By the star when it goes down, (or vanishes). Your companion (Muhammad) has neither gone astray nor has erred. Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only an Inspiration that is inspired. S. 53:3-4 Hilali-Khan

If it is true that Muhammad never spoke from his own desires but was always inspired to speak then this means that it was Allah who actually wanted his messenger to curse and abuse his own followers who didn't deserve such treatment! The obvious question is why would the Islamic deity, who is supposed to be all-holy and all-merciful, cause Muhammad to curse and harm believers who loved their god and his prophet more than their own lives for no good reason?

Continued in next post.

Sam said...

To make matters worse, Muhammad stands condemned by his own teachings!

4184. It is narrated from Abu Bakrah that the Messenger of Allah said: “Modesty is part of faith, and faith will be in Paradise. Obscenity in speech is part of harshness, and harshness will be in Hell.” (Sahih)


c. Using foul language means, abusing or using bad language, quarrelling and the like, these acts are contrary to the characteristic of a believer. (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah - Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith No. 3657 to 4341, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair 'Ali Za'i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 5, 37. The Chapters On Asceticism, Chapter 17. Modesty, Shyness, p. 330; underline emphasis ours)

This shows that, once again, Muhammad failed to practice what he preached since he abused and used bad language against those who loved him the most and who hadn't done anything to deserve such treatment, even though he warned his followers not to do such things. As such, Muhammad stands condemned and deserves to go to hell according to his own words.

Continued in next post.

Sam said...

Finally, it is one thing to curse those who oppose and attack you, something that Muhammad did quite often. (Just compare the final words of Muhammad and Jesus: It is completely another thing altogether to belittle and insult those who love you more than their own lives and didn't do anything offensive to deserve such abuse and mistreatment.

Now since this all of this is in the Quran and hadith literature this means that Kunde has no excuse not to know all this. If he didn't know this then he has know business discussing these matters and he needs to make sure to learn his religion thoroughly before presuming to speak with such confidence.

However, if he does know this and he still went ahead and misinformed his audience then isn't any wonder that people such as that unnamed "prominent Christian apologist" would question his integrity and even call him a snake?

Sam said...

BTW, if you want to read my article on Muhammad cursing his followers please go here:

gspencer said...

The only thing about the koran that might be considered miraculous is that such a packaging of falsehoods and demonstrably foolish (& dangerous (notions continues to be the sole well-spring of spiritual guidance for so many.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Sam said...

Kunde claims that Q. 28:48-49 where Muhammad told the people to produce a book like "these two" doesn't refer to the Torah or the Quran but actually telling them to perform the signs that Moses or Muhammad did if they actually think that what they did was nothing more anything more than magic!!!

Let me simply quote the verse to show what Kunde conveniently overlooked:

But when the truth (i.e. Muhammad with his Message) has come to them from Us, they say: "Why is he not given the like of what was given to Musa (Moses)?" Did they not disbelieve in that which was given to Musa (Moses) of old? They say: "Two kinds of magic [the Taurat (Torah) and the Qur'an] each helping the other!" And they say: "Verily! In both we are disbelievers."Say (to them, O Muhammad S): "Then bring A BOOK from Allah, which is a better guide than these two [the Taurat (Torah) and the Qur'an], THAT I MAY FOLLOW IT, if you are truthful." Hilali-Khan

It is clear from the Quran's response that the disbelievers were being challenged to bring a book, not a sign or miracle, which contains better guidance than these two, i.e. the Torah and the Quran, which is why the Muslim translators inserted these words within brackets in order to bring out this point more clearly.

Moreover, it is a boldface lie to say that other Quranic verses say that the Quran is different from the other Scriptures and that it came to correct them. I am going to call Kunde out on this lie and challenge him to produce those verses so we can examine them here for all to see.

In point of fact, the Quran goes out of its way to claim that it is meant to be a confirmation of the previous Scriptures, especially the Book of Moses:

Yet before it was the Book of Moses for a model and a mercy; and this is a Book confirming, in Arabic tongue, to warn the evildoers, and good tidings to the good-doers. S. 46:12

For more on Q. 28:48-49 please consult this article:

Sam said...

Forgive me for all the typos. Since Kunde mentioned the universe expanding let me show him where the Quran got it from:

"Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretches them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it:" Isaiah 42:5


Dk said...

Nothing anything Mr Kunde says is convincing but since everyone will point out why, I'd like to comment on something else. Kind of surprised at some of the arguments Mr Green has used. As it seems to be throwing stones while in glass houses.

