The Masked Arab and The Dunning Kruger Effect, Does Chapter 18 Expose Muhammad?

(English isn't my first language so i might make grammatical mistakes)

Introduction:

I’ve dealt with the masked arab several times before, but since I have tackled issues related to chapter 18 of the Quran, I decided to wrap it up and make one last reply to the issue related to chapter 18, and what better to start it that the very video that started the hole discussion by the masked arab, the masked arab has wasted 3:51 minutes of his video dealing with incoherent arguments and red herrings regarding Muhammad allegedly running away from challenges, even though what the masked arab have done is a red herring fallacy and has nothing to do with the topic, even he admitted that, but I couldn’t fathom that he didn’t cite the context of each verse where Muhammad allegedly run away from challenges, I shall deal now with his instruction

Although this entire segment can be ignored duo to the fact that it has nothing to contribute to the subject, feel free to ignore it and jump to Issue#2 and beyond

There are Two Main Issues in his video that forced me to make this article, the claim that Muhammad ran away for 15 days with no answer and complained to Gabriel, and the so called Ibn mas’ud manuscript, please keep that in mind, since it’s my main argument and the cornerstone of my article and his video that he base all of the verses of the seven sleepers all depends on the so called narration the following in Issue#1 are not my main arguments, but rather my objections

If I made any mistake or an error, please advise me in it, in a form of a civilized reply, any insulting and mocking reply won’t be allowed, don’t act as a child

If there is any weak narration within the tafsirs I will cite then please notify me of it, I will edit it out

What it needs to be meet:

In order for the masked arab to provide concrete evidence and fixed interpretation that is agreed upon scholars, he have to provide evidence that his interpretation is used by all tafsirs and not a single contradiction should exist, please keep this in mind , this is very critical for the entire article, and this response won’t be effective so as his video if we see scholars agreeing and have general consensus regarding said interpretation, any disagreement regarding a verse or an interpretation will render the masked arab claims are purely moot

Please keep this in mind, this is very critical, if you gonna claim that said interpretation and meaning is fixed and objective, then you better bring evidence for it

Issue#1:

Right at @00:6 the masked arab claims that Chapter 18 shows Muhammad to be just another false prophet, he already jumped into the conclusion without presenting evidence for his hypothesis, but let’s ignore this for now

@00:26 the masked arab claim that so far Muhammad has so far brushed off any demand to prove his prophethood, this is a claim that requires citation

The masked Arab start with the verse

3:183:

[They are] those who said, "Indeed, Allah has taken our promise not to believe any messenger until he brings us an offering which fire [from heaven] will consume." Say, "There have already come to you messengers before me with clear proofs and [even] that of which you speak. So why did you kill them, if you should be truthful?"

The Masked arab claimed that this is a Non sequitur, the masked arab state that Muhammad is saying “look I’m not going to do that because your ancestors killed prophets before me”

Non Sequitur

When a conclusion is supported only by extremely weak reasons or by irrelevant reasons, the argument is fallacious and is said to be a Non Sequitur. However, we usually apply the term only when we cannot think of how to label the argument with a more specific fallacy name. Any deductively invalid inference is a non sequitur if it also very weak when assessed by inductive standards.

Example:

Nuclear disarmament is a risk, but everything in life involves a risk. Every time you drive in a car you are taking a risk. If you're willing to drive in a car, you should be willing to have disarmament.

The following is not an example: "If she committed the murder, then there'd be his blood stains on her hands. His blood stains are on her hands. So, she committed the murder." This deductively invalid argument uses the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, but it isn't a non sequitur because it has significant inductive strength.[1]

Let us examine what the verse is saying using the following premises

·         "Indeed, Allah has taken our promise not to believe any messenger until he brings us an offering which fire [from heaven] will consume."

·         Muhammad said "There have already come to you messengers before me with clear proofs and [even] that of which you speak. So why did you kill them, if you should be truthful?"

By the above two sentences we see the verse is derived of one claim and the second sentence is a question

Non sequitur fallacy requires at least two premises claims, then followed by a conclusion that doesn’t logically follow the previous premises, what the masked arab is claiming is that Muhammad here has committed the non sequitur fallacy, however This is a strawman fallacy, at no point does the verse make such statement, I don’t even need to use the tafsirs to explain that, anyone with an average IQ can see it, Muhammad was questioning the integrity of the Jews, not that he is saying he won’t do it, at no point does the verse make such statement, even if Muhammad was making such statement this is not a non sequitur fallacy as Muhammad is not making any conclusion based on any premise, however the masked arab does this without citing any tafsir any explanation, it seems that he only does such thing when it suits his convenient, however, how is this a non sequitur is beyond me, the verse state as follows

The Jews claimed that they won’t believe in a prophet unless he showed a sign

Muhammad asked (not concluded) that they killed the prophets before him even when they showed them signs that they believed in, so how can he trust them?

In conclusion, Muhammad is stating how could he convince them if they simply kill those who show them signs that they believed in, this is Not a non sequitur, non sequitur is the conclusion that doesn’t follow the previous premises, this just demonstrate the masked arab lack of knowledge in logical fallacies, what he did here is a strawman fallacy, Muhammad in this verse is not making any conclusion based on premises earlier , but he is questioning their integrity and honesty regarding the issue

However, let us see what major Tafsirs have said regarding this verse

“فقال الله تعالـى لنبـيه مـحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم: { أَن لا نُؤْمِنَ لِرَسُولٍ حَتَّىٰ يَأْتِيَنَا بِقُرْبَانٍ تَأْكُلُهُ ٱلنَّارُ قُلْ قَدْ جَاءكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِّن قَبْلِى بِٱلْبَيّنَـٰتِ } يعنـي: بـالـحجج الدالة علـى صدق نبوتهم وحقـيقة قولهم؛ { وَبِٱلَّذِى قُلْتُمْ } يعنـي: وبـالذي ادّعيتـم أنه إذا جاء به لزمكم تصديقه، والإقرار بنبوّته من أكل النار قربـانه إذا قرّب لله دلالة علـى صدقه؛ { فَلِمَ قَتَلْتُمُوهُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَـٰدِقِينَ } يقول له: قل لهم: قد جاءتكم الرسل الذين كانوا من قبلـي بـالذي زعمتـم أنه حجة لهم علـيكم، فقتلتـموهم، فلـم قتلتـموهم وأنتـم مقرّون بأن الذي جاءوكم به من ذلك كان حجة لهم علـيكم إن كنتـم صادقـين فـي أن الله عهد إلـيكم أن تؤمنوا بـمن أتاكم من رسله بقربـان تأكله النار حجة له علـى نبوته؟”[2]

Translation:

And God Almighty said to his Prophet {Indeed, Allah has taken our promise not to believe any messenger until he brings us an offering which fire [from heaven] will consume." Say, "There have already come to you messengers before me with clear proofs} meaning evidence that shows their prophethood and the truth of what they say , {and [even] that of which you speak} meaning even with what you demanded that if it was revealed you will believe and admit his prophethood  of those who brought an offering which fire [from heaven] will consume as evidence for their honesty {why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?} he tells him to ask them, other prophets before came onto you with evidence of what you demanded, but you killed them, so why did you kill them if you acknowledge of what they brought of evidence if you were truthful that Allah took a promise from you not to believe in an messenger unless He showed you a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven). As evidence for his prophethood?

