The Moroccan infidel is a popular Moroccan atheist channel, the reason why I decided to specifically all the sudden go after him is because of how we as Muslims suffer from imperialism, and to see an ignoramus like him claim that sharia law on its own is imperialist is outlandish, here we will point out his inconsistency and lies when he respond to Dr.Haitham Tal’at, a prominent Egyptian Islamic scholar, where this atheist slander his character and go on and even misquote his own source that we will use against him, even going so far as to call him terrorist and Imam Tabari as Da’ishi (ISIS member) yes this is how insane this atheist is, going so far as to call Imam Tabari a terrorist, I’ve seen worse though, but we shall see if Imam Tabari is indeed advocating for ISIS and any doctrine similar to theirs
He shouldn’t carry the title Moroccan in his name as he doesn’t represent Moroccan people by any stretch of the imagination if he or any of his supporters are reading this, next time try and bring sources that don’t debunk you Hisham
first Dr.Haitham start by criticizing Atheist who read Quran like ISIS does, and criticizes how they force someone to read Quran like ISIS instead the correct salaf interpretation
@00:52 Hisham reply with at first mocking tones then said: ” are you trying to tell us Muhammad was an ISIS member?”
oh wow Hisham, you discovered a tafsir written by Muhammad (PBUH) explaining quranic passages? care to show us that tafsir? oh, that is correct I forgot, that is the same cliche argument “ISIS follow Muhammad” that new atheist so pathetically barrage all the time
“that Sahaba are ISIS members?”
now Sahaba have their own tafsir? all thousands of them? Hisham drop your pathetic new atheist rambling (ISIS follows Muhammad) and provide one source for any of the above claims
“that Tabari is an ISIS member?”
now that is insane, we do have tafsir Tabari care to provide one passage from his tafsir where he says the blood of a nonbeliever is halal even if they are not aggressors?
funny that Tabari replied to people who claimed 9:5 of Quran allow for killing nonbelievers even those who are in contract and called that interpretation”corrupted” see Hisham? Tabari the man you called ISIS member calls your interpretation corrupted (we will show with evidence from his tafsir later on)
“that bukhari and muslim ISIS memebers”
Bukhari and Muslim have their own tafsir now? new atheists never sease to amaze me
“that Hafith ibn Hajar and nawawi ISIS members”
hafith and nawawi have Quranic tafsir?
nither hafiz nor nawawi have dedicated books for tafsir Quran, Nawawi only have one book for students of Quran hadith and fiqh explaining basic rulings for each branch of Islamic science, no Tafsir book was written by Nawawi, stop pulling nonsense out of your mouth Hisham
so far all rhetoric nonsense no source no citation no footnote no logic, just you and your emotional response because Dr.Haitham called your interpretation of Quran ISIS toned, so you decided to commit red herrings one after another and say “what about Muhammad and his companions what about this and that” great job Hisham, instead of directly addressing Dr.Haitham objections you resort to Whataboutism.
I’m expecting the same old argument that we will see later “all peacefull verses are meccan verses abrogated by madinan verses” but when you ask them evidence for that, they go silent
now after Dr.Haithm provide hadith from the prophet saying
“The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).”1
@01:50 Hisham reply “it’s nice that brother Haitham brings us examples, but who ever defend the crisis of islam falls into another crisis, the hadith he cited in a cherry picking manner, because he won’t mention the stright forward hadiths and verses as we know in islam chosing what ever you want, like if you wanted a peacefull verse to go back to meccan verses (ah now we are getting that same old argument) and if you want verses of war and fight go to madinan and so on (Hisham proceed to cite the hadith Dr.Haitham cited) and in other sources it’s 70 years and the hadith is found in bukhari chapter : who killed mu’ahid, muslim speaks about the dhimmi as a beautifull thing for islam the opposite is true all that you have to do is read book Ahkam Ahil althima by ibn Qaim al jozi, i pledge that who ever read this book or looked at several chapters, will have his thought changed on islam, an immoral book by far, it shows us the relations between people who are Dhimmi, at tope of inhuman, we retuen to the hadith (dear god all that ramble about how immoral a book is had nothing to do with the hadith? how sad)the question here is, what is the punishment for a muslim if he killed a mu’ahid, what is his punishment if he killed a mu’ahid, is that a religion or mafia”
I have never seen such red herring fired from moon straight to mars, goodness did you actually addressed the hadith Hisham? let me see your response, in short, Dr.Haitham rationally and logically shows that killing a nonmuslim who didn’t fight you don’t grant you paradise, and Hisham respond with What about his punishment? as if that is what this hadith address, infact in the very screen you provided you accidentally (or deceptively) forget about the title of the chapter of the hadith
as you can see it says “chapter the sin of whoever killed a Dhimmi without charge”
this hadith addressed the “sin” nature of whoever kills a Dhimmi without charge of crime, it says it right there in the title of the chapter Hisham, do new atheist suffer weak vision or something? it’s right above the hadith, killing a Dhimmi without charge is a sin
your reply to Dr.Haitham citing this hadith is a Whataboutism? this is my first response to you and I’m greeted with this? plus you said Dr.Haithm Cherry picked this hadith? care to show the context that he omitted? no, of course, you won’t, also Meccan and Madinan verses? how is that related to the hadith?
your excuse is “read this book and see how immoral it’s” is the response to the hadith? are you joking Hisham?
Muslim doesn’t just get away from killing a mu’ahid without any form of punishment
أن يقول الحنفي في قتل المسلم بالذمي: قتل عمد عدوان، فأوجب القصاص
Hanafi says if a Muslim kills a Dhimmi intentionally and out of aggression, then Punishment is required2
What comes later is the most shocking display of ignorance in Hadith science
Dr.Haitham tal’at responding by citing an authentic hadith (which does exist in Sahih Bukhari) but wait until you see the pathetic attempt by Hisham to try and discredit the hadith since it refutes his arguments
Dr.Haitham cites hadith“Narrated A number of Companions of the Prophet:
Safwan reported from a number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Beware, if anyone wrongs a contracting man, or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead for him on the Day of Judgment.”3
Contracting man is the mu’ahid and the Dhimmi, now just watch and see how deceptive Hisham is
@04:30 Hisham state “ this hadith have some issues, it its sanad has some unknowns thirty of sons of messenger companions, Abu sakhir al madini was singular in narrating it, let’s accept the hadith that it’s Sahih, same problem, what is the punishment of a Muslim who wrongs a Dhimmi, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or who take something from him without his consent, what does the Dhimmi benefit from this Hadith, all of these are afterlife warnings and has nothing to do with current life, where is the law that prevent diminishing rights of another human, of course you won’t find it in a law that kills someone for merely leaving the faith, one thing I forget in this hadith, is that you take something without consent, and what about jizyah that Dhimmi gives while he is humiliated he gives it with consent?”
the same nonsense as above (whataboutism) maybe I should call you Hisham the whataboutist, the punishment for wronging the Dhimmi is mentioned above
but for the sake of argument let’s assume that the hadith doesn’t explicitly cite that there is a punishment for harming Dhimmis (let alone kill them) does that mean there is no punishment at all? as we saw that is not correct, now it’s correct that generally, Islamic scholars agree