Green says: "a contradiction in the Quran, when two slightly different retelling/versions of the same event occur"

If this is a serious "contradiction" then Mr Green might want to search the word "telescoping", and see that Christian Theologians explicitly admits this occurs in the Bible quite a few times.

Also if the Quranic sequence of creation stories are taken to be literal and "chronological" in each and every verse, then why can't the same be said about Genesis 1 and 2?

Mr Green also stated that since various Qiraat (reading) and a recension took place, that therefore the "preservation" of the Quran was very "standardized", implying it had an ordinary preservation, not a miraculous divine preservation. Again applying that standard to the Bible, we have a very "human" like preservation, with thousands of variants, plenty of debate over biblical canon, codification, councils etc. Implying neither book is "divinely protected". But if as Mr Green seems to be that a book must have divine protection in order to be considered miraculous, then both the Quran and Bible have had the stigma of human preservation processes, showing neither can be from God. It seems Green seems be using Erhman line of thinking: "If God took the time to inspire the autograph, then surely he would make the trouble to divinely preserve it as well!"

And has no book on earth has ever been divinely protected then we can rule out divine preservation and divine inspiration altogether.

Dk said...

Mr Kunde

On the question regarding the random letters at the beginning of some of the chapters. You pointed out Muslims have debated the meaning of those letters or why exactly they appear. You didn't have a "clear" answer.

In fact these letters are evidence against the Quran being miraculous, as the Quran fails it's own criterion. The Quran claims to be a clear, specific and detailed and precise book and yet has random meaningless letters at the beginning of random chapters for no clear reason and no explanation given at all.

I think really this is the crucial point you failed to consider.

This is anything but eloquence or clarity or the stamp of divinity.

" D D D G D G"

There that's a miracle. Now believe in me.

Sam said...

Kunde's condescending humor becomes too much to handle at times. Notice in the Q&A that he claims that there are no grammatical mistakes because Arabic grammar did not exist before the Quran! This, again, is another boldfaced lie from Kunde.

In the first place, if Arabic grammar didn't exist before the Quran then how in the world were the Arabs expected to discern the so-called miraculous grammatical structure of the Quran and/or its supernatural eloquence?

Second, I guess that Muslims such as Uthman and Aisha weren't told that Arabic grammar didn't exist since they acknowledged that there are grammatical errors in their "holy" scripture.

For instance, according to several so-called authentic Sunni sources, the Quran contains at least four additional grammatical errors:

“Abdullah narrated from Al-Fadhal bin Hamad al-Khayri narrated from Khalid (he meant Ibn Khalid) from Zaid Ibn Hubab narrated from Ash'ath from Saeed bin Jubayr: "There are four mistakes in Quran:

‘ALSSABI-OON’ [5:69], ‘WAALMUQEEMEEN’ [4:162 ], ‘FAASSADDAQA WAAKUN MINA ALSSALIHEEN’ [63:10], ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’ [20:63].” (Abi Bakr, Kitab Al-Musahif, p. 42:; bold emphasis ours)

These same sources claim that both Aisha and Uthman b. Affan admitted that there were grammatical mistakes within the Muslim scripture:

Abu Bakr bin Abdoos and Abu Abdullah bin Hamid narrated from Abu al-Abbas al-Asim from Muhammad bin al-Jahm al-Samri from al-Fara from Abu Mu'awiyah from Hisham bin Arwa from his father that Ayesha was asked about Allah’s statements in Surah Nisa (verse 162) ‘LAKINI ALRRASIKHOONA’ and ‘WAALMUQEEMEENA’ and the Almighty’s statement in Sura Maidah (verse 69) ‘INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’ and His statement (Taha, 63) ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’. Ayesha replied: ‘O my nephew, this is due to mistakes committed by the scribe’. (Tafsir al-Thalabi, Volume 6, p. 250; bold emphasis ours)

Continued in the next post.

Sam said...