This is clearly a strawman committed by the masked arab, Muhammad is not making any form of conclusion here to follows that he can use the non sequitur fallacy, he is testing their honesty

Example:

John claim that he will believe in empirical evidence when he sees it, but he is known to ignore it and stray away from it, jack claims that he is a messenger

Johan says “I won’t believe it unless you bring empirical evidence”

Jack replies “why then did you ignore all those people before me who showed you empirical evidence and you run away?”

Here this is not a non sequitur but begging the Question, this is jack testing the honest of John beliefs

We are already a minute in and the masked arab strawmaned the Quran

@01:25 the masked arab cite the Quranic verse 6:8

“And they say, "Why was there not sent down to him an angel?" But if We had sent down an angel, the matter would have been decided; then they would not be reprieved.”

The masked arab later on state that this is yet another “ridiculous excuse” for not providing a miracle, what the masked arab seems to imply is that here god won’t send down an angle because Muhammad is incapable of providing a miracle or that god Can’t send down an angle, if this is what is seems to be his argument then he just misquoted the verse, because the later verse clearly state that god can send down an angle

He also claim that the commentary of the tafsirs , it claim that if we send a sign they have to belive imidiatly otherwise they have to be destroyed , then go forth and claim this is what the tafsirs agree upon, now that is what I call a ridicules midquotations, why didn’t he cite the rest of the tafsirs that clearly shows different interpertations?

حدثني محمد بن عمرو، قال: ثنا أبو عاصم، قال: ثنا عيسى، عن ابن أبي نجيح، عن مجاهد، في قول الله تعالى: { لَوْلا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ مَلَكٌ } في صورته، { وَلَوْ أنْزَلْنَا مَلَكا لَقُضِيَ الأمْرُ } لقامت الساعة.[3]

Translation:

Muhammad bin ‘Amru said: Abu ‘sam said: Isa said: from ibn abi Najih from Mujahid in god’s words { And they say, "Why was there not sent down to him an angel?"} in his image {, the matter would have been decided; then they would not be reprieved} meaning , the judgment day will come.

So we see here a tafsir claiming that this could also mean judgment day, not punishing them persay

حدثنا أبو كريب، قال: ثنا عثمان بن سعيد، قال: أخبرنا بشر، عن عمار، عن أبي روق، عن الضحاك، عن ابن عباس، قوله: { وَلَوْ أنْزَلْنَا مَلَكا لَقُضِيَ الأمْرُ ثُمَّ لا يَنْطُرُونَ } قال: لو أتاهم ملك في صورته لماتوا.[4]

Translation:

Abu Karib told us: Uthman bin Sa’id told us, Bashir told us, from ‘amar, from abi rooq, from Dahaq, from Ibn Abbas, god’s words { And they say, "Why was there not sent down to him an angel?" But if We had sent down an angel, the matter would have been decided; then they would not be reprieved} said : if he brought an angle in his image they would have died.

So here we have another intended meaning to the word Qadiah al amir

We have here multiple interpretation, first one cited by the masked arab is that they will be destroyed, the sound one state the judgment day will come, and the third one state that they would have died

So why did he pick the first one? Surly he checked multiple tafsirs and commentaries for that matter

However as I stated, verse 6:9 does lay down that god can send down an angle

6:9:

And if We had made him an angel, we would have made him [appear as] a man, and We would have covered them with that in which they cover themselves.

According to Tafsir Al-Tabari

“حدثنا أبو كريب، قال: ثنا عثمان بن سعيد، قال: ثنا بشر بن عمار، عن أبي روق، عن الضحاك، عن ابن عباس: { ولَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ مَلَكاً لَجَعَلْناه رَجُلاً } يقول: ما أتاهم إلا في صورة رجل، لأنهم لا يستطيعون النظر إلى الملائكة. [5]”

Translation:

Abu Kareib told us he said: Uthman bin Sa’ed said: Bashir bin ‘Amar from Abi Ruq from Dahak From ibn Abbas: {And if We had made him an angel, We would have made him [appear as] a man} he says: he will only show up in the image of a man because they can’t see angles

This doesn’t mean Muhammad is making an excuse for not providing a miracle, the verse is saying that even if we bring down an angle they won’t believe it and they shall bare punishment we shall explore at the end of the article several sources that shows Muhammad answering challenges and providing proofs of his prophethood

Of course I could be wrong here in what I assumed the masked arab is claiming regarding if Muhammad won’t provide a miracle or that allah won’t send an angle

Later on the masked arab cite 6:37

“And they said: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord'' Say: "Allah is certainly able to send down a sign, but most of them know not”

The masked arab state that this is a nonsense response, again tafsirs are required

If we check what Jami’ Albaian Fi Tafsir Al-Quran, it makes the following statement

“وكان هذا منهم تعنتاً بعد ظهور البراهين؛ وإقامة الحجة بالقرآن الذي عجزوا أن يأتوا بسورة مثله، لما فيه من الوصف وعلم الغيوب. { وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ } أي لا يعلمون أن الله عز وجل إنما ينزل من الآيات ما فيه مصلحة لعباده؛ وكان في علم الله أن يخرج من أصلابهم أقواماً يؤمنون به ولم يرد ٱستئصالهم. وقيل: { وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ } أن الله قادر على إنزالها. [6]”

Translation:

This is just an intransigent from their side after all the evidence that was presented , and establishing the proof with the Quran that they were unable to bring one like it, for all the things in it from description and the science of the unknown { but most of them know not} meaning that they don’t know that God only send down verses that has special benefit for his slaves, and one of the sings of god knowledge is to bring among them people who believe in him and he didn’t desire to separate them and what is meant :{ but most of them know not} that God is able to bring forth such signs

This tafsir clearly state that signs and evidence was already presented to them, yet they were stubborn not to believe in them, why would the masked arab cite verses without tafsirs at one point, then use tafsirs at another when it suits his convenient?

