These articles answer Sam Shamoun "Islam: The Religion of Perfect Submission to Muhammad"
Thursday, November 19, 2020
Sam Shamoun "Muhammad: An Example of Moral Corruption and Sexual Deviancy"
The articles below answer the objections of Sam Shamoun "Muhammad: An Example of Moral Corruption and Sexual Deviancy"
Sam Shamoun "Muhammad’s Neglect and Disdain for the Poor and Ill"
Like the prophets of old, the prophet Muhammad never asked for any compensation or reward for the priceless mission he was undertaking 6:90, his reward being with Allah 34:47. He is told to convey his message in a manner that can never compromise the integrity, honnor, exaltedness of the revelation 80:11-16. This instruction doesnt apply to the message only, but the messenger himself who shouldnt go on beseeching the people, discrediting his own honnor in doing so. In 2:104 believers are urged to approach the Prophet with respect and to subordinate their personal desires and expectations to the commandments of the Faith revealed through him.
These instructions meant at exalting both the message and the message-bearer in the people's eyes is reflected among other places in the command to offer money prior to consulting him
58:12"when you consult the Messenger, then offer something in charity before your consultation; that is better for you and purer; but if you do not find, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful".
That money was to be given in charity, not to him personaly. What the verse also reveals is that precedence is given to the poorest elements of society in approaching and consulting with the prophet since no pre-condition is required of them, contrary to the affluent. Traditions reflect how the injunction reduced the number of requests by the richer elements. Because their objective in approaching him wasnt to seek guidance. Like every materialistic and spiritually deprived individuals, they thought this could be another opportunity to increase their sphere of influence in society, upon a new emerging community. The way they tried to achieve their purpose was by attempting negotiations with the prophet to make him compromise some of his principles with theirs. This was normal in their mind, since to them everything could be bargained, including spiritual and moral values for the sake of material gains. But in this corrupt pursuit, they werent even prepared to step down from their apparent superiority and mingle on an equal footing with the prophet's followers who came from a wide variety of backgrounds. The instruction to give to charity prior to consulting with him was another obstacle as it meant they valued him above their own pride, thus giving them less leverage in negotiations. This lead to less counsels and the purification of the intellectual and social milieu of the Muslim community.
It is to be kept in mind that the prophet was very often denigrated by the affluent because of his mainly poor followers. They would tell him to distance himself from them so that they could approach him
18:28,6:52"And do not drive away those who call their Lord in the morning and the evening, they desire only His favour; neither are you answerable for any reckoning of theirs, nor are they answerable for any reckoning of yours, so that you should drive them away and thus be of the unjust".
At no point however did the prophet do so. Neither do any of those verses hint at him wanting to. These type of verses of which the Quran abounds, admonish Muslims of all times through their prophet in case they are confronted to a similar situation. The commentators have given several different contextual reasons for the revelation of these verses, and all of them having to do with the elite of Mecca coming to him at different times asking for him to dissociate momentarily from his poor followers so that they might sit and listen to his message. In some contexts he is described as internally desiring to do so but was prevented by the descent of revelation upon him. In other contexts he is shown as verbally agreeing with the Meccans until Jibril stopped him. Somewhere else it is Umar who insisted on him doing so just so it can be established whether the Meccans were sincere in their quest for the truth, but later Umar repented when revelation came.
The bottom line to all these stories is that the prophet never turned down his poor assemblies. We see this kind of exegisis in many cases, especially as regards the concept of "occasion of revelation". The companions used to describe the reasons for revelation of the verses in form of stories or events that had occurred during the prophet's time, which are somewhat relevant to the verses without them actually having any connection to the particular story or stories. The companions many times did so while conjecturing on what they imagined the prophet was thinking within himself on those particular occasions, so as to better fit the verses.
Similar story retrospectively applied to the Quran is that of the prophet, once being annoyed (internally, without expressing it verbally) as he was inadvertendly interrupted by a blind man of low social status that approached him for consultation while he was in a dialogue with some influential people 80:1-10.
The prophet was a man of noble character, uninterested in materialistic pursuits as reflected both in the Quran and the traditions, as observed by both his friends and foes
68:4"And most surely you conform (yourself) to sublime morality".