Here are some more Muslim sources confirming these mistakes in the Quran:

"There is disagreement over 'ALMUQEEMEENA ALSSALAT'. Aisha and Aban bin Uthman said that was written in the Quran due to a mistake on the part of the transcriber. Its correction is essential and it should be written as 'ALMUQEEMOONA ALSSALAT'. Similarly in Surah Maidah 'AALSSABI-OONA' and in Surah Taha 'IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI' have also been written due to the mistake of scribes. Uthman stated that he had seen some mistakes in the Quran and Arabs would correct them through their language and they had asked him to change them but he said that these mistakes did not change Haram to Halal and vice versa." (Tafsir al-Baghawi–Ma'alim at-Tanzil), Q. 4:161, Volume 3, p. 361; bold emphasis ours)


“Aban bin Uthman recited the verse [IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI] before his father Uthman. Uthman said: “It is incorrect.” Someone asked him: “Why don’t you correct it?” Uthman replied: “Leave it there, it doesn’t make any difference in respect of what is Halal (lawful/permissible) and Haram (forbidden/prohibited).’” (Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Q. 20:63)

Now Kunde can't simply brush aside these narrations as weak since they have been classified as sahih or sound:

Abu Ubaid stated in Fadhail Quran that Abu Muawiyah narrated from Hisham bin Urwah from his father that Aisha was asked about the following mistakes in the Quran ‘IN HATHANI LASAHIRANI’ and His statement ‘WAALMUQEEMEENA ALSSALATA WAALMU/TOONA ALZZAKATA’ and His statement ‘INNA ALLATHEENA AMANOO WAALLATHEENA HADOO WAALSSABI-OON’. She replied: “O son of my nephew, this is due to the act of the scribes of the Quran who committed a mistake whilst transcribing them. The chain of this tradition is Sahih according to the conditions of the Shaikhain. (Jalaludin al-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fi Uloom al Quran, Volume 1, p. 210; bold and underline emphasis ours)

“There is no strength with the replies that are advanced against the above cited reply of Aisha, namely that it contains a weak chain. The chain is Sahih.” (Ibid., Volume 1, p. 212; bold emphasis ours)

Too bad that Kunde wasn't there to educate Uthman and Aisha that there was no Arabic grammar before the Quran.

Sam said...

Just to correct Samuel. In the Q&A he said that there were no councils which dealt with the canon. if he meant that there was no ecumenical council he would be correct. However, there were two local African councils that did address the canon issue, namely the Council of Hippo (393 AD) and Council of Carthage (397 AD):

And Samuel, here is an article on the issue of the preservation of the Pharaoh's body:

Radical Moderate said...

Ob brother Kunde is on a role...

"Muslims liberated the world"

When refering to Umar "One of the first Muslim presidents"

@Sam when does he talk abou thte "Prominent Christian apologist"

Radical Moderate said...

@Al Kundee

Mother Goose has produced a Surah much better then the Koran.

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

That is far superior then anything in the Koran. I challange you to produce a Surah like anything Mohter Goose produced.

Radical Moderate said...

Oh Samual good job bringing up the Milk comes from Male cows. Also notice it says its that the Milk comes from the "Bellies" of the Male cow.

What where those Arabs drinking?

Also good job at exposing the "Western Scientists" validate the Miracles in the Quran.

Radical Moderate said...

Al Kunde proves why I will never ever ever go to a Muslim doctor.

He says that "Bones do not remain if htere not treated, thats why we can not dig up a grave after a 100 years and we wont find anything."

Al Kunde it depends where you dig up those graves. Ever hear of

1. Fossilization
2. Natural Mumification

There still finding bones in Osuaries in Israel that date back 2000 years.

andy bell said...

Of course the quran is miraculous. If a superfluous book written in 7th century arabic/hijazi, that has a ton of errors and a backward morality can sustain 1400 years of people actually believing that it came from an all powerful deity. And even developing into a major world religion, where more that 80% of the people who read it have absolutely no clue what it means. With all of that, I'd say the fact that the quran can hoodwink so many humans......that's a miracle.

Fernando said...

Dear Dk... the Bible and the qur'an adscribe different roles to the human part in the final resolt of it's texts... while in the case of teh qur'an, that says that its not to be considered in a metaphorical (and so interpreted) way, muhammad was only some sort of a ventriloquist, in the Bible (thate has different literary genres requiering intrensiquely interpretation) men were true co-authors... so: one contradiction in the qur'an as not the same burden as a contradiction (iff there is, in teh context I mentioned above, such a thing in the Bible) in the Bible...

Search 4 Truth said...

Does anyone know if Kunde visits this blog? How do they continue to lie to themselves? Like Samatar. What is this disorder? I just find it so fascinating.

jonnykzj said...

Regarding Kunde's claim of "Mutawatir" ahadith being the only real trustworthy ones and that we need not accept the others for shariah or even aqeedah THIS IS FALSE. Checkout "Dhahabi's" comment here. I quote:
"The sahih Bukhari contains both mutawatir and ahad hadiths and they were accepted by the Ummah :there is no difference between them.However the people of kalaam maturidis have stipulated they accept only mutawatir hadith in terms of Aquidah but they do accept them in shariah.
All scholars of islam are unanimous that thisis bid'ah because thers is no difference between aquidah and shari'ah (legislation)."

taken from:!

