Anthony Rogers "Allah, Neither Omnipotent Nor Immutable"

In answer to a video by Anthony Rogers "Allah, Neither Omnipotent Nor Immutable"

Each of God's attributes manifests itself in some way in our world, to provide mankind with indications of a superior being. If we take His attribute of power for instance, among the most compelling and mind-blowing manifestations of it is the physical universe, unceasingly amazing and confusing the greatest minds that ever lived the deeper they observe and ponder upon it 

67:3-4"Who created the seven heavens one above another; you see no incongruity in the creation of the Beneficent Allah; then look again, can you see any disorder? Then turn back the eye again and again; your look shall come back to you confused while it is fatigued". 

The discovery of countless worlds beyond our solar system, all stranger than the other in terms of their inner conditions, enhance even further the significance of the signs of nature man is repeatedly told to ponder upon, testifying to God's bounty. When one sees how improbable it is for life to be sustained in this seemingly boundless universe, and yet how flourishing it is in our world, how could one negate intent and purpose in creation? And when one adds the element of ease and all encompassing control over originating and sustaining the universe, then how could someone argue that our relative insignificance entails disinterest from the Creator? The more we look into the universe, the more there is in fact indication that we are not insignificant. 

Looking closer to us is the moon. It controls the length of the day and ocean tides, which affect the biological cycles of lifeforms on our planet. The moon also contributes to Earth's climate by stabilizing Earth's spin axis, offering an ideal environment for life to develop and evolve. The size ratio between the earth and its satellite is unique from all the worlds observed until now, and it is this ratio that allows these vital phenomena to occur 

25:2"It is He who has created all things and ordained them in due proportions".

The self-evident truth in the cosmos of intelligent design is among the major arguments stressed by the messengers. Casting doubt on this clear truth is at odds with human nature 14:10"Their messengers said, "Can there be doubt about Allah, Creator of the heavens and earth?". The passage continues, saying that this reality is self evident to the extent that one can literally see God's imprint in the universe 14:19"Have you not seen that Allah created the heavens and the earth in truth?"

The existence of a Creator is now clearer than it ever was. In this age we live in, miracles in the sense of occurrences that bend the expected laws of nature are obsolete. Although the general scenery of creation described in the Quran as a sign to reflect upon is enough to alert the conscious heart to the miracles surrounding us, the advanced tools at our disposal have magnified these miracles to an unprecedented degree, ironically the very tools of those who are often the first to deny God's existence. Those whose minds are bent at denying it are left with nothing more than engaging in sophistry, pushing the boundaries of probabilities to unreasonable extent so as to allow for the most infinitesimal chance for doubt.

In the meantime, anywhere mankind concentrates its most advanced scientific observation, the more the signature of an intelligent design is apparent. This reality applies to the vastness of the universe down to machine like programming of the DNA. An entity capable of initiating massively complex information must have preceded all things. That entity must, as a consequence be transcendental ie beyond matter, as well as unbound by time and space which both had a beginning. There is an impressive amount of theories to explain the great mystery of how the very first gene and self replicating molecule originated, among them one that focuses on montmorillonite clay. This abundant, inorganic blend of minerals is known to be a chemical catalyst, the crucial precursor to RNA formation, as well as a means by which chemical reactions can be confined and protected until the possible development of cellular membranes. But until now science has been unable to test and repeat any of those suggestions, including the clay model, to produce the first living cell. Even on a theoretical level, the attempts to explain the pathway from non-living to living matter have so far not achieved the states of complexity that are anywhere near that of the simplest known living systems. In fact some have began arguing that the "p-value" (calculated probability for a hypothesis to be true) for nature to produce the complexity of the genetic code is so small that it should be soundly rejected by science. The only counter to this inevitable conclusion is the multiverse theory, the existence of an infinite number of unseen, untestable entities, which is actually just a way of conceding that the only alternative to obvious reality is utter absurdity. Only intelligent minds can produce significant levels of functional information. Since even the simplest lifeforms require high levels of information, the scientific evidence for intelligent design becomes impressive. Even then, one still has to explain how does intelligent design initiate an information without any previous examples, references, experiences. This, the Quran answers through the phrase 

2:117"badeeu/Innovator and initiator of the heavens and the earth". 