The opening passage of sura abasa, if addressed to the prophet, reveals several things. Firstly, nothing is said of the social level of any of the persons alluded to. Secondly, the high standard of morality required of him as a divine envoy is unlike that of a normal human being; simply frowning from being interrupted, which anyone would usually find annoying, but not even frowning at the person causing the interruption nor did the concerned person notice the frowning, is considered unbefitting of a prophet of God. As noted, the facial expression of the prophet was hardly noticable, much less to the blind person. Which interest did the prophet have in exposing himself to his followers as even mildly, by the most far fetched standards of behavior, as having been inconsiderate, if the incident was known only to him? Also, how would this self-rebuke do anything to enhance his credibility to his detractors, had it been his purpose by integrating it into the Quran, considering that they didnt believe in his prophethood in the first place? Just as they said he was making up revelation before, they would now say he was passing off this rebuke as divinely inspired to look more credible.
The fact is, the Quran was not sent to change the minds of those that werent open to even considering its arguments. It repeatedly tells the prophet to turn away from them after effectively transmitting the warnings. The same observation could be said of other instances that could have remained unknown to the audience, but that the Quran brings to light at the risk of exposing the prophet to the people's antagonizm.
Wednesday, November 18, 2020
Sam Shamoun "Muhammad and the Ten Commandments" (3)
The miraculous victory of Badr greatly troubled the idolators and the Jews of Medina. They felt that their position was now degenerating into one of weakness and isolation. Only 2 years after his migration, the Prophet of God had managed to brake the traditional pattern of power distribution in the desert. The enemies of Islam would meet clandestinely and encourage the composition and recitation of divisive poetry.
Ka'ab ibn Ashraf, a Jewish chieftain of Banu Nadhir, was a poet of considerable fame and he used to recite in the gatherings fiery poems inciting the people to rise up against Islam. This was a clear breeching of the Medina covenant of peace with the Muslims, non partisanship which eachother's enemies. ibn Ashraf's particularity as compared to the other non Muslims and hypocrites that secretly disliked Islam and conspired against it, is that he openly joined the Meccan ranks with whom the community was at war, becoming a propaganda tool that composed eulogies mourning the Meccan chiefs slain in the battle of Badr and defamed Muslim women.
The closest one can come to the kind of impact this kind of poetry had in Arabian tribal life in those days, is to remember the role propaganda played during the world wars of the 20th century, more particularly the 2nd one. The chief propagandists among the Nazis were regarded as top priority targets by Western authorities. The issue here is thus not that of low-level disparaging comments and mockeries, rather the kind of criticism with deadly ramifications. The Quran and hadith contain many instances of the prophet and the Muslims being the targets of mockery and ridicule, both in times of political weakness and strength, yet neither responded in kind nor retaliated violently. The Quran for instance in sura tawba relates how the Medina hypocrites would engage in injurious talk about the prophet, and this at a time where the Muslim community had become powerful. The only response they got from the prophet was that he socially ostracized them, refusing their charity donations, and leaving their fate to Allah in the Hereafter
9:66"If We pardon one faction of you - We will punish another faction because they were criminals".
As to Kaab, his animosity was such that it is said the verse 4:51 speaking of Jews believing in idols alludes to him, when he accompanied a delegation from Medina to Mecca in search of an alliance against the Muslims, and publicly bowed to the idols to reassure the suspecting Quraysh
"Your are people of Scripture and Muhammad has a Scripture and we are not completely sure that this is a scheme that you devised. So if you want us to go along with you, you have to prostrate to these two idols and believe in them".
But being a coward he never attended the battles himself, preferring to plot and incite behind closed doors. His role in galvanizing the Quraysh prior to the battle of Uhud is well known, his wife herself is reported to have warned him that his life was at threat because of his actions. Although the prophet said that Kaab was deserving of being put to death since he should be treated as a combatant, he nevertheless did not plan the execution. It is to be noted that any modern government seeking to preserve the survival of its people in times of war, would look to target specific opponents whose death would have a more significant impact in the long-run in terms of avoiding further bloodshed.
He was thus incited out of his hiding place and killed, which succesfully prevented an all out war with the Bani Nadir. Other opinions say his assassination occured after the battle of Uhud in response to an attempted murder of the prophet.
Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Muhammad and the Ten Commandments"
Sam Shamoun "Muhammad and the Ten Commandments" (2)
Mutah is a form of marriage where the time period is previously agreed upon by both parties. This practice was allowed, some jurist argue temporarily and others that that it is still valid. It is a commitment entailing rights and duties on both consenting parties, as well as clear restrictions. This includes, according to the law schools that still allow it, child support, or the observance of idda by the woman prior to entering into any type of relationship with another person.
This practically destroys the rampant prostitution industry. A prostitute cannot wait for weeks and months between each client. This kind of contract between 2 consenting parties can only be motivated by a mutual desire for physical/emotional affection, not economical considerations. Of course a woman might encounter financial difficulties and be tempted to use a temporary marriage contract to get support from a husband for given time. This then would be similar to a marriage of interest, where true intentions are hidden, and which the woman can end through divorce once her goal is attained. Except that with mutah the timeframe is clearly stipulated, leaving no room for deception. A man will enter into that union, knowing his wife is primarily interested in financial security for a given time. Again, it is a process the woman cannot repeat except 3 menstrual cycles after the end of her marriage. One may come back saying that men arent bound by the iddah, which opens the way for them to have successive and frequent mutah unions. One could of course always find a way to abuse the system, applying it against its spirit whether it is mutah or any other divine directive.
In practice this is only possible in a society that is careless of its sexual morality and the well being of its people. Just as none will marry its daughters to whomsoever desires it, none will accept them doing mutah with the first person that comes. Neither would one accept them going with a serial abuser of marriages/divorces, similarily none would like them being with a serial abuser of mutah. There is no place for frivolity in such unions. The fact is, there are bound to be situations, such as during long travels or exiles, where men and women, married or not, will find themselves needing physical/emotional contact for a time. This was particularily the case during the tumultous years of wars, exiles, uprooting of the early Muslims. Muslim warriors who many times had not seen their wives left behind prior to their migration to Medina, in addition were encamping for weeks in preparation of, and during warfare, and that had now under their wing female captives were allowed to seek by common accord this type of temporary marriage. When that time expires, the 2 are free to part ways or enter into a formal marriage contract.
As appears from the ahadith, one doesnt go to the extent of willing to self-castrate so as to refrain from sex, if the last contact with one's wife was recent
"We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). “Shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment".
The prophet is reported to have recited 5:87 in relation to that ordinance on temporary marriage. The verse warns against transgression in one's enjoyment of the lawful things. The Muslim soldiers didnt have free rein in enjoying sexual contact with their captives. They had to do so, as stated earlier, by way of mutual agreement. The verse 5:87 was recited, but not revealed on that occasion. It was used in other instances to demonstrate a point to the believers. For example with Bilal and Uthman ibn Mazuun who had adopted ascetic lifestyles. The prophet disapproved and told them not to be overzealous in religion to the extent of denying themselves the lawful pleasures of life.
It is easy to speak abstractly of the notion of sexual restraint in all situations when practically, without regulation as in mutah, these situations lead to corrupting both the individual and the society. Men and women who cannot marry for all sorts of personal, circumstancial reasons, or those that want to marry but prefer knowing the future partner intimately first before taking the big leap, will eventually succomb to their desire after some time. Mutah provides regulation in case both are in agreement. Mutah can never be forced on anyone.
The Quran does not explicitly mention the practice, although the general wording in 4:24 can be interpreted as allowing it. Al-Tabari cites different early opinions while concluding himself that it is now impermissible. The verse uses istimtaatum, which can be used for any type of enjoyable relationship, whether permanent or temporary, as well as in contexts unrelated to marriages 46:20. The case that the verse still covers temporary marriages can be seen by the fact that the prophet allowed then disallowed mutah twice in his lifetime (at Khaybar then at conquest of Mecca). This is because there are situations to which it applies and others where it doesnt, as shown earlier. The Muslims relied on the prophet's judgement
"The Messenger of Allah gave permission for Mut'ah, so I and another man went to a woman from Bani 'Amir and offered ourselves to her (for Mut'ah). She said: 'What will you give me?' I said: 'My Rida' (upper garment).' My companion also said: 'My Rida'.' My companion's Rida' was finer than mine, but I was younger than him. When she looked at my companion's Rida' she liked it, but when she looked at me, she liked me. Then she said: 'You and your Rida' are sufficient for me.' I stayed with her for three (days), then the Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever has any of these women whom he married temporarily should let them go".