He states the following “if you look at some of the commentaries they will suggest this knowledge is the fact that if they see a miracle and they still don’t believe it they will have to be destroyed as a people” citation needed, where are these commentaries?

This tafsir cited about claim that evidence were already presented, and they were stubbern not to belive in it, why didn’t the mask arab use this tafsir?

Tafsir Al-Tabari lays down another commentary

والآية العلامة، وذلك أنهم قالُوا: ما لِهَذَا الرَّسُولِ يأْكُلُ الطَّعَامَ وَيْمشِي فِي الأسْوَاقِ لَوْلاَ أُنْزِلَ إلَيْهِ مَلَكٌ فيكونَ مَعَهُ نَذِيراً أوْ يُلْقَى إلَيهِ كَنْزٌ أوْ تَكُونُ لَهُ جَنَّةٌ يأْكُلُ مِنْها.[7]

Translation:

And the verse is a sign, and that they said: what is this prophet eating food and walk in the market? If god has sent down an angle then he could be with him as an advicer or, bring down upon him a tressor, or heaven he eats from

That is an odd interpretation by al tabari, it seams that he is suggesting here is that the polytheists where asking why not god send down an angle to accomedate Muhammad in his daily tasks and spoil him with food?

Not to send down an angle as an evidence

As we can see, there are multible interpretation to this verse and what it actually means, there is no fixed interpretation agreed upon by all tafsirs, let us check another one, Jami Ahkam Al-Quran by Qurtubi

وكان هذا منهم تعنتاً بعد ظهور البراهين؛ وإقامة الحجة بالقرآن الذي عجزوا أن يأتوا بسورة مثله، لما فيه من الوصف وعلم الغيوب[8]

This was an Intransigent after all the evidence that was presented, and arguments from Quran that they were unable to bring forth a chapter like it, because of the linguistic style in it, and the knowledge of the unknown

Another tafsir that seems to suggest that evidence was already presented to them

@02:20

The masked arab cite the verse 8:31-33

{And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this. This is not but legends of the former peoples.", And [remember] when they said, "O Allah , if this should be the truth from You, then rain down upon us stones from the sky or bring us a painful punishment.", But Allah would not punish them while you, [O Muhammad], are among them, and Allah would not punish them while they seek forgiveness.}

He claims that this is another “poor excuse” and state if allah is capable of anything couldn’t he use laser like technology at his disposal

Is this supposed to be a joke? Laser guided system? He states that they were not asking for forgiveness but they were challenging him and mocking him

Please citation is needed

In regards to his response to the muslims who claim that the quran is a masterpiece in Arabic, he cited the earlier notion in the verse {And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this. This is not but legends of the former peoples."}

yet again a tafsir is required so let us examine it

In Jami’ Ahkam Al-Quran

" نزلت في النَّضر بن الحارث؛ كان خرج إلى الحِيرة في التجارة فاشترى أحاديث كَلِيلة ودِمنة، وكِسرى وقيصر؛ فلما قصّ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخبار من مضى قال النضر: لو شئت لقلت مثل هذا. وكان هذا وَقاحة وكذِبا. وقيل: إنهم توهموا أنهم يأتون بمثله، كما توهّمت سحرة موسى، ثم راموا ذلك فعجزوا عنه وقالوا عِناداً: إن هذا إلا أساطير الأوّلين." [9]

Translate:

This was revealed in regards to Nazir bin Harist, he was outside to al-hira in a market so he bought weak and corrupted hadits, so when the prophet Muhammad told stories of the old al Nazir said: if I wish I could say just like that, and this was foolishness and lies from him, and it was told that they were deluded into thinking that they can bring like it just like how the wizards of Moses where deluded when they throw their sticks and was unable to bring forth like what he did and remained stubborn and said : { This is not but legends of the former peoples}.

This is actually kinda embarrassing to Nazir bin Harith which we will deal with him later, instead of bringing hadiths of his own, he had to buy them, and he even bought weak ones

We will deal with him and his alleged murder shortly

But, Tafsir Al-Tabari gives us a different account, but also include Nazir Bin Harith

حدثنا القاسم، قال: ثنا الـحسين، قال: ثنـي حجاج، قال: قال ابن جريج، قوله: { وَإذَا تُتْلَـى عَلَـيْهِمْ آياتُنا قالُوا قَدْ سَمِعْنا لَوْ نَشاءُ لَقُلْنا مِثْلَ هذَا } قال: كان النضر بن الـحرث يختلف تاجراً إلـى فـارس، فـيـمرّ بـالعبـاد وهم يقرءون الإنـجيـل، ويركعون ويسجدون. فجاء مكة، فوجد مـحمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم قد أنزل علـيه وهو يركع ويسجد، فقال النضر: قد سمعنا، لو نشاء لقلنا مثل هذا للذي سمع[10]

Translation:

Al-Qasim told us: he said Hussain told us, he said Hajaj told us, he said ibn Jarir told us I regards to {And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this. This is not but legends of the former peoples."} said: Nazir bin Hartih was a merchant on his way to Persia, so he came accurse Christians reading the gospel and kneeing down in worship, so he came back to meccah and saw Muhammad was receiving revelation and kneeing down and worshiping, so Nazir said: we heard, and if we desired we can say the same to this

Another interpretation to the story, here we see nazir seems to think Muhammad is worshiping and doing the same prostration as the Christians he observed doing, therefore he stated that he could do the same and this is nothing special

So at one tafsir we see him buy weak hadiths, and in another we have another tafsir state that he saw Christians bowing down and worshiping like Muhammad

Which one is correct? As we can see there are multible interpretation to the story yet again, yet the masked arab treat it like all tafsirs agree upon his interpretation

The masked arab state “why would any just and fair god demand people to believe without evidence?”