Billy said...

Mohammad was arguably an illiterate man (Q 7:157) sent to an illiterate people (Bukari, 1814). In addition, you are discouraged from asking too many questions (Q 5:101, 102). And violence is unleashed against those who criticize this “religion” of the illiterates (Bukari 4:241).

Using this formula, you can create any cult. Get a bunch of illiterate people together, and tell them you are the messenger of God; tell them not to ask too many questions, and use violence to suppress dissent.

Samuel Green said...


Regarding the issue of the bones, I could have handled this better. I should have asked Abdullah for the reference from Ezekiel that says that "bones last forever". I cannot find such a reference and I do think there is one.

Samuel Green said...


DK, I understand what you are saying but in the debate I was dealing with the Muslim understanding of what makes the Qur'an a miracle. For example Muslims will say the Qur'an came simply from God to Gabriel then to Muhammad then to the people with no altering or variants. I was just showing that this is not the case.

As I said in the debate both Christians and Muslims have canonical questions about their scriptures. I am not trying to deny that Christians have these issues but I do not accept when Muslims pretend that they have none.

Samuel Green said...


Thanks for the references.

Sam said...

Kunde's claim that the Quran actually warns Muslims about giving money to their leaders was probably one of the most dishonest things this man could say to his audience. One is left wondering why he didn't cite these passages:

They ask you (O Muhammad) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allah AND THE MESSENGER." So fear Allah and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad SAW), if you are believers. S. 8:1 Hiali-Khan

And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allah, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allah is Able to do all things. S. 8:41 Hilali-Khan

Muhammad tells his followers that the entire booty belongs to him and his god, and therefore has the authority to determine what to do with the spoils of war. It is in this context that Muhammad's god commanded that a fifth of their goods goes straight away to Muhammad and his family members.

The Quran even says that Allah made Muhammad rich, with the hadith informing us that he did so through conquests:

"Did He not find you as an orphan and give you shelter? Did He not find you wandering about and give you guidance? And did He not find you in need AND MAKE YOU RICH?" S. 93:6-8 Muhammad Sarwar

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495:

In light of these statements I can't help but conclude that Kunde really lacks integrity and simply has no shame since if he did he wouldn't be spouting such obvious lies and think he will actually get away with it.

Now does anyone blame that "prominent Christian apologist" for calling Kunde a deceiver or snake?

Anonymous said...

Search4Truth: What is this disorder? I just find it so fascinating.

I think there's something in the fact that works-based religion like Islam appeals to the pride: while us sinners hate the gospel we evidently love the idea that we can earn our own salvation. It glorifies us not God. I think this pride translates into the rationalisations Muslims are willing to engage in for their faith. I suspect they actually mistake their ability to rationalise for truth. When such embarrassing examples exist to emulate, like Deedat and Naik, things are somewhat on the wrong foot to begin with.
"Do we hold the truth? No, the Truth holds us..." (Thinking Christian blog)
The Muslim rationaliser holds the truth. It's an outworking of their rationalisations and a function of their intellect. They can really be quite good at it. One could say that Christian arguments merely point to the Truth; for Islam, the arguments *are* the truth.

Anthony Rogers said...

Now contrast the example of Muhammad with that of the apostle Paul. In a lengthy defense of his apostleship, the great apostle pointed out that the law itself says that the worker is worthy of his hire, and also that the Lord Jesus Himself taught that those who labor to bring the gospel to others should be compensated for their work. Yet, for all of that, Paul said he forgoes his rights to be paid for his efforts in order not to be a stumbling block or a burden to anyone, and also so that his reward may be great in heaven (q.v. 1 Corinthians 9).

In light of the shining example of Paul, Muslims neither have a reason to slander the apostles good name, nor do they have any grounds for boasting in the behavior of Muhammad or thinking that he is the best of men. Truly Paul was a much better man than Muhammad. Not only did Paul not get paid for what he had the right to get paid for while Muhammad was remunerated for what he did, but Muhammad exploited the situation to the point of becoming rich, and all of it not from any legitimate vocation but from fighting unjust wars.

There simply is no comparison between Paul and Muhammad. Forget about even trying to compare the latter to the Lord Jesus Christ. As the Lord from heaven, as the Lord of glory who was crucified, and as the exalted Lord who is at the right hand of the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ was, is, and shall ever be the high and HOLY one who inhabits eternity, the perfect lamb of God who took away the sin of the world, and the righteous judge before whose tribunal all men will stand at the final day, the one before whom every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that He is LORD to the glory of God the Father.