One therefore can understand why ibn Abbas stuck to the exegetical reading of the verse
4:24"Then as to those whom you profit by (for an appointed time) give them their dowries as is due".
He might have understood the prophet's last ban as circumstantial like the first, while the majority of the companions thought the last ban was permanent.
As a side note, the word mutah is also used in the context of hajj, called hajj altamattu'/mutah of hajj. It allows one to perform umrah (the lesser pilgrimmage) and the complete hajj on the same trip. Some Muslims after the prophet's death were not sure of the permission and thus went to several close companions for inquiry
"Muslim al-Qurri reported: I asked Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) about Tamattu’ in Hajj and he permitted it, whereas Ibn Zubair had forbidden it. He (Ibn ‘Abbas) said: This is the mother of Ibn Zubair who states that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) had permitted it, so you better go to her and ask her about it. He (Muslim al-Qurri said): So we went to her and she was a bulky blind lady and she said: Verily Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted it".
This complete version of the hadith shows what Asma meant when she confirmed the practice of the mutah of women as is found in the shorter version of the hadith in Musnad Abi Dawud.
Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Muhammad and the Ten Commandments"
Sam Shamoun "Muhammad and the Ten Commandments" (1)
The Quran relates how the ISraelites repeatedly asked to see God. This eagerness, described in their own books, to literally see God reflects in the crude and primitive anthropomorphic expressions that abound in the Hebrew writings. At times it would ironically appear that what we have in front of us is man creating God in his own image, likeness and form rather than the other way around Gen1:26.
God for example would speak face to face with Moses Ex33:11,Numbers12:6-8. But knowing the difficulty and incompatibility of promoting monotheism while at the same time having a God incarnate, Jewish scribes have injected the text with many explicit passages in light of which one can interpret the ambiguous ones so as to safeguard the notion of pure monotheism. So although Moses spoke to God face to face, in reality no one can see God's Face Ex33:20, not even Moses who had to be covered and stand away until God passed so he could have a glimpse of God's "back" Ex33:22-23. "panim el panim", which literally means 'face-to-face' becomes an idiom to convey the exclusive closeness and intimate relation Moses had with God with whom he communicated directly, not through dreams, visions or through an angel as He did with all other Israelite prophets.
With those explicit axioms in mind, one can begin understanding why God had to appear to the Israelites through a dark cloud Ex19:9. The purpose was to strengthen the Israelites' trust in Moses by overawing them with this experience
Ex20:20"in order that His awe shall be upon your faces, so that you shall not sin".
The Torah reports the traumatic experience
Ex19:16"thunder claps and lightning flashes, and a thick cloud was upon the mountain, and a very powerful blast of a shofar, and the entire nation that was in the camp shuddered".
The phenomenon of God manifesting Himself in this world clearly is in a non-incarnate sense, rather through actions and at most, dramatic occurences. This dreadful "representation" of God began to instruct the terrified Israelites. But they could not bare seeing and hearing God. Had they be seeing a human incarnation of God, they wouldnt have had any problem. Instead they begged Moses to be their sole intermediary with God, fearing that if the manifestation continued, they would die Ex20:15-21,Deut4:12-13,5:1-5,23-27.
The fear of death for seeing God was apparently deeply instilled into the hearts of the pious Israelities, who knew by experience what had befallen their forefathers who had even so much as asked for it. Gideon thought he would die simply for having seen an angelic messenger in human form Judges6:22-3. Same for Samson's father Judges13:21-22.
Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Muhammad and the Ten Commandments"
Sam Shamoun "Quran’s Multiple Creators: More Proof of Islam’s Triadic Deity"
During Jesus' prophetic mission, the Israelites to whom he was preaching the return to the straight path kept rejecting him, despite the miracles he performed. Some of these miracles the Quran mentions 3:46,49,5:110-114,19:28-34, while the NT ommits
Jn20:30"Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book"
Jn21:25"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written".
The Quran makes it clear, these miracles of Jesus, bringing the dead to life among other things, would not have been possible without God's license. They were performed with the "ithn" of Allah 3:49 which means with His knowledge and approval. Jesus was given whatever abilities he had by God, as a favor 5:110. In fact the Quran connects all the miracles that marked Jesus life, with Allah's permission, as signs meant to distinguish both Jesus and his mother 5:110. God this way defeated in His final revelation and until the resurrection, the slanderous talk of some among Mary's contemporaries and those that followed, who wanted to put a stain on her and abase her. Jesus as well as his mother were chosen to be made jointly, "A" single sign of the power of the Maker and Creator over all things 23:50,21:91. With every miracle Jesus performed by God's permission, it had the double effect of elevating Mary against the slanderers and strengthening Jesus' mission.