But as we examined the hadiths shortly Muhammad did provide evidence so why is the masked arab now forgetting the main plot of the conversation

@03:05 the masked arab claim that muslims often claim the quran is a masterpiece in Arabic, then he cites 8:31 claiming from the text “We have heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this. This is not but legends of the former peoples” he interpret it as somehow this is referring to the linguistic ability of the Quran, however this is yet another strawman, what the verse is referring is stories, Not the linguistic and grammar of the Quran persay , this is a reference to the stories of the old, not the ability of the people to produce one chapter with better linguistic style

Issue#2:

@04:10 finally we entire the main plot of the video @04:21 the masked arab claim that Al-Nadir was skeptical of Muhammad and caused him embarrassment and when the muslims caught him he was executed, of course this is a lie and of course the masked arab doesn’t provide sources for it, he later on claim that Nadir was educated, yet he cites no sources no references for such claim, but I shall deal with all that at the end of this article

@04:51-6:30 the masked arab cite an English translation of the occurrence between Al-nadir and the jews

He claims that at the end muhmmad was made to look frustrated because he was presented to be like a fraud, what puzzles me is that he didn’t bother to check the sanad  for the narration

However, I was able to gain full access to the entire chain of narration regarding the story

“وَأَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْعَبَّاسِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْجَبَّارِ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا يُونُسُ بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ إِسْحَاقَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنِي رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ مَكَّةَ ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ جُبَيْرٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ : " أَنَّ مُشْرِكِي قُرَيْشٍ بَعَثُوا النَّضْرَ بْنَ الْحَارِثِ ، وَعُقْبَةَ بْنَ أَبِي مُعَيْطٍ إِلَى أَحْبَارِ الْيَهُودِ بِالْمَدِينَةِ ، وَقَالُوا لَهُمْ : سَلُوهُمْ عَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ ، وَصِفُوا لَهُمْ صِفَتَهُ ، وَأَخْبِرُوهُمْ بِقَوْلِهِ فَإِنَّهُمْ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ الأَوَّلِ وَعِنْدَهُمْ عِلْمُ مَا لَيْسَ عِنْدَنَا مِنْ عِلْمِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ ، فَخَرَجَا حَتَّى قَدِمَا الْمَدِينَةَ ، فَسَأَلُوا أَحْبَارَ الْيَهُودِ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ؟ وَوَصَفُوا لَهُمْ أَمَرَهُ بِبَعْضِ قَوْلِهِ ، فَقَالَتْ لَهُمْ أَحْبَارُ يَهُودَ : سَلُوهُ عَنْ ثَلاثٍ نَأْمُرُكُمْ بِهِنَّ ، فَإِنْ أَخْبَرَكُمْ بِهِنَّ فَهُوَ نَبِيٌّ مُرْسَلٌ ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَفْعَلْ فَالرَّجُلُ مُتَقَوِّلٌ فَرَوْا فِيهِ رَأْيَكُمْ ؛ سَلُوهُ عَنْ فِتْيَةٍ ذَهَبُوا فِي الدَّهْرِ الأَوَّلِ مَا كَانَ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ، فَإِنَّهُ كَانَ لَهُمْ حَدِيثٌ عَجِيبٌ ، وَسَلُوهُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ طَوَّافٍ قَدْ بَلَغَ مَشَارِقَ الأَرْضِ وَمَغَارِبَهَا ، وَمَا كَانَ نَبَؤُهُ ؟ وَسَلُوهُ عَنِ الرُّوحِ مَا هُوَ ؟ فَأَقْبَلَ النَّضْرُ وَعُقْبَةُ حَتَّى قَدِمَا مَكَّةَ عَلَى قُرَيْشٍ ، فَقَالا : يَا مَعْشَرَ قُرَيْشٍ ، قَدْ جِئْنَاكُمْ بِفَصْلِ مَا بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ ، قَدْ أَمَرَنَا أَحْبَارُ يَهُودَ أَنْ نَسْأَلَهُ عَنْ أُمُورٍ ، فَأَخْبَرُوهُمْ بِهَا ، فَجَاءُوا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالُوا : يَا مُحَمَّدُ ، أَخْبِرْنَا ، فَسَأَلُوهُ عَمَّا أَمَرُوهُمْ بِهِ ؟ فَقَالَ لَهُمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : أُخْبِرُكُمْ بِمَا سَأَلْتُمْ عَنْهُ غَدًا ، وَلَمْ يَسْتَثْنِ ، فَانْصَرَفُوا عَنْهُ ، فَمَكَثَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَمْسَ عَشْرَةَ لَيْلَةً لا يُحْدِثُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ فِي ذَلِكَ وَحْيًا ، وَلَمْ يَأْتِهِ جِبْرِيلُ حَتَّى أَرْجَفَ أَهْلُ مَكَّةَ ، وَقَالُوا : وَعَدَنَا مُحَمَّدٌ غَدًا ، وَالْيَوْمُ خَمْسَ عَشْرَةَ قَدْ أَصْبَحْنَا فِيهَا لا يُخْبِرُنَا بِشَيْءٍ مِمَّا سَأَلْنَاهُ عَنْهُ حَتَّى أَحْزَنَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مُكْثُ الْوَحْيِ عَنْهُ ، وَشَقَّ عَلَيْهِ مَا يَتَكَلَّمُ بِهِ أَهْلُ مَكَّةَ ، ثُمَّ جَاءَهُ جِبْرِيلُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ مِنَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِسُورَةِ أَصْحَابِ الْكَهْفِ فِيهَا مُعَاتَبَتُهُ إِيَّاهُ عَلَى حُزْنِهِ[11]”

Translation:

Abu ‘ubain told us said: abu Al-Abass Abu Muhammad bin Ya’qub said, we were told by Ahmed bin abduljabar he said: Yunis bin Bukair told us, from Ibn Ishaq , said : I was told by some man from the people of Makkah, from su’ad bin Jubair, from Ibn Abass said : the polytheists of Quraish sent Nazir Bin Harith, and Uqbah bin Abi Mu’et to the Jewish rabbis in Madinah and said to them, ask them about Muhammad, describe him to them, and tell them what he says, for they are the first people of the scriptures and have knowledge which we do not possess about the prophets, they carried out their instructions, and went to the jews and described his manner to them by using some of his words, so the jewish rabbis asked them, ask him about three things of which we will instruct you, if he answer them correctly he is a prophet, and if he don’t , then he is a rogue, so form your own opinion about him, ask him what happened to the young men who disappeared in ancient days, ask him about the mighty traveler who reached the confines of both east and west, ask him what the spirit is , then Nazir and Uqbah returned to Quraish at mekkah and told them that they had a decisive of dealing with Muhammad, and they told them about the three questions, they came to the apostle and called upon him to answer these Questions , he said to them “I will give you the answer tomorrow” but he didn’t say “if god will” so they went away; and the apostle, so they say waited for fifteen days without a revelation from God on the matter, nor did Gabriel came to him, so the people of mekkah began to spread evil reports saying “Muhammad promised us an answer on the morrow and today is the fifteenth day we have remained without an answer” this delay caused the apostle great sorrow, until Gabriel brought him the chapter of the cave, in which he reproaches him for his sadness

Now you might have noticed that I highlighted two parts of the story, one is a name the other is a description, these are the flaws in the sanad

The first one Ahmed bin abduljabar is regarded as weak[12]

(ضعيف الحديث) translation: Weak in Hadith

Therefore, the narration is rejected, however, the second one is interesting as it says just a random man narrated it aswell, so we have a weak narrator, and an unknown source that is narrating the story, and the unknown narrator is not accepted

