In my debate with Osama Abdallah where he flailed about looking for a prediction for Muhammad in the Bible, Osama brought up Deuteronomy 33:2, which says:
“The Lord came from Sinai
and dawned from Seir upon us;
he shone forth from Mount Paran;
he came from the ten thousands of holy ones,
with flaming fire at his right hand.”
Osama was actually hoping to convince people that this passage is a prediction of the coming of Muhammad since Muhammad brought a law after Moses and conquered Mecca at the head of ten thousand men.
My reply to this slip-shod argument was short and simple: 1) The passage is talking about Yahweh; 2) it is a poetically dressed narrative of what happened rather than a prediction of something in the future; and 3) al-Tabari said the number Muhammad led in his conquest of Mecca was twelve-thousand. Several other points could have been made, but given the strength of these reasons, the lack of any serious reply from Osama, and the time constraints of the debate, I deemed this to be more than adequate at the time.
In an attempt to clean up Osama’s mess that was just about as inept as anything Osama said in our debate, a fact that provides one of many reasons why he won’t accept my debate challenges (1, 2, 3) and even begs me in e-mails not to respond to his drivel (available upon request), Yahya Snow wrote a blog post and produced a video in which he claims I made an unbelievably horrendous error in my response to this argument. Moreover, since for Yahya all roads refuting Islam lead to the doorstep of Sam Shamoun, I must have picked this argument up from Sam, whose name never even came up in the debate and was never cited as the source of my information. (Although I will mostly focus on the issue itself, one should not miss that Yahya’s reply was less of an attempt on Yahya’s part to actually interact with this alleged prophecy for Muhammad and my refutation of it and more of an opportunity that Yahya seized upon to attack Sam, with whom Yahya is clearly obsessed. As readers of his blog have observed, Yahya spends less time trying to prove or even defend Islam against Christian criticism and more time engaging in vindictive character assassinations, which is a sure sign of the poverty of the case that Yahya thinks can be made for his brand of stone-kissing paganism.)
So, what was my grand error according to Yahya? Was it in thinking that the passage is talking about Yahweh? No. Was it in saying the passage is a historical narrative rather than a prediction? No. My grand error according to Yahya was in saying that the number of Muhammad’s marauders in the attack on Mecca according to al-Tabari was 12,000 rather than 10,000. Since Sam has also made this point in an article that absolutely trounces the Muslim appeal to Deuteronomy 33:2, Yahya insists that the blame for this must be laid at Sam’s feet. (You can as surely expect Yahya to interact with all of what Sam wrote on Deuteronomy 33:2 as he did when replying to what I said on this issue in the debate.)
Lest readers miss the significance of this, note that both of the first two points are sufficient to rule out a Muhammadan fulfillment of Deuteronomy 33:2. If the passage is talking about Yahweh, and clearly it is, then it is not talking about Muhammad (unless Muslims want to commit shirk and say Muhammad is Yahweh). And if the passage is a record of what happened rather than a prediction of the future, and clearly it is, then it is not predicting the coming of Muhammad or anyone else. And so, even if it were the case that I (and Sam) misunderstood al-Tabari, it would still leave intact the two major reasons that stand over against taking the passage as a reference to Muhammad. (This makes all the more embarrassing the temerity of Yahya in saying that the third point was trumped up out of desperation on our part to disprove the claim that Muhammad’s coming was predicted in Deuteronomy 33:2. In light of the first two points, the third point, the one Yahya fixates on, is altogether inconsequential.)
So, what about the number of people Muhammad waylayed the Meccans with? Even before coming to al-Tabari it should be observed that a number of Muslim scholars say Muhammad attacked Mecca with 12,000 men.
For example, Allamah Muhammad Baqir Al-Majlisi in Volume 2, section 43, of his Hayat Al-Qulub: A Detailed Biography of Prophet Muhammad said:
Shaykh Mufeed, Shaykh Tabarsi and Ibn Shahr Ashob etc. have narrated that the important event of the conquest of Mecca occurred in the month of Ramadan, in the eight year of Hijrat. The majority of writers declare that the conquest was achieved on the thirteenth of the aforesaid month, but some maintain that it was on the twentieth. The cause of renewed hostilities with the Quraish was that at Hudaibiyah, the Prophet concluded a truce with the Quraish and took under his protection the tribe of Khaza, while Kananah tribe leagued with Meccan chiefs...