But again, these miracles, Jesus did not obtain them on his own and neither could express them except with his Maker's license
40:78"and it was not meet for a messenger that he should bring a sign except with Allah's permission".This message was so embeded in Jesus' teachings that he proclaimed it since infancy and all throughout his prophetic carreer, surprisingly in a wording found almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context
19:36,3:51"Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore worship Him"
Jn20:17"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God".The whole point of the Quran in regards to Jesus is that he was not fully, nor partially God. The reason it lists his miracles is to make it clear they were performed with the permission of other than him. The signs are described as "for you" and "from your Lord". They testify to Jesus' identity, leaving no doubt as to his humanity and prophethood, like others before and after him. It is a message to those conjecturing on his identity due to these very miracles, and trying hard to find a subtext to them in relation to the HB.
Jesus' direct disciples understood well this distinction and never saw him as the originator of miracles; he was but a means of their manifestation. Just as the staff of Moses was, or like every naturally occuring phenomena through which Allah manifests His will. In 5:111-115 Jesus' close circle did not request Jesus to send down a table-spread. Rather they asked him to invoke his Sustainer, if He would consent to this miracle so that their hearts are reassured through it. They knew that this man whom they saw as sent by God, a prophet, was but a means through which God manifested His will.
This reflects in Jesus' own reported sayings in the NT Jn17:6-8,13:3,8:28,5:30,Matt28:17-19,Mk2:10 where he teaches his audience he is given everything and cannot do anything on his own Jn10:25. He further emphasizes this reality by invoking Allah's name during and after the performance of miracles Jn11:40-43. He was fully dependant of God's power when he exorcised demons Lk11:21,Matt12:28. Neither did he forgive sins, but stated a fact, in the passive form "your sins are forgiven".
What happened, by the way to the blood pre-requisite for atonement, allegedly established by Jesus himself since Genesis? Jesus in this statement doesnt take God's place but uses a circumlocution for God: “your sins are forgiven” means “they are forgiven by God” as he said "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” Mk2:5-10. He states himself that he is given that authority. He is authorized to declare forgiveness on God's behalf, the same way priests think they can do. In fact in a passage absent from the oldest manuscripts of Luke over a wide geographical distribution, Jesus while on the cross prays the Father to forgive his killers, instead of forgiving them himself
Lk23:34"Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing".
It is however difficult to blame the branches of Christianity that have misunderstood the NT's sometimes blurred lines between the Creator and His creation.
The transmitted oral traditions of Jesus were put to writing not by Jews like him with a Semitic concept of the Divine but by gentile converts who understood and transmitted these traditions through the lens of their previous Hellenistic thought system. That is why we find "difficult" passages obviously tainted with Roman Mithraism, the likes of Jesus telling regular people that they should strive to become
Matt5:48"perfect just as your father in heaven is perfect".Nothing is more abhorred in Semitic monotheism, of which Jesus was part of, to suggest that the Creator could in any way be brought to the level of his creation.
The unsurmountable difficulty Trinitarians face is that Jesus, contrary to God as depicted throughout the Bible, never asks to be worshiped. This is because he was a prophet, and prophets never departed from the pattern of complete obedience and servitude to the supreme authority that sent them among the people
3:79-80"It is not meet for a mortal that Allah should give him the Book and the wisdom and prophethood, then he should say to men: Be my servants rather than Allah's; but rather (he would say): Be worshippers of the Lord because of your teaching the Book and your reading (it yourselves). And neither would he enjoin you that you should take the angels and the prophets for lords; what! would he enjoin you with unbelief after you are Muslims?"
The long line of prophets supported one another in that principle, never departing from it by virtue of the covenant they had entered into with their Lord
3:81"God made a covenant with the Prophets: “If after what I have vouchsafed to you of the Scriptures and wisdom, there comes to you a messenger confirming the truth of what you have in your possession, you shall believe in him and you shall help him. Do you,” said He, “affirm this and accept the obligation I lay upon you in these terms?” They answered: “We do affirm it.” Said He: ‘Then bear witness, and I am also a witness with you".