The connotation of the word is that, contrary to all creative endeavours, He creates without any blueprint, preexisting inspiration, experience. He does so through His word "and if HE decreed an order done, He only says be and it is". This is why God is the "best of creators".

This vast universe is a highly complex entity that will keep on evading man's grasp despite his ability to observe it and physically test it. Its complexity is such that God even swears by 

91:5"the building of it"

as denoted with the impersonal "ma". That complexity however does not entail difficulty to Allah, who brought it to existence through His creative word "Be". Neither did the process tire Him in the least. If that is true, as repeatedly affirmed in the Quran, then how relatively insignificant is man's initial creation 79:27? 

These allusions to difficulty and simplicity are all from the human being's viewpoint. The idolaters acknowledged God as the Originator of the Cosmos, and yet denied the concept of resurrection of that same universe, more particularly of mankind. This denial was rooted in the argument of difficulty, complexity 

17:49-51"And they say, "When we are bones and crumbled particles, will we [truly] be resurrected as a new creation?" Say, "Be you stones or iron or whatever you think is harder to bring to life". 

But if, as they thought, God was able to originate creation, then it logically follows it should be easier to repeat that task 30:27. This is clearly speaking from their perspective as is the case in 17:49-51, using an imperfect example that denotes mutability to God; a hard task becoming easier the second time. The Quran denies elsewhere the flawed logical deduction from the point of view of God's might 

50:15"Were We then fatigued with the first creation? Yet are they in doubt with regard to a new creation". 

This is the correct logical way to look at creation vs re-creation from the angle of difficulty. It wasnt hard the first time, why will it be the second time 

46:33"Have they not considered that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth and was not tired by their creation, is able to give life to the dead? Yes indeed, He has surely power over all things". 

Again

31:28"Neither your creation nor your raising is anything but as a single soul" 

Clearly both creation and re-creation are as easy to Allah, the Supreme. 

The verse 30:27 ends by stating that the loftiest example/mathal is with Allah. This is because the previously mentioned example that implies mutability from the human perspective, was an imperfect simile, addressed to imperfect minds that can never grasp the true extent of the divine. No worldly process can accurately describe God's attributes of might and creation. He may give us examples to illustrate how His attributes manifest in our world, but these examples are bound to be deficient, none of them can even come close to describing God's reality 

42:11"nothing is like a likeness of Him".

Further reading on the subject;

- Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Mutability and Imperfection Revisited" (1)

- Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Mutability and Imperfection Revisited" (2) 

- Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Mutability and Imperfection Revisited" (3) 

- Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Mutability and Imperfection Revisited" (4)

The Islam Issue "A grammatical error in Quran 6:151"

The Islam Issue "A grammatical error in Quran 6:151"

Along with not killing one's children for fear of poverty, not committing the fahisha/(anything that is abominable, morally reprehensible, in words or deeds) and not associating with God, voluntarily and benevolent goodness to parents is included amongst the major things that God harrama 6:151. 

h-r-m means forbidding and forbidden to violate as in 7:33 or 22:30,27:91. The context decides and this verse is part of a whole passage listing in total 4 positive and 5 negative commands, as denoted with the jussive mood of the verbs, meaning that rather by starting with the idea that what will follow will be a list of prohibitions, the verse is saying that what will follow are the commands God made inviolable upon Muslims. It is placed among such important bounds forbidden to be transgressed in order to stress its weightiness.

The Islam Issue "Ibn Umar testifies to Quranic corruption"

The Islam Issue "Ibn Umar testifies to Quranic corruption"

Ibn Umar said 

“Let none of you say ‘I have acquired/ahatta the whole of the Qur’an’. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur’an has disappeared/faatahu? Rather let him say ‘I have acquired what has survived/ma tayassara minhu.'” 

This is a blatant mistranslation. The Arabic speaks of knowledge/understanding

 "Let no one say: I have encompassed/understood the whole of the Quran. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Quran escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated (for me to grasp).” 

ibn Umar, to whom the quote belongs, wasnt refering to the Quran's collection. He was from a conservative school of thought in matters of Quranic exegisis, even criticizing ibn Abbas' zeal in commenting the sacred text. That is why he warns against those assuming that they are capable of fully grasping this mighty, intricate and deep word of God.