One of the men replied that the tribe of Khaza was encamped there. Abu Sufyan said that tribe was too small to have so many fires. Abbas now announced to Abu Sufyan, and told him that the fires were at the camp of the Messenger of Allah (S), WHO WITH TWELVE THOUSAND MEN WAS COME TO TAKE MECCA. “What hope is left?” replied Abu Sufyan. “This,” said Abbas, “that you mount behind me and go with me to the Prophet and obtain security for yourself and people.”
Allama Hussein Ansariyan in section 5 of his Morality of the Holy Prophet, writes:
When the Holy Prophet conquered Mecca WITH HIS STRONG ARMY OF TWELVE THOUSAND SOLDIERS, he treated people so kindly that they all were surprised. No one could believe that a victor could treat the defeated party in this way. People of Mecca had gathered in the Sacred Mosque to see the leader of Muslims and Islam come out of Ka`bah and judge those who committed all kinds of persecution against him for thirteen years. However, after breaking the idols, the Holy Prophet came out of Ka`bah addressing the people of Mecca as such, “O people! You were bad kinsmen and neighbors for me.
We are told the following on p. 228 of M. Siddik Gumus’ book Endless Bliss:
Rassulallah, TOGETHER WITH TWELVE THOUSAND HEROES, after departing from Medina on the tenth day of Ramadan, CONQUERED MECCA on Thursday, the twentieth of Ramadan, in the eigth year of the Hegira. On the following day, Friday, when reciting the khutbah, he had a black turban around his blessed head. After staying eighteen days in Mecca, he went to Hunayn...
On the Islamic Thought website we read:
In 8A.H, the Conquest of Mecca took place, WHERE TWELVE THOUSAND PEOPLE ACCOMPANIED THE PROPHET. This was the place where people would greet the Prophet with stones and insults, hurting him and wounding him. Now, eight years later, they were flocking in thousands to catch a glimpse of him. People thought the Prophet would declare The Day of Revenge, but the Holy Prophet declared The Day of Mercy. The Prophet said, “I will behave towards you as Yosef behaved towards his brothers. The Quran says, “He said, there is no reproach on today, may Allah forgive you, and He is the most merciful of the merciful.” (12:92) (Online source)
Another Islamic source says the following:
When the Holy Prophet conquered Mecca WITH HIS STRONG ARMY OF TWELVE THOUSAND SOLDIERS, he treated people so kindly that they all were surprised. No one could believe that a victor could treat the defeated party in this way. People of Mecca had gathered in the Sacred Mosque to see the leader of Muslims and Islam come out of Kaba and judge those who committed all kinds of persecution against him for thirteen years. However, after breaking the idols, the Holy Prophet came out of Kaba addressing the people of Mecca as such, “O people! You were bad kinsmen and neighbors for me. You expelled me from my hometown and fought against me in an unmanly way. You did not spare any attempt to persecute me, my friends and my companions. You killed my uncle, Hamzah. You fought against Allah’s Messenger so I have the right to avenge myself on you. Based on this right, your men must be killed, your wives and children must be taken captive, your property must be seized by the conquerors, and your houses must be demolished. But I leave the judgment to you. What do you think?”? Suhayl ibn `Amr, representing his people, said, “We speak good and think good. You are an honorable brother and an honorable nephew who has power over us.”? These words impressed the tenderhearted Prophet in such a way that his eyes were filled with tears. People of Mecca started weeping. Then the Holy Prophet said, “I do the same thing as my brother Joseph did. There is no sin upon you today. May Allah forgive you; He is the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful.”? (Seerah: Moral Habits of The Holy Prophet - Part 4; emphasis mine)
One of the many reasons so many Islamic scholars would say there were twelve thousand men who accompanied Muhammad to conquer Mecca is because of the following statement from Ibn Kathir:
I note that according to the statements of ‘Urwa, al-Zuhri and Musa b. ‘Uqba, the total number of the 2 armies with which he faced Hawazin was 14,000, SINCE HE HAD BROUGHT 12,000 TO MECCA, in their view, and 2,000 of the al-tulaqa’ had been joined to these. (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad: Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya [UK: Garnet and Ithaca Press, 2,000], translated by Trevor Le Gassick, Vol. 3, p. 440; emphasis mine)
With the above in mind, it should not be hard to understand why I (and Sam) would think that al-Tabari is saying basically the same thing in the following quote:
Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Ishaq- 'Abdallah b. Abi Bakr: The Messenger marched with 2,000 Meccans and 10,000 of his companions [who had marched with him and] with whose help God had facilitated the conquest of Mecca. Thus there were 12,000 in all. The Messenger of God placed 'Attab b. Asid b. Abi al-'As b. Umayyah b. 'Abd Shams in charge of Mecca [to look after] the men who stayed behind while he proceeded to confront Hawazin." (The History of Al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, translated and annotated by Ismail K. Poonawala [State University of New York Press, Albany 1990], Volume IX, p. 8.)