Here the Quran overlooks the time intervals which separated the messengers, and groups them all in one majestic scene with God, addressing them all at the same time.
Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Quran’s Multiple Creators: More Proof of Islam’s Triadic Deity"
Sam Shamoun "Allah Promises to Obliterate the Quran"
28:88 comes in the context of Allah's supreme sovereignty. It does not say all things will be destroyed by Allah. It says everything in the heavens and the earth, including those hypotethically close as the polytheists assumed about Allah's partners, or as Christians do in regards to Jesus, Mary, the Holy spirit and other saintly figures, are perishing save His Glorious Self 28:88. This rules out the idea of independant, intrinsic power and will, to any entity in the heavens and the earth, animate or inanimate, that ever existed and that ever will, except for Allah. All things are dependant on Him at each moment of their existence.
55:26-27 speaks of things in our present world.
Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth will be destroyed, including the mother of the book and the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz, it still would not affect Allah's word and speech. These heavenly entities are, just like wordly Quran copies, things on which Allah's word has been reproduced.
Tuesday, November 17, 2020
Sam Shamoun "Another Passage Which Exposes Muhammad’s Fraud: The Samaritan Who Didn’t Exist" (2)
The Quran is indiscriminate in its criticism of those that neglect the divine revelations. It accuses Muslims of holding deep hypocritical belief 2:8-11,4:60-2. They agree that all revelations have brought the truth from God but nevertheless
A statement attributed to ibn abbas says
"seek to rule by the taghut/bad rule".Whenever evil befalls them on account of their distortions, they justify their mishandling the law with concepts alien and in opposition to the Quran, that they were but "peace-makers" seeking to create "good and harmony". These Muslims, like their predecessors among the people of the book, are no true believers unless they surrender their judgement entirely and full heartedly to God's justice and wisdom 4:65. Any other type of reasoning stemming from a non divine source results in falsehood
4:105"Surely We have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught you".Acting contrary to God's instructions is bound to cause failure, first and foremost to the person itself, whether in this world or the next. It is a vain and erroneous pursuit as equally stated in the Hebrew Bible 1Samm12:20-21. That is why the Quran often describes the sinners as
"people who commit injustice against their own selves".
As shown earlier the notion of upholding equity and justice at all costs 4:58 and never knowingly siding with the guilty 4:105-7 was reflected in the orders given to the prophet, to judge equitably between all people approaching him be it from the Muslim munafiqeen (hypocrites) or the people of the book. This is because in Islam good and evil are absolute values. They don’t depend on who does them or who these are done to. Human values apply to all humans, not only to Muslims. The Quran itself enforces that principle, as in the aforementioned verses, or in its examples of relatives of illustrious people who will be judged impartially for their deeds. The prophet himself told his daughter
"O! Fatima, don’t think that you will be favored by Allah because you are the daughter of His Messenger. You will stand before your Creator on the basis of your own deeds".Members of the Jewish community were sent to the prophet Muhammad, by their religious authorities, with a hidden agenda, trying to settle grave disputes in matters heavily punishable in the light of the Torah. This was just another of their ploys to avoid its harsh laws, hoping that the prophet might have a different ruling
"they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious".This compromising, complacent attitude is a deeply ingrained transgression they have been committing ever since the law was bestowed upon them and throughout their history, despite the scolding of the prophets and the few righteous remnants among them whom the Quran mentions and praises
7:169-170"Then there came after them an evil posterity who inherited the Book, taking only the frail good of this low life and saying: It will be forgiven us. And if the like good came to them, they would take it (too). Was not a promise taken from them in the Book that they would not speak anything about Allah but the truth, and they have read what is in it; and the abode of the hereafter is better for those who guard (against evil). Do you not then understand? And as for those who hold fast by the Book and keep up prayer, surely We do not waste the reward of the righteous"
Virtually all prophets that came to them decried the corruption of their elite, their neglect towards their own justice system. Yet the prophet was not under any obligation to judge their matters when their intent was to use him as a pawn for their low desires 5:41-43. The prophet was nevertheless commanded to judge between them with equity should he decide so, notwithstanding their severe enmity towards him and the fact they were always plotting with the enemies of Islam with the hope of uprooting and exterminating it.