" الثامنة : في رواية المجهول ، وهو في غرضنا هاهنا أقسام :

( أحدها ) : المجهول العدالة من حيث الظاهر والباطن جميعا ، وروايته غير مقبولة عند الجماهير على ما نبهنا عليه أول"[13]

Translation:

Eighth: in the narration of the unknown and here are some sections regarding it

(one of them): the unknown in narration from interior and exterior, his narration is Not accepted among the overwhelming majority of scholars as we first noted

So as we can see we have an unknown narrator since this man name is not known, therefore he is not accepted

Possible counter argument from polemicist and fans of the masked arab

“but the books of Tafsirs contain these narrations, like Tafsir Al-tabari and so on, therefore it must be correct”

This argument is an appeal to authority fallacy, just because an Figure of authority mentions it doesn’t make it right, on top of that, scholars have acknowledged that the books of Tafsirs Do contain weak and fabricated narrations

" قال ابْنُ الكمال: { كتب التفسير مشحونة بالأحاديث الموضوعة }"[14]

Translation:

Ibn Kamal said: the books of Tafsirs are filled with Hadiths that are Maudu’a

“قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية:

} وهذه الكتب التي يسميها كثير من الناس كتب التفسير فيها كثير من التفسير منقولات عن السلف مكذوبة عليهم ، وقول على الله ورسوله بالرأي المجرد ، بل بمجرد شبهة قياسية أو شبهة أدبية }”[15]

Translation:

Ibn Taimia said:

And these books that a lot of people call the book of Tafsirs, has a lot of narrations from the old people that are lied to them, and mere words on Allah and his apostle, but just a calculated or poetic allegation

So as we can see, not everything mentioned in the books of Tafsirs is correct, and we shall see in an example in tafsir al tabari regarding the alleged ibn mas’ud manuscript

Issue#3:

@06:43 the masked arab that Quran 19:64 was the response of Gabriel and he claimed that it made it’s way into the Quran, what he seems to imply that this is not the word of god, but the word of Gabriel directly, again not surprisingly the masked arab cited no sources no reference for any of his claims

And claimed that muslims think the Quran is the literal word of god in every letter, I have not seen any evidence for such claim nor did the masked arab presented such, the muslims claim the Quran is god words not god literal words, you still have speeches and quotes god is citing from the mouth of the likes of Isa when god asked him if he told people to worship him and his mother, of course isa reply is directly mentioned in the Quran, is this reply god words? Or isa words?

How do you know that these are the conscious words of Gabriel and not Gabriel directly responding from god , or Gabriel inspired by god? Similar to how the Gospels are inspired by god?

if we visit the Tafsirs, such as Tafsir Al-Tabari , it seems to imply that this was a verse revealed , and not direct words from Gabriel

“حدثنا أبو كريب ، قال : ثنا عبد الله ، قال : ثنا عبد الله بن أبان العجلي ، وقبيصة ووكيع ; وحدثنا سفيان بن وكيع قال : ثنا أبي ، جميعا عن عمر بن ذر ، قال : سمعت أبي يذكر عن سعيد بن جبير ، عن ابن عباس ، أن محمدا قال لجبرائيل : "ما يمنعك أن تزورنا أكثر مما تزورنا" فنزلت هذه الآية ( وما نتنزل إلا بأمر ربك له ما بين أيدينا وما خلفنا وما بين ذلك وما كان ربك نسيا ) قال : هذا الجواب لمحمد صلى الله عليه وسلم”[16]

Translation:

Abu Kreb, said: we were told by Abdullah, he said, Abdullah bin Aban Al-Ajali told us, and Qubaisa and Waki’; we were told by Sufian bin Waqi’ said: we were told by my father, all of them from Umar bin Nathir, Said : I heard my father mention from Su’aid bin Jarir, from Ibn Abass, that Muhammad said ones to Gabriel “what prevented you from visiting us ?” then this verse was revealed (And we [angels] descend not except by the order of your Lord. To Him belongs that before us and that behind us and what is in between. And never is your Lord forgetful) he said: this was the answer to Muhammad peace be upon him

So it states that this verse was revealed directly not as words of Gabriel first then inserted later to the Quran

So again my question is, how do you know that this was not Gabriel inspired by god?

However I find it interesting how the masked arab view the Quran, so basically according to him every word every letter ever claim must be directly the word of God, if the Quran is the word of god, then every letter and every word must be exclusively and utterly said by God, this is a non sequitur, what muslims mean by word of God is that, the teachings, the revelations and the morals and what this book teach is from god, not that every letter is god’s speech, shall we all ignore the conversations that happens between figures in the bible ? shall we all ignore the conversation laid down between God and Jesus in the Quran when God asked Jesus did he ask the people to worship him?, is that supposed to degrade the Quran?

Issue#4:

@07:15 the masked arab cites the story of the seven sleepers, other than that he makes some assertions on the issue of flat earth and the direction of east and west, but since this is not part of the conversation we will ignore it

@08:14 however the masked arab suggest that Muhammad should tell them that this story is actually a myth and a legend, why is that relevant is beyond me, the Jews tested if Muhammad knew the story and knew it’s details, not the authenticity of the story, he later on state that Muhammad answered the challenge only two weeks after it was proposed to him, I already dealt with the issue of this so called narration but let us continue

He cites 18:9-11

{Or dost thou reflect that the Companions of the Cave and of the Inscription were wonders among Our Sign?, Behold, the youths betook themselves to the Cave: they said, "Our Lord! bestow on us Mercy from Thyself, and dispose of our affair for us in the right way!", Then We draw (a veil) over their ears, for a number of years, in the Cave, (so that they heard not):}

he later claim that everything is vague, the first problem is that he didn’t specify which part he consider vague, the second problem is that this is not the full narration of the story, the story goes from 9-26, of course this won’t matter as he will later on give us more details

Including names, forgetting the fact that in the legend itself we don’t even know the names of these sleepers

@10:08 he asked for a scientific explanation as to how in verse 18:16-17 the sun photons avoid the sleepers

How is that an error or an absurdity is beyond me, the masked arab didn’t even bother to ask at what direction the cave door was facing, take this example if I was to build a door facing north and the sun rise from the east and sits in the west is it possible for the sun “photons” to hit me? This is apparently the case with the people of the cave according to scholars like Ibn Kathir[17]