Further reading answering The Islam Issue "Ibn Umar testifies to Quranic corruption"

- Islam critiqued wakes up with the wrong foot..(variant reading in 65:1)

The Islam Issue "Muhammad explains non-Menstral bleeding"

The Islam Issue "Muhammad explains non-Menstral bleeding"

"Sneezing, drowsing and yawning during prayer, also menstruation/hayd, vomiting and nose bleeding come from the devil". 

Some misleading critics have unfortunately tried associating that hadith, despite its weakness, with the prophet's statement elsewhere in regards to a woman's frequent bleeding. The prophet told her that was not hayd/menstruation. This in itself discards the attempted association of the 2 statements by the critics. 

He further says that this bleeding is from a aarq/vein 

"That is not menstruation, rather that is a vein". 

He is evidently speaking of a ruptured blood vessel. That rupturing, as he says elsewhere is caused by a rakd/running from the womb, not from the devil. The blood from the womb ran fast causing the vein to break 

"That is not menstruation, rather it is a rakd min/from the womb". 

Rakd means running. It has been rendered in some english translations as "kick". This is because the running in concrete is done with the legs that kick the ground, however the word can apply to other things that run, including blood in the veins as is clearly meant here by the prophet.

The Islam Issue "Abu Darda testifies to Quranic corruption"

The Islam Issue "Abu Darda testifies to Quranic corruption"

Scholars contemporary to Uthman, such as Abu ad-darda' made comparative studies between the mushaf of Medina and the others that were dispatched to the provinces to teach people the correct reading. 

The findings revealed no variation in the skeletal structure but a total of 40 single letters differences scattered over 6 mushafs. These 6 mushafs were not private copies based on the ones approved and sent by Uthman, but were the very ones compiled under his watch then dispatched throughout the Muslim territories. This shows that these variants were known and approved. The compilers might have left them in because they agreed with the authenticated prophetic qiraat. This is the view of al Dani who stated that because Uthman could not accomodate all the qiraat in a single mushaf, he spread them throughout the masahif. 

Although the Medina mushaf was lost during the unrest that followed Uthman's assassination, based on the comparative notes left by the scholars that studied it, the present day Quran is in perfect congruence with what has been transmitted to us from the Medina mushaf. 

That is why Uthman is depicted as unbothered by copies based on his standardized text having grammatical flaws in them, to be disseminated because eventually "the Arabs will be able to recite it correctly". Again, this isnt speaking of errors in the script. Uthman would never have allowed such phenomenon be spread under his watch and despite his compilation efforts. These mistakes pertain to recitation. 

It isnt straightforward to grasp for non Arabs but some words if written in accordance with a particular recital can change the structure of that word. For example having 2 dots above a letter in one recital, but 1 dot in another. Or having an added ya at the end of a word. This may confuse the one unfamiliar with that particular recital and trying to read the word. Here is a similar situation 

"When the writing of the Mus-haf was finished, it was brought to ‘Uthmaan and he looked at it, then he said: You have done well. I see something but we will be able to correct it according to our dialect". 

Uthman saw something written differently from the way Quraysh would pronounce it, as happened with the word taaboot, which can be written with 2 different taa. He promised and did correct it according to the dialect of Quraysh.

Further reading answering The Islam Issue "Abu Darda testifies to Quranic corruption";

- Islam critiqued wakes up with the wrong foot...(variant reading of surah layl)

The Islam Issue "Sources of Islam: Quran 18:83-18:102"

The Islam Issue "Sources of Islam: Quran 18:83-18:102"

The Alexander Romances, although often believed by critics of Islam as being the source of the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, has an unclear date of composition, spanning between the 4th and 16th centuries. That is why it is legitimate to speculate that the borrowing charge against the Quran has less ground to stand on than the reverse, with the various authors of the romances actually inspiring themselves throughout time by the Quran and its comentaries.

The Alexander Romances is thought to be based on the lost Greek writing called Pseudo Callisthenes whose closest copy is a 5th century Armenian translation. What is of concern to Islam critics are the shallow and far fetched similarities between the Quran and the Syriac translation, of which no manuscript exists prior to the 18th century, and in which by the way Alexander is never given the title "two horned".

As to the 14th-16th century Ethiopic translation in which he is called "two horned", besides being irrelevant in trying to establish the title by which Alexander was known around the time of the revelation of the sura in 620, it is important noting that this work contains the authors' interpretative opinion and is based on earlier Arabic translations.

But back to the Syriac translation which is of main interest to the accusers.