One famous incident is that of
"A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess".
According to another version, when the Torah was brought to the prophet who was now seeking to expose the innovations of the rabbis in the specific matter of punishment for adultery, he first respectfully put it on a cushion then said
"I believed in you and in Him Who revealed you".
A holistic understand of both the hadith corpus and the Quran demonstrates that this statement of the prophet is not to be taken in the absolute sense. When in Medina he noticed that Jews would come and read the Torah and explain it to the Muslims, he advised them to adopt a neutral stance, neither believing nor disbelieving in it
"Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' "
This is because the scriptures of the Jews are an amalgam of truth and falsehood, the truthful parts being covered by the statement "whatever is revealed to you". Ibn Abbas would reprimand the Muslims who would seek information from the people of the book in religious matters, on the basis that
"Allah has told you that the people of the scripture changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?"
The Quran, the prophet, the companions therefore all advise caution when approaching the previous scriptures, as they contain both truth, which the prophet confirmed and revered in the aforementioned statements, and falsehood.
The prophet then proceeded with exposing the learned ones by making them read by themselves the truthful part of the Torah which they had been hiding
"Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning".
This hadith depicting the prophet's reverence for the Torah should thus be understood in light of other ahadith, as well as the many Quran passages stating that the Torah isnt absolutely corrupt, that despite the manipulations it still contains remnants of truth, hence the Quran being its guardian/muhaymin. The prophet declared his belief not in the entire Torah, but in the specific ruling on the punishment for adultery, and which Ibn Salam, the Jewish convert to Islam instantly recognized as the "divine verse".
It is this corruption in the absolute sense, which some scholars might have been referring to when they said, while commenting on the above report
"if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you".
This is speaking of complete corruption, which is not what the Muslims believe happened to previous scriptures and traditions. A holistic understand of both the hadith corpus and the Quran demonstrates that this statement of the prophet is not to be taken in the absolute sense. When in Medina he noticed that Jews would come and read the Torah and explain it to the Muslims, he advised them to adopt a neutral stance, neither believing nor disbelieving in it
"Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.' "
This is because the scriptures of the Jews are an amalgam of truth and falsehood, the truthful parts being covered by the statement "whatever is revealed to you". Ibn Abbas would reprimand the Muslims who would seek information from the people of the book in religious matters, on the basis that
"Allah has told you that the people of the scripture changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything?"
The Quran, the prophet, the companions therefore all advise caution when approaching the previous scriptures, as they contain both truth, which the prophet confirmed and revered in the aforementioned statements, and falsehood.
The prophet then proceeded with exposing the learned ones by making them read by themselves the truthful part of the Torah which they had been hiding
"Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning".
In line with the many Quran passages stating that the Torah isnt absolutely corrupt, that despite the manipulations it still contains remnants of truth, hence the Quran being its guardian/muhaymin, the prophet here is declaring his belief not in the entire Torah, but in the specific ruling on the punishment for adultery, and which Ibn Salam, the Jewish convert to Islam instantly recognized as the "divine verse".
It is this corruption in the absolute sense, which some scholars might have been referring to when they said, while commenting on the above report
"if the Torah was corrupted he would not have placed it on the pillow and he would not have said: I believe in you and in the one who revealed you".
This is speaking of complete corruption, which is not what the Muslims believe happened to previous scriptures and traditions.
These scholars also stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115.
Obviously any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words.
The Quran is the speech of Allah, and that speech is with Allah, uncreated, eternal, unchanged like any other attribute of His. The analogy of God's speech to the Quran we touch with our hands or recite from our minds, is as God's mercy which manifests in tangible and abstract things. Both types of manifestations are created means through which God's uncreated attributes of speech and mercy are made known to humans. These attributes arent limited to those particular manifestations
31:27"and If all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea replenished with seven more seas [were ink], the words of Allah would not be spent".
God's speech is therefore unexhaustive. It can potentially bring into existence a limitless number of words of revelation, among them the Hebrew Torah of Moses or the Arabic Quran of Muhammad
14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly".
Allah further states about the revelation to Muhammad, that He
43:3"made it an Arabic Quran".
The eternal speech of Allah takes on in this world the form that is relevant to the divine purpose. The Arabic Quran was thus not continuously spoken since eternity. It is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of speech. Just like we may say a healthy newborn is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of mercy.
Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth are destroyed, including all Torahs and Qurans, the mother of the book that contains all revelations, and even the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz. So long as the potential to generate a true Quran and Torah exists, then Allah's words that were revealed to Moses and Muhammad remain unaffected. As stated earlier, the physical and abstract things in which God's attributes manifest in this world do not exhaust the attributes themselves, neither do these manifestations share the uncreated essence of the attributes they are representing. This is the problem of Trinitarians. Jesus, a created being, is not merely a manifestation of God's word, rather he incarnates it fully, becoming this divine "person" with contradictory attributes Trinitarian thinkers have been struggling to explain for over 2000 years. Christians are quick to try and parallel the notion of uncreatedness of God's speech as manifested in the Quran, with their idea derived from the Gospel of John where God's uncreated word manifested in Jesus. The two concepts, arent comparable. Further, why would trinitarians even need the Quran to explain the logical and philosophical problems of their theology.
Not a single group within Islam says the Quran was a separate entity floating around next to God since eternity past. This is how some Christians, with their trinitarian worldview, misrepresent the statement that the word of Allah is uncreated. In Christianity, the word is not an attribute but a divine person among others like the father and holy spirit, each with distinct attributes. One man with multiple attributes isnt many men just as One God with multiple attributes isnt many gods. This is tawhid. Yet Trinity says each person is divine but with different attributes, resulting in 3 different gods. The analogy Christians attempt between tawhid and trinity stops at the word of God being eternal. Christians made that word a person with attributes among other distinct persons, while Muslims kept the word as an attribute among others within the essence of the One God. As an aside, since the word or speech of God is not an attribute within the divine essence but a separate divine entity along with 2 others, does it mean that only this divine entity called "word or speech" has the ability to speak and that the other 2 divine entities are mute?
If God's word is a separate divine entity that became flesh in Jesus, what about the words uttered by Jesus who is now divine? Are his words separate divine entities? Further, if the Torah is God's word, as Jews and Christians believe, does that make it divine as Jesus is? These are the kinds of problems Trinitarians are entangled with due to their conjectures on ambiguous matters, instead of relying on firm statements on God's oneness and unity. Muslims on the other hand, despite the early disputes as to whether the Quran was created or not, never went out of the way to declare the attributes of God, like His word, separate divine entities. No Muslim ever believed God's speech to be a separate conscious part. The reason why this issue is often brought up by Trinitarians is that the Quran is the only book that claims to be Allah's direct speech. The Bible doesnt make that claim. The closest one finds is an anonymous claim made about Jesus being God's word. Muslims on the other hand stick to clear and firm statements of scriptures to define their cardinal beliefs, including that "nothing is like a likeness of Him".
“No one can corrupt the text by removing any of Allah’s words from his Books, but they corrupted it by misinterpreting it”.
This is a known defective narration and is not even a commentary on verse 2:79 speaking of textual corruption. It is in reference to the verse about the preserved heavenly tablet, where all the revealed scriptures are inscribed. None can change the words therein but only twist their meaning. In an authentic hadith however, Ibn Abbas said 2:79 was in reference to the people of the book corrupting the words of their scriptures that are in their hands. Objectively speaking anyone can remove and alter words from any text at any point in time. And if that is done when not enough human and textual witnesses can independently detect that corruption, then it can easily be disseminated and passed off as true. That is what happened during the successive destructions of the Israelite nation, followed by the attempts of their scribes to re-write what was lost.
While agreeing with that opinion, al-Razi said
"It is impossible to have a conspiracy to change or alter the word of God in all of these copies without missing any copy. Such a conspiracy will not be logical or possible".
Al-Razi here is talking of a time when previous scriptures, although in their corrupt state (see his commentary on 5:41), were already widely disseminated and could be independently attested by countless witnesses. Nobody could remove Allah's word nor any other man-made word from it then, without being detected. Corruption of the Torah at that point became only possible through misinterpretation.
Similarly, some stated that the Torah cannot be corrupted, based on the verse saying God's words cannot be changed 6:115. Again, any worldly copy of the Torah can be altered. But so long as there exists the possibility for the original to be reproduced, God's words remain unaffected, only the copy of these words.
Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Another Passage Which Exposes Muhammad’s Fraud: The Samaritan Who Didn’t Exist"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)