@11:35 the masked arab claimed that even muslims during the time of Muhammad didn’t know who suggested mosque being built, the masked arab cited ibn kathir online tafsir and claimed this is in al tabari aswell, the problem here is he cited no sources no references that muslims during the time of Muhammad didn’t know who suggested to build the mosque, Al-Tabari was born in 838 AD died 923 AD, Ibn Kathir was born 1300 AD died at1373 AD, so far we don’t have a single evidence that muslims during the time of Muhammad didn’t know who asked to build it

@12:00 the masked arab cites verse 22

{(Some) say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were five, the dog being the sixth, - doubtfully guessing at the unknown; (yet others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say thou: "My Lord knoweth best their number; It is but few that know their (real case)." Enter not, therefore, into controversies concerning them, except on a matter that is clear, nor consult any of them about (the affair of) the Sleepers.}

the masked arab later on again cites the alleged narration of Muhammad running away from their questions for two weeks and didn’t answer

I already dealt with this earlier as I said so I’ll skip this again

@13:22

The masked arab cites verse 23-24

{Nor say of anything, "I shall be sure to do so and so tomorrow"-, Without adding, "So please Allah!" and call thy Lord to mind when thou forgettest, and say, "I hope that my Lord will guide me ever closer (even) than this to the right road."}

Here the masked arab attempt to answer any skeptic who will tell him that the story is rubbish, what he seems to assert is that the story must be authentic from the idea that the word tomorrow is mentioned in verse 23, this is a non sequitur fallacy, as this is not the only part of the narration in question, did he really went to the rabbis, did he really question Muhammad? Did Gabriel really didn’t answer Muhammad? Did Muhammad really raged in his conversation with Gabriel? Did the people really spread evil rumors about Muhammad not giving the answer?

From the word tomorrow the masked arab is asserting the authentication of the entire narration, but this is just a nonsequitur fallacy, as I have shown the narration has an unknown figure, and a weak narrator, so how can we accept it, never mind let us see what Tafsir Ibn Kathri says regarding this verse

(هذا ارشاد من الله لرسوله, صلوات الله و سلامه عليه الى الأدب فيما عزم على شيء ليفعله بالمستقبل)[18]

Translation:

This is a guidance from God to his messenger, peace be upon him on manners, and whenever he desired something he shall do it tomorrow or in the future

So as we can see this was just an advice from god to Muhammad to delay whatever he do tomorrow, to claim this is in reference to the alleged story of him not answering for two weeks is a non sequitur, but to be fair tafsir Ibn kathri does cite the alleged narration that he waited for 15 days and didn’t deliver answer, but as I stated before, books of tafsirs can contain weak narrations and the masked arab will cite a new example in which we will expose and see another example as to how can some books of tafsir do contain weak narrations

But what is really puzzling is that even if we accept the interpretation of the masked arab, this verse is claiming a suggestion from god to Muhammad to postpone his reply tomorrow, while in the so called narration it was Muhammad himself who decided to postpone his response, and no revelation was revealed to him at this time, so if the narration claim he didn’t receive any revelation for 15 days, how come this verse claim that he received a suggestion from god at the same day when the story contradict it by claiming god didn’t send down any revelation ever since the question?

So even if we accept the masked arab faulty interpretation, it will go against the narration he mentioned but two issues, Allah has already sent down a revelation during that day to Muhammad while the story claim no revelation was sent for 15 days since the challenge, the other issue is that allah was the one who suggested the delay, while in the story it was Muhammad who delayed the answer

So which one?

@13:43-14:10 the masked arab start to ramble incoherently with nonsense citing the same narration we critically examined yet again, it’s like he starts to run out of jokes or something

Issue#5:

Here we actually get into the core of the problem, the reason why I decided to make this article and my Main issue in his video, his citation of tafsir Tabari regarding the so called Ibn Mas’ud Manuscript

@14:37 the masked arab cited Tafsir Al-tabari

حدثنا الـحسن بن يحيى، قال: أخبرنا عبد الرزاق، قال: أخبرنا معمر، عن قتادة فـي قوله { وَلَبِثُوا فِـي كَهْفِهِمْ } قال: فـي حرف ابن مسعود: «وَقالُوا وَلَبِثُوا» يعنـي أنه قال الناس، ألا ترى أنه قال: { قُلِ اللّهُ أعْلَـمُ بِـمَا لَبِثُوا }.[19]

Translation:

Al-Hasan bin yahyah said: Abdullrazaq said: Mu’amar said: from Qutada in god words {And they remained in their cave} said: in Ibn Mas’ud Manuscript {and they said they remained in their cave} meaning that it’s what people said, don’t you see that god almighty said {Say, " Allah is most knowing of how long they remained.}

From the above alleged narration, we see the masked arab makes the case that that the Quran had to go through some changes and was not perfectly preserved, two issues here

The masked arab didn’t validated the alleged alteration In ibn Mas’ud manuscript.

The second issue, the masked arab didn’t verify the authenticity of the narration

But never mind let us examin if the so called manuscript is authentic

According to one of the most modern senior scholars in Islamic theology and hadith and Quran science Muhammad Mustafa al a’zami:

(2. Second point: The text differed from our Mushaf

I mentioned above the need for some kind of certitude about Ibn Mas’ud’s Mushaf. While researching variant readings, Abu Hayyan an-Nahawi noticed that most of the reports were channeled through Shiite sources; Sunni scholars on the other hand stated that Ibn Mas’ud’s readings were in line with the rest of the umma. What has trickled through us via isolated sources supersede what is known with certainty, In page 57-73 of Kitab al-Masahif (edited by Jeffery), under the chapter of “Mushaf of ‘Abdullah b, Mas’ud” we find a lengthy collection of variants all stemming from al-A’mash (d. 148 A.H). Not only does al-A’mash fail to furnish any references for his – hardly surprising given his proclivity for tadlis (تدليس: concealing the source for information) – he is moreover accused of Shiite tendencies, many other examples lend further support to Abu Hayyan’s inference of a Shiite connection.[20]

Please read the full chapter dedicated to Ibn Mas’ud manuscript to have the full picture

So as we can see the alleged variations comes from a rejected Shiite source, and Shia sources are rejected in Sunni tradition, and Vis versa

He later on verse 41:3 in a cheeky manner that reads the following

{ A Book whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who know,}

He claims that the Quran is so Vague and ambiguous it goes against this verse, never mind that Hugeness is a subjective term, I myself find his citation of this verse Vague, as this verse details that the Quran is easily understood in terms of language not in terms of historical details and context

We finally reached the end of the plot of the video.

At the end of the video the mask arab tries to examine the last alleged challenge which is about the soul, in verse

17:85:

{ And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little."}

What it seems from his attitude is that he is suggesting Muhammad is running away from the challenge by saying I don’t know regarding the soul, but if we examine hadith sources, several scholars give details about what this actually mean, notice how yet again the masked arab won’t cite tafsirs when it doesn’t fit his convenience

This is further demonstrated @16:57 where the masked arab says “oh you wanna know about the soul? Will god says he is not telling anyone so there”

Which further support the notion that he thinks Muhammad is not giving the answer about the soul to them

Let us see what the tafsirs has to say

وهذا السياق يقتضي فيما يظهر بادي الرأي أن هذه الآية مدنية ، وأنها إنما نزلت حين سأله اليهود ، عن ذلك بالمدينة ، مع أن السورة كلها مكية . وقد يجاب عن هذا : بأنه قد يكون نزلت عليه بالمدينة مرة ثانية كما نزلت عليه بمكة قبل ذلك ، أو أنه نزل عليه الوحي بأنه يجيبهم عما سألوا بالآية المتقدم إنزالها عليه ، وهي هذه الآية : ( ويسألونك عن الروح ) ومما يدل على نزول هذه الآية بمكة[21]

Translation:

And this context require what appears to be that this verse is madinan, and it was revealed when the Jews asked him about that in madina, but the chapter all of it is meccan chapter, and this might be answered with that this verse was revealed yet again just like how it was revealed before to him in meccah, and the wahi (revelation) was revealed to him to answer them with this verse {And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say} which is evidence that this verse was revealed in meccah

So according to this tafsir this verse was revealed twice, all what I’m trying to say is that this verse is not as simple as it seams

However, what comes next is what seems to be the shocker, scholars disagree in regards to what it’s meant here by the soul

وقد اختلف المفسرون في المراد بالروح هاهنا على أقوال :

أحدها : أن المراد [ بالروح ] : أرواح بني آدم .

قال العوفي ، عن ابن عباس في قوله : ( ويسألونك عن الروح ) الآية ، وذلك أن اليهود قالوا للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : أخبرنا عن الروح ؟ وكيف تعذب الروح التي في الجسد ، وإنما الروح من الله ؟ ولم يكن نزل عليه فيه شيء ، فلم يحر إليهم شيئا . فأتاه جبريل فقال له : ( قل الروح من أمر ربي وما أوتيتم من العلم إلا قليلا ) فأخبرهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بذلك ، فقالوا : من جاءك بهذا ؟ فقال : " جاءني به جبريل من عند الله ؟ " فقالوا له : والله ما قاله لك إلا عدو لنا . فأنزل الله : ( قل من كان عدوا لجبريل فإنه نزله على قلبك بإذن الله [ مصدقا لما بين يديه ] ) الآية [ البقرة : 97 ] .[22]

Translation:

And Mufasiron has differed in regards to what is meant by soul here

Some of them said that it’s the soul of Adam

And ‘Ufi said: from Ibn Abbas in the word of allah {And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul} verse, it was in regards to the jews asking the prophet: tell us about the soul and how the soul in the body is tortured and the soul is from god? And nothing was revealed to him, so he didn’t reveal to them anything, so Gabriel came into him and told him {And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind has not been given of knowledge except a little.} so Muhammad told them, and they said, who told you that? He said this came to me from God through Gabriel, they said: who ever gave you this is an enemy of ours, so god revealed {Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel - it is [none but] he who has brought the Qur'an down upon your heart, [O Muhammad], by permission of Allah, confirming that which was before it and as guidance and good tidings for the believers."} 2:97

From the above tafsir we see that the Jews seems to have understood what Muhammad replied to them, and from the above narration they seem to have added extra details as to what they actually meant by the soul, and what they demanded to learn from it, later on they accused Gabriel to be an enemy for some reason

وقيل : المراد بالروح هاهنا : جبريل . قاله قتادة ، قال : وكان ابن عباس يكتمه .[23]

Translation:

And it’s said that what is meant by soul here is angle Gabriel, and Qutada said that and he said: Ibn Abbas concealed this info

Here is another difference in regards to what is meant by soul, here tafsir al tabari says that soul he according to some scholars can refer to Gabriel.

وقيل : المراد به هاهنا : ملك عظيم بقدر المخلوقات كلها . قال علي بن أبي طلحة ، عن ابن عباس قوله : ( ويسألونك عن الروح ) يقول : الروح : ملك .[24]

Translation:

And it was said: what is meant here is a great King, as great as all creatures, Ali Ibn abi Talha said: from Ibn Abbas god says { And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul} he says soul means : King

Some narrations in that tafsir went far and described this angle to have over seventy thousand face, even the tafsir described such narration as odd

And other described him to have over a hundred thousand head

But what I want to empathize here is there is a later narration in the tafsir that make some interesting remarks as to why he didn’t answer in details

وقال السهيلي : قال بعض الناس : لم يجبهم عما سألوا ؛ لأنهم سألوا على وجه التعنت . وقيل : أجابهم ، وعول السهيلي على أن المراد بقوله : ( قل الروح من أمر ربي ) أي : من شرعه ، أي : فادخلوا فيه ، وقد علمتم ذلك لأنه لا سبيل إلى معرفة هذا من طبع ولا فلسفة ، وإنما ينال من جهة الشرع[25]

Translation:

And Sahili said: some people said: he didn’t answer them for what they asked because the way the asked it with the intention of Intransigence, and it was said: he answered them, and Suhaili insinuate that what god meant by {say:” The soul is of the affair of my Lord”} meaning his guidance, so enter in it, and you knew that because there is no way to know the intended meaning from impression of philosophy, but from the point of guidance

So, according to the masked arab, the word soul refers to human body, yet he cited no tafsir what so ever, didn’t show that almost if not all scholars agree with this, claimed that Muhammad ran away and this is referring to the alleged story of him not providing an answer for 15 days, Muhammad replied that he doesn’t know and the masked arab took it as somewhat a weak response

However, as we examined the tafsirs we come to the following conclusions

      1.       the tafsirs don’t agree that this is referring primarily to human soul

      2.       there is no authentication of the alleged story of Muhammad dodging the question for 15 days

      3.       the tafsirs provide multiple meanings for this word

      4.       some tafsirs claim that the jews asked this out of being Intransigence and intimidating

      5.       some tafsir claim that that the soul here in question was in reface to the punishment it goes through

      6.       some tafsirs claim that the word Amir Rabi, means the guidance of my lord so join him, not the knowledge of my lord so I don’t know

      7.       the tafsirs claim that this verse was revealed twice to muhammad

So far as we can see, scholars are in disagreement regarding this verse, we don’t know what soul means let alone what amir rabi means, so that doesn’t mean Muhammad didn’t know and ran away

Now I shall deal with the part that says { And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little}