As I (and Sam) understood this statement from al-Tabari, the 2,000 Meccans and 10,000 companions who marched with Muhammad to attack Hawazin are the same as those who helped facilitate the conquest of Mecca. But Yahya insists that Muhammad brought only ten thousand men to Mecca, and that the 2,000 Meccans who accompanied Muhammad and his ten thousand companions to confront Hawazin refers to those who converted in Mecca consequent upon Muhammad’s conquest (that’s right, it was through military might that Muhammad gained converts).
Yahya didn’t provide any analysis of this portion of al-Tabari to say why his interpretation is to be preferred, so there really isn’t anything to reply to on this score, other than to say that his interpretation renders the Islamic sources contradictory on this matter (little surprise) since as we have seen other Muslims said Muhammad conquered Mecca with 12,000 men. But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose Yahya did make a case for his reading and it was convincing. If we take Yahya’s reading for granted, i.e. if we say that the 12,000 men who attacked Hawazin consisted of 10,000 of the companions that accompanied Muhammad to Mecca and 2,000 of the newly converted Meccans, then we are still left with the fact that al-Tabari taught that Muhammad conquered Mecca with the help of more than 10,000 of his companions. How is this so? Well, according to Yahya’s reading of al-Tabari, while Muhammad took 10,000 of his companions against Hawazin joined together with the 2,000 newly converted Meccans who wanted in on the Jihad action, we still have to account for the body of men who remained behind in Mecca, no doubt to occupy and keep hold of the recently acquired real estate, who were left under the charge of Attab. Here is the quote from al-Tabari again:
Ibn Humayd- Salamah- Ibn Ishaq- 'Abdallah b. Abi Bakr: The Messenger marched with 2,000 Meccans and 10,000 of his companions [who had marched with him and] with whose help God had facilitated the conquest of Mecca. Thus there were 12,000 in all. The Messenger of God placed 'Attab b. Asid b. Abi al-'As b. Umayyah b. 'Abd Shams in charge of Mecca [to look after] THE MEN WHO STAYED BEHIND while he proceeded to confront Hawazin." (ibid., p. 8; bold emphasis mine)
The men who remained behind must have been a part of those who went to Mecca with Muhammad, for the Meccans who converted went with Muhammad to Hawazin. Since the only other number given in the Islamic sources for how many went to Mecca besides 10,000 is 12,000, then the only available number provided in the Islamic sources that can be inferred from al-Tabari at this place in his writings is the latter. In light of the view of Muslims like ‘Urwa, al-Zuhri and Musa b. ‘Uqba, it would appear that al-Tabari took the view here that 12,000 accompanied Muhammad to Mecca, 2,000 remained behind under the charge of Attab when Muhammad and the rest of his marauders confronted the Hawazin, and 2,000 Meccans took their place. The discrepancy at this point appears to be that ‘Urwa, al-Zuhri and Musa b. ‘Uqba appear to have believed that everyone went to Hawazin.
So the fact remains, on either reading of al-Tabari, the number of Muhammad’s henchmen was more than 10,000 when he attacked Mecca.
What makes Yahya’s insistence on the number being 10,000 so ironic is that by his insistence he is actually undermining the Muslim appeal to Deuteronomy 33:2 just as much as when he tacitly conceded my first two points by his demonstrated inability to reply to them (just like he failed to reply to several other responses made to him in the past [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], something that sent him into hiding for the better part of a year). If this figure is so important to insist upon, then Yahya must think this is just the number specified in Deuteronomy 33:2. But the Hebrew if taken literally does not actually say 10,000 men. The word used, rebabah, is actually employed frequently as a figure of speech that refers to unspecified myriads, and if the rendering “ten thousands” is pressed literally then it would mean twice as many as ten thousand since the word is plural and not singular.
Update: July, 16th
Yahya still doesn’t seem to get it as appears from some of his more recent comments on this issue where he ignores what I wrote above, including the relevant comments on the one issue he is consumed by. He is so bent on attacking Sam that he can’t see that he is trying to find evidence for Sam conning me that just doesn’t exist. In Yahya’s mind I was misled into believing that al-Tabari supported the 12,000 number (as other Muslims also taught) because of what Sam wrote. As I said above, I did not read Sam’s article any time prior to my debate with Osama. I did not see how Sam quoted al-Tabari. I only saw the article after Yahya pretended to be a super-sleuth and “deduce” that Sam was the source of my information.
The evidence Yahya brings as proof of Sam's deception is that he only quoted the relevant part from al-Tabari about the number of men who helped facilitate the attack on Mecca, but he did not also include the rest of the quote which tells us that these men were going on to attack Hawazin. But there is nothing wrong with only quoting that part of something that is relevant to the point being made, provided it does not misrepresent how it would be understood in context. But Sam read the context the same way I did. He read it in a way that it was consistent with what some other Muslims have said, such as Urwa, al-Zuhri and Musa b. ‘Uqba. Therefore, the way Sam cited it is perfectly acceptable. The rest of the context does not falsify this reading in our understanding. Besides all that, even if Yahya were to finally get around to proving instead of merely asserting that the rest of the context does falsify our understanding in one way, as I pointed out in the article it would still confirm it in another way. So by bringing up the context Yahya only digs the whole deeper for himself. And given that Dueteronomy 33:2 is not talking about ten thousand men anyway, Yahya’s insistence ends up blowing the bottom right out from under his feet and the feet of his false prophet.
Just when you thought Muslim apologists couldn't get any worse than Nadir Ahmed, Yahya Snow comes along and makes Nadir look like Albert Einstein.
I am sure with the special GRACE OF OUR LORD JESUS he(Yahya) is about to become a follower of Christ Sura3 Aya 55.
One thing I would like you guys to know is that your are a nightmare to muslims and I said it with strong evidence; I know many muslims to whom I had introduced ABN, Jihadwatch, answering muslims, ...etc
and today when they hear about one of you guys you literally see them looking for a way out.
You are in deed a nightmare to Yahya and THANKS BE GOD.
I would like to follow some of your live debates on paltalk please
So if you can give me you paltalk address. Thank you in advance.
GOD BLESS YOU ALL IN JESUS' NAME AMEN
David said, "Just when you thought Muslim apologists couldn't get any worse than Nadir Ahmed, Yahya Snow comes along and makes Nadir look like Albert Einstein."
And he sounds like an Irish Peter Lorre!!!!!
David this is Islamic creepy pasta. Lol
Just posted his on snowmans blog, lets see how long it takes him before he deletes it.
Snowman before you delete my comment stating that I am not keeping to the subject of your blog post. Just remember it is you who turned off the comments on your articles regarding this topic.
Snowman looks like Sam has already posted the link so I will just give a brief summery.
Allamah Muhammad Baqir Al-Majlisi in Volume 2, section 43, of his Hayat Al-Qulub: A Detailed Biography of Prophet Muhammad...
"One of the men replied that the tribe of Khaza was encamped there. Abu Sufyan said that tribe was too small to have so many fires. Abbas now announced to Abu Sufyan, and told him that the fires were at the camp of the Messenger of Allah (S), WHO WITH TWELVE THOUSAND MEN WAS COME TO TAKE MECCA."
Allama Hussein Ansariyan in section 5 of his Morality of the Holy Prophet
"When the Holy Prophet conquered Mecca WITH HIS STRONG ARMY OF TWELVE THOUSAND SOLDIERS,..."
M. Siddik Gumus’ book Endless Bliss page 228
"Rassulallah, TOGETHER WITH TWELVE THOUSAND HEROES, after departing from Medina on the tenth day of Ramadan, CONQUERED MECCA
And many more read the full article here
So there u have it Snowman it's not our fault that your Islamic sources can not get their stories straight.
So now that the number of Jihadi's Mohamed had with him when he conquered Mecca has been cleared up. Can you now address the real issue?
That being that Osama Abdullah used a verse in the bible speaking about YHWH God and applied it to Mohamed.
Snowman if you want to play the typical Muslim and disregard and ignore all the Islamic sources on the number of men thats fine. The number of Men is really not the issue we really don't care about that. As AR stated
"so, even if it were the case that I (and Sam) misunderstood al-Tabari, it would still leave intact the two major reasons that stand over against taking the passage as a reference to Muhammad."
So please apologies to Sam for the slanderous comments you made about him and get to the actual point of AR's rebuttal. The part you ignored in your articles, and in your video's.
Thanks we await your excuse.
Snowman is pretty creepy with his obsession with David and Sam and his nocturnal jinn fighting
i dont understand, the reason why yahya snow was slandering christians, is that because he said that christians are slandering muslims. i really find it like a circle of satan or something. you mock them, they mock you. when will it all stop?
Steven Hermansyah said, "i dont understand, the reason why yahya snow was slandering christians, is that because he said that christians are slandering muslims. i really find it like a circle of satan or something. you mock them, they mock you. when will it all stop?"
You've seen children playing at a daycare or nursery? They slap one kid and then start crying like they're trying to cover up the other kid's wails.
It's like that. Called 'diversion' I think.
i have been following this blog and yahya's blog for like 3 or 4 years now. sometimes i find the entries are a bit over the top, but most of the time it is informative. yahya's blog seems to be like a gun firing at all directions. but i dont know, i am becoming more and more skeptical. coming from a mix family of muslims and christians (of at least 3 denominations), i am quite used of theological debates. but i never see the point of it all, maybe someday when i grow up, the world will be much clearer.
Can't Yahya Snow find someone else to play with? Its one thing to try and refute Sam and David, but its another thing to make them out to be notorious villains.
If he (Snow) wants to challenge Sam on certain things, Why doesn't he have the guts to debate Sam? At least Nadir Ahmed and Osama Abdallah have debated Sam. Yahya should at least pluck up courage to debate Sam or David or James.
Yahya seemed to have more success than Muhammad, who prayed 3 times for Allah's refuge from Satan and cursed Satan three times with Allah's full curse, yet to no avail. Fortunately for him, Allah listened to Solomon's prayers instead:
Sahih Muslim - Book 4 Number 1106
Abu Darda' reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood up (to pray) and we heard him say:" I seek refuge in Allah from thee." Then said:" curse thee with Allah's curse" three times, then he stretched out his hand as though he was taking hold of something. When he finished the prayer, we said: Messenger of Allah, we heard you say something during the prayer which we have not heard you say before, and we saw you stretch out your hand. He replied: Allah's enemy Iblis came with a flame of fire to put it in my face, so I said three times:" I Seek refuge in Allah from thee." Then I said three times:" I curse thee with Allah's full curse." But he did not retreat (on any one of these) three occasions. Thereafter I meant to seize him. I swear by Allah that had it not been for the supplication of my brother Sulaiman he would have been bound, and made an object of sport for the children of Medina.
Steven Hermansyah : The point of debating is to give both sides the opportunity to understand the other's position. If done in a constructive manner, it is far more effective than violence or hatred.
You said that a lot of posts are over the top. Which posts are you referring to?
This blog doesn't pull punches, but calls a spade a spade. If you work through the arguments presented by Dr. Wood & Co, you will discover the hopelessly bankrupt position that Islam finds itself in.
As someone who has visited this blog for years now, I find it difficult to grasp how the situation could be confusing in terms of determining the truth/falsehood of Islam.
What issues do you feel you have to iron out that haven't been well addressed by this blog already?
hey royal son, thanks for the reply. i dont mean over the top as a bad thing, but sometimes i have an impression that this blog is saying that nothing good ever came out of islam. of course, as a non practicing (cultural) christian, i find reasoning behind christianity is much more solid than islam, which has more unchallenged claims, and rhetorical clumsiness. but these debates are merely war of ideas, in my humble opinion, in which christians has the upper hand since christianity is really a religion which is based on firmer logical and critical tradition.
and yahya is always deleting comments nowadays. i think he is going through some kind of a crisis.
i wrote a long text, and now they're gone. yes, i think over the top means that sometimes this blog seems to say that nothing comes out of islam, which i believe there is not so many good ever come out of islam, but there should be. christianity is superior in debates because christian theology has gone a lot of process of criticism and debates, while islam usually offer a lot of rhetorical assumptions. but you should admire their perseverance, despite of it they still hang on to their beliefs. i regard myself as a cultural christians, and i enjoy debates as much as i enjoy sport. i have to admit, i smile when i see a muslim at lost of words, but in the end i still think that its all ideas.
yahya is keen of removing comments nowadays. maybe he is having some kind of crisis. he probably needs some pat on the back, to motivate him to get the show back on the road.
I think it is pointless to use the Torah as it exists today to convince Muslims that Muhammad is not there since for them it is not the real Torah given to Moses.
Instead it is a book with several authors,from the 8th and 7th centuries BC.So it is for them a forgery but that has some authentic information from the Toran written by Moses.
So they can just say Deut 18:17-19 is the real thing,the other passages in Deut. that have the Hebrew word AKH(brother) are to be rejected and in that way say that Muhammad is contained there.How can you argue against that?It is impossible.The real debate is concerning the gospel of John.To not see that detail regarding the Torah is to go round and round in circles in debates with Muslims,like a hamster running in a wheel.
According to the Qur'an, no one can corrupt Allah's words (18:27; 6:115). The Qur'an commands Jews to judge by the Torah and Christians to judge by the Gospel (5:43-47). When Muhammad was having doubts about his revelations, he was commanded to go to the People of the Book to confirm those revelations (10:94). In Sunan Abu Dawud, Jews brought Muhammad a copy of the Torah, and Muhammad said it was revealed by God.
So if you're correct, and Muslims believe that the Torah has been corrupted, should we (a) not appeal to the Torah, or (b) point out to them that they're contradicting Muhammad and the Qur'an?
Minoria, maybe you can go over to Yahya's blog and feed some of your ideas to him? Oh, wait...you already have many times over. But I would love it if a Muslim would use some of your arguments on this issue as well. Maybe in between taking shots over there at me and Sam you can encourage Yahya to incorporate some of your "insights" into his promised review of my debate with Osama? Give it some thought.
Just read you input.There are ways Muslims can and do get around all those arguments,I have seen it.It is similar to the Jesuitical way of argument.The Jesuits of old developped arguments to defend every single tenet of Catholicism.Muslims would say (18:27; 6:115) only refer to the Koran.And that (5:43-47) refers to the the oral message of Jesus(which for them is in accord with the Koran) and not the entire 4 gospels.They would say gospel means good news and it means the oral message of Jesus.
So to break the impass one can only do as a Jesuit would and go for the minimalist argument(as Habermas does with atheists).Habermas concedes the gospels(for argument's sake)are full of errors,contradictions,inventions but he extracts the minimum that are least atheists and skeptics accept.And even THEN the best argument is that of the Christian.My point is even when all important concessions are made,Muhammad is not in the gospel of John.One can,like Habermas,say it is not by John,nor by an eyewitness,nor by only 1 author,and that it is late,and Muhammad is not in there,
I have not attacked you personally or Sam.Or in the case of Sam,better said, said why I disagreed with his IDEAS.And in the end that is all it is about,ideas.In case you have not noticed,and again this is in the domain of ideas only,it is obvious that:
1.Muslims accept modern erudition that says Moses never wrote the Torah version we have today,it is from the 8th and 7th century by different authors.
2.That version is for them corrupt.They are not being illogical when they reject the parts of it that go against the Koran.
3.So they reject that Abraham almost killed Isaac,the order to kill all the Cananites,the promise to Abraham that Palestine would always be for the Jews,etc.And using that same method they reject passages in the Torah we have that go against Muhammad being there.I have noticed that pattern.
4.Modern scholarship says Moses never existed,there was never a flood,there were never any miracles in Egypt by Moses and no exodus of the Jews.But since the Koran says it is so then Muslims,using their same method,accept those parts of the present Torah as true and even written by Moses.
I don't believe in the Koran for various reasons but to argue effectively with them it is best to see what the exact situation is.
It seems you've degenerated to one of the oddest positions on record. Your position seems to be: "If a Muslim can make some argument (even a horrible one) against X, then never bring up X."
Guess what. Muslims can argue against ANYTHING we say. Muslims can claim that the Qur'an is entirely peaceful; hence, I should never try to show a Muslim that the Qur'an promotes violence.
Here I would say, "But the Qur'an does promote violence." And you would respond, "But Muslims have arguments that all of those passage only refer to self-defense."
Likewise, as a Christian, I would argue that the Qur'an is wrong when it says that Jesus didn't die by crucifixion. Here you would say, "But Muslims will argue that he didn't die, and they will interpret Bible passages to back up their claims."
The Qur'an CONSTANTLY affirms the INSPIRATION, PRESERVATION, AND AUTHORITY of the Christian scriptures. Moreover, the Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear, so reinterpretation of its clear passages isn't allowed. Hence, when the Qur'an says that no one can change Allah's words, and you add that this only refers to Allah's words in the Qur'an (and not to Allah's other words), you've just reinterpreted the perfectly clear Qur'an. When the Qur'an calls Christians the "people of the book," and you want to reinterpret "book" as "oral teachings of Jesus," I have no clue what you mean. The Qur'an specifically refers to the Torah and the Gospel "between his hands." How does a person have oral teachings between his hands? And why does the Qur'an distinguish between the revelation that came to Christians and the revelation that came to Muslims, if Christians are supposed to just agree with the Qur'an? Why was Muhammad sent to verify his revelations with the people of the book, when, according to you, the people of the book should be verifying their revelations with Muhammad?
I'm wondering, have you converted to Islam secretly or something? You used to post interesting, insightful comments. Now you seem to side with Muslims on everything and to try to annoy and distract people with silly arguments.
Of course, if you were to follow your own advice, you wouldn't be arguing with us at all, since we can argue against you. Why do you have double standards?
I agree with you that the "between his hands" directly means the Torah and Gospel at the time.But Muslims would not agree so for argument's sake one could say OK let's agree to what you say and move on.
This is the situation:
1.If,for argument's sake one says Deut 18:17-19 can mean:
Prophet like Moses=Jew
Prophet like Moses=also a relative of the Jew
Then you have 2 options:Jew or non-Jew?
2.The gospel of John has 3-4 authors(author 1 for John 1-14,and 17 or 18-20)(author 2 for chapters 15-16 or 15-17)(author 3 for chapter 21)(author 4 for the Jesus and adulteress story).I think John 15-17 is by the same author as John 1-14,18-20 but Muslims would not agree.
3.Author 1 has the "the prophet" sayings Muslims say mean the prophet like Moses.And chapter 14 has 2 Paraclete sayings.
Author 1 has Jesus saying Moses wrote about him(John 5:45-47),that is a reference to Deut 18:17-19.
So we have the answer to the dilemma of the prophet like Moses,according to author 1.He is a JEW.That in itself is enough to make the Koranic affirmation untrue.The gospel(of John by author 1) is saying the Torah's prophet like Moses is Jesus,so the Koran was wrong about the content of the book.
4.That was why Shabir Ally in his debate with Shorrosh said he accepted what some scholars think,that chapters 15-16(which have 3 Paraclete sayings)are an earlier tradition.And that they are about a salvific human that was later changed to the Holy Spirit.
However a condition is imposed there that even granting it is about a man,would make him a man of the 1st century and never of the 7th century.So it can not be Muhammad.
5.Even granting,for argument's sake,that the 2 Paraclete sayings in chapter 14 are about a man and not the Holy Spirit(though that is what it says,the Paraclete,the Holy Spirit) since author 1 says the prophet spoken of by Moses is Jesus it would at the most be about a man,Paraclete,who was not Muhammad
6.The only way a Muslim could show the Paraclete is about Muhammad is trying show that chapter 14 is by a FIFTH author and NOT by author 1,but it is not the case.
Even making it as easy as possible Muhammad is not in John.
Kind of pointlessly longwinded.
(1) If a Muslim appeals to Deuteronomy 18:18, then 18:20 rules out Muhammad as a prophet, due to the infamous Satanic Verses.
(2) If a Muslim appeals to the "Comforter" passages, then John 16:7 says that the Comforter is sent by Jesus. Since Muslims believe that Muhammad was sent by Allah, this would make Jesus Allah.
(3) If a Muslim says that these passages have been distorted, altered, and added to, then he's contradicting his own sources, which affirm the inspiration, preservation, and authority of the Gospel. Saying that the Gospel has been corrupted is an insult to Allah.
Post a Comment