Sam said...

Excellent point, Anthony. Even though the Apostle Paul was only a man whom the Lord Jesus used mightily for his glory, he was still a shining example of holiness and devotion. To even compare him to Muhammad is an insult to this blessed Apostle since Muhammad wasn't good enough to stoop down and untie Paul's sandals, who was only a human being. In light of this, can you imagine how much more unworthy Muhammad is to untie the sandals of our risen Lord and majestic Savior Jesus Christ?

Baron Eddie said...

There was a question for Abdullah Kunde about grammatical mistake in Quran ...

Kunde said "There are none!"
and explained that "grammer did not exist before Quran!"

Then why Allah is not consistent

let us look at Surah Al-Baqarah 62

"إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالنَّصَارَىٰ وَالصَّابِئِينَ "

and now look at Surah Al-Mā'idah 69

"إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَالَّذِينَ هَادُوا وَالصَّابِئُونَ "

compare and notice the word
وَالصَّابِئِينَ and وَالصَّابِئُونَ

and the correct one is وَالصَّابِئُونَ

God who created heaven and earth
can not remember if it is
وَالصَّابِئِينَ OR وَالصَّابِئُونَ

At least Allah could have been consistent ...

Baron Eddie said...

In Surah Ash-Shu`arā' 195

"بِلِسَانٍ عَرَبِيٍّ مُّبِينٍ" meaning
the Quran In clear Arabic language

Why there are about 275 foreign words in Quran !

Baron Eddie said...

After I heard Kunde talking greatly about Quran! ...

I said Al-Hamdou LLah and I got my luggage ready to go back to Iraq but then my kid daughter told me

"Didn't you just post that video about Shiaa's in Iraq getting bombed all the time"

I said "I forgot about that"

If Muslims are bombing each other because they both Kufar to each other ! where would I be (in the middle)!

Then it hit me ...

If this Miraculous Qur'an did not change the life of those people then what is so Miraculous about it?

Oh yes, Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us

John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another.

Baron Eddie said...


and the correct one is وَالصَّابِئِينَ

Anonymous said...

I have not listened to the whole debate yet however I heard the islamic claim their allah created darkness and it is a miracle in koran. Well yes it is a miracle their allah can copy from the Torah.

Isaiah Chapter 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.



Radical Moderate said...

I just noticed this. He said that Allah created the Darkness so this means he was talking about Dark Matter. LOL

Just to let every know who does not know. Dark matter is not darkness, its not even "DARK" as in night.

It is called Dark Matter and likewise Dark Energy because its interatcion with non Dark Matter can not be detected. Once scientist figure out a way to detect it, that is assuming there is such a thing, it will no longer be called DARK MATTER and or DARK Engery.

Jabari said...

Is the Qur'an miraculaous? Interestingly, Nabeel debated Osama Abdullah on that topic in 2009. A debate in which Nabeel crushes Osama.

Also there's nothing miraculous about the Qur'an. The only thing miraculous about the Qur'an is that anyone would believe it's from God. That is truly miraculous!!!!!!!!!

simple_truth said...

Sam said...

Excellent point, Anthony. Even though the Apostle Paul was only a man whom the Lord Jesus used mightily for his glory, he was still a shining example of holiness and devotion. To even compare him to Muhammad is an insult to this blessed Apostle since Muhammad wasn't good enough to stoop down and untie Paul's sandals, who was only a human being. In light of this, can you imagine how much more unworthy Muhammad is to untie the sandals of our risen Lord and majestic Savior Jesus Christ?

Agred, Sam and Anthony!

Such a thought is to be loathed. Only if Muslims who take potshots at Apostle Paul would do what many of us have done and observe their apostleships with respect to ethics, morality, stewardship, etc., they would be forced to confront the weaknesses of their beloved prophet and question their profundity as well as spiritual depth. Of course, they are too busy proping up their religion and prophet to think like that.

Nakdimon said...


Excellent points. I have been trying to get Muslims to debate me on the integrity of Paul vs Muhammad, since they call Paul the false apostle of those two. They simply refuse because, according to them, Paul isnt worthy of being compared to Muhammad. Yet it is actually exactly the other way around. Muhammad would hold a candle to Paul.

Paul would simply trump Muhammad!

betwixt said...

2 Corinthians 6:3-10


We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything.


Paul lived what he preached about serving the LORD.

I think Muhammad preached about worship but not service; and if he did preach service, he did not live it.