Tafsir al-tabari for example make quite of a shocking remarks in regards to this verse, the masked arab think this verse is reffering to the third part of the challenge regarding the spirit, but Tabari cited a narration that seams to suggest a different story for this verse

حدثنا أبو هشام، قال: ثنا وكيع، قال: ثنا الأعمش، عن إبراهيـم، عن علقمة، عن عبد الله، قال: كنت مع النبـيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فـي حرث بـالـمدينة، ومعه عَسِيب يتوكأ علـيه، فمر بقوم من الـيهود، فقال بعضهم: اسألوه عن الروح، وقال بعضهم: لا تسألوه، فقام متوكئا علـى عسيبه، فقمت خـلفه، فظننت أنه يوحَى إلـيه، فقال: { وَيَسْئَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُوحُ مِنْ أمْرِ رَبِّـي وَما أُوتِـيتُـمْ مِنَ العِلْـمِ إلاَّ قَلِـيلاً } فقال بعضهم لبعض: ألـم نقل لكم لا تسألوه.[26]

Translation:

Abu Shham told us, Waki’ told us, Al-A’mash told us, From Ibrahim, from ‘Alqama, from Abdullah said : I was with the prophet peace be upon him in a till in Madinah, and with him a group of tree fillets leaning on, and a group of jews passed by so some of them asked: ask him about the soul, and some said: Don’t ask, so he stud up from the tree fillets he was leaning on, so I stood behind him thinking he was receving revelation and he said { And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little."} ans so some of them said to the others: Didn’t we told you not to ask him?

That is a radicly different story than what the masked arab told us, of course this narration could be weak, but as I stated, if I cited any narration within any tafsir that happned to be weak, please currect me on it with evidence, not insults

So it seams some of these jews already knew the answer so they demanded to the others who wanted to ask him not to ask the question, however let’s keep on

Here we have another possible explanation that the masked arab didn’t cite

حدثنا مـحمد بن الـمثنى، قال: ثنا ابن عبد الأعلـى، قال: ثنا داود، عن عكرمة، قال: سأل أهل الكتاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن الروح، فأنزل الله تعالـى: { وَيَسْئَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أمْرِ رَبّـي وَما أُوتِـيُتُـمْ مِنَ العِلْـمِ إلاَّ قَلِـيلاً } فقالوا: أتزعم أنا لـم نؤتَ من العلـم إلا قلـيلا، وقد أوتـينا التوراة، وهي الـحكمة[27]

Translation

Muhammad bin al Muthana told us: he said ibn abdul A’la said : Dawood told us: from ‘Ukrama he said: the people of the book asked the messenger of god peace be upon him about the soul, so god revealed { And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little."} then they said: do you claim we didn’t receive from knowledge but few and we have received Taurah which is the wisdom?

So it seems that the part that deals with little knowledge in the verse is referring to the Taurah

So what we have here is multiple interpretation to both of the meanings of soul and the part where god says you were given knowledge only few, where some tafsirs claim this is referring to knowledge in general, and other claim this is the Torah

But the masked arab stated that this means Muhammad didn’t know what soul is and said only god knows and you were given knowledge only little

Nevermind the multiple interpretation that we just observed and the multiple meanings of the word soul and the story behind it

So why did the masked arab never used a tafsir here? Is it because it will not suit his convenient?

The so called Murder of Nazir Bin Harith

The masked arab earlier in his video claimed that Nazir Bin Harith was executed duo to “embarrassing” Muhammad, I would love to see any authentication regarding the matter, of course we do have evidence to the contrary

1214- (حديث انه صلى الله عليه و سلم قتل يوم بدر نضر بن الحارث و عقبة بن ابي معيط صبرأ)

ضعيف رواه البيهقي (64\9) عن الشافعي[28]

Translation:

1214-Hadith that the prophet peace be upon him killed Nazir bin Harith and ‘Uqba bin abi mu’et during the battle of badir

Weak, al-bayhaqi narrated it (64/9) from al shaf’ii

According to a revisionist work by Muhammad bin Abdullah al-‘awshan, titled what was rumored and made popular and was not authenticated in the biography of the prophet, the auther gives a complete section dedicated to all narrations that mentions the alleged murder of Nazir bin Harith, unfortunately, this book doesn’t include everything weak, as the title said, it include only those that are rumored and not authenticated

However, duo to the lengthy narrations in the chapter I will leave a footnote to it[29]

Conclusion

at the end even the masked arab said that we didn’t get much information, so his criticism of this chapter is that it doesn’t give a lot of information? Not that there are contextual errors? Scientific errors? Linguist errors? And so on? Thanks for wasting 18:02 minutes of my time, he titles this video as the chapter that exposed the charlatan, which forth means that this video supposedly should contain some groundbreaking examples and discoveries of how false the Quran is, but all what we got was , the Quran is Vague and ambiguous, nevermind the citation of Ibn mas’ud which is proved to be backed by weak narrator, cited a weak narration and didn’t give any legitimate sanad at all

the next article Shall deal with the masked arab fans and how they attacked my articles in several subreddit forums that I noticed, I will show how emotionally broken they are by attacking my personality, and how intellectually bankrupt they are by showing their numerous logical fallacies

---

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#NonSequitur

[2] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=183&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[3] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=8&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[4] ibid

[5] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=9&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[6] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=37&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[7] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=37&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[8] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=37&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[9] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=8&tAyahNo=31&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[10] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=8&tAyahNo=31&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1&LanguageId=1

[11] Dalail Al-Nibuah By Al-Baihaqi (the evidence for the prophethood) vol.2 page.269

[12] https://library.islamweb.net/hadith/RawyDetails.php?RawyID=9901

[13] Ulom Al-Hadith By Ibn Salah vol.1 type 23: knowning the nature of who narration should be accepted

[14] Faith Al-Qadir Sharih Jami’ Al-Saqir by Imam Al-Manawi Vol.1 Page.20

[15] Majmu’ Fatwa Shaikh Islam Ibn Taimia Vol.6 Page.388

[16] http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=50&ID=3197#docu

[17] Tafsir Ibn Kathri, volume 5 page.142

[18] Tafsir Ibn Kathir, volume 5 page.148

[19] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=18&tAyahNo=25&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[20] The History of The Qur'anic Text: From Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments Page.197-198

[21] http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=49&ID=1043

[22] ibid

[23] ibid

[24] ibid

[25] ibid

[26] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=85&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[27] ibid

[28] Irwa Al-galil Volum 2 Hadith.1214 page.39

[29] Ma Sha’a Wa lam Yuthbit fi al sira al nabawiah (what was romured and mode pubular and was not autneticated in the Bioghraphy of the prophet) page.129