Although originally believed to have been finalized towards the mid 7th century CE, this Syriac legend of Alexander ends with a passage about the gates built by Alexander and stresses parallels between him and Heraclius, the Byzantine Emperor. More importantly this same passage retrospectively "prophecizes" the invasion of the Huns in 515 CE and the coming of Heraclius in 629 CE, leading scholars to assume the passage is a later addition, written as a Byzantine propaganda shortly before the Muslim conquest of Syria around 634CE. It additionally speaks of an independent and major Arab Kingdom which can only be equated with the early Caliphate. In that conquest the Persians are contrasted with the Sassanids, and the Greeks with the Romans. This pushes the finalization of the passage to post date the revelation of sura Kahf pre-620CE. (as a side note even if one would be to assume the sura is Medinan then the onus is on him to prove it post dates the finalization of the Syriac romance).

Similarily and towards the late 7th century, a Syriac Christian adaption of the Alexander romance, called the Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius, was written as a response to the Muslim invasions equating Gog and Magog with the Muslims. Other factors have led scholars to push the final composition of the passage further to between the 8th and 15th century, as it was clearly reshaped as a means by which the author sought to console, through parallelisms, the Christians who had lost Constantinople to the Ottomans.

In short besides the Armenian translation which was itself reedited in the 13th century, all other versions have their earliest manuscripts post dating the Quran by centuries. This means that all these texts were written in an Islamic environment, including the Armenian translation, which could have affected the later development of the Alexander Romances.

Now although late manuscripts themselves arent problematic, they become so when one attempts establishing a borrowing claim from text to text. Besides the proven additions, it is impossible to determine what the Syriac text looked like towards its earliest potential time of inception, in 629CE. Even if one takes this earliest estimate, it still leaves the Syriac author with long enough time to be exposed to the Quranic Dhul Qarnayn, again revealed pre-620, orally or textually, integrating the Quranic elements so as to fit and embelish the Christian agenda as was done a few decades later in Pseudo-Methodius.

Even Josephus and Jerome's respective works with short passages alluding to a wall built by Alexander are known evolving texts and their earliest manuscripts post date the Quran by hundreds of years, and were both finalized when Pseudo-Methodius had gained sweeping influence accross europe. Finally, there exists zero proof that the similarities between the romances and Dhul Qarnayn were in oral circulation all over the middle East and Europe prior to the revelation of sura kahf circa 620CE while plenty evidence exists pointing to the finalization of all available versions of the romances, more particularily the passages with Quranic similarities, after the revelation of the sura and the spread of Islam.

Even if for argument's sake these traditions were in circulation, then it would still do nothing to undermine the Quran's authenticity. All these sources draw on earlier lost sources, as shown earlier, with the life stories of Cyrus the Great being the main inspiration.

And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties. 

Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations. 

This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.

This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood 

21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me". 

The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdenned with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood. 

Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were cannonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularily the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.

In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism. 

The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There are other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal 

"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads". 

One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.

The Islam Issue "Girls Urine is worse than boys"

The Islam Issue "Girls Urine is worse than boys"

"from Um Qays Ibn Mihsan that she brought a baby boy of her’s who was not yet eating food to the Messenger of Allah (Sallalahu Alayhi Was-Sallam) and he sat him in his arms and he urinated on his garment, so the Messenger of Allah called for some water and sprinkled over it but did not wash it".

This is simple pragmatism. As anyone whose had male children knows, or who was in close contact with them, including while playing, carrying or cleaning them, when they suddenly urinate, the urine generally spreads dropplets on a wide surface. And this is something that happens very often at this stage of their development. Cleaning thoroughly the whole surface everytime, be it one's clothes or other object would be cumbersome. Girls' urine on the other hand tends to spill onto a narrower area, easier to clean, hence the recommendation to clean that specific soiled area thoroughly 

"Water should be sprinkled on the urine of a baby boy, and the urine of a baby girl should be washed away". 

It speaks of washing away the girl's urine, not the entire clothes on which it fell. However when a baby boy starts eating a more varied diet, meaning at a later stage when such urine accidents are less frequent, and that in addition the quantity of urine has increased, then the ruling of conveniency is lifted and a more thorough washing is prescribed.

Further reading on the subject;

Acts17apologetics overly hygienic; Prophet allowed using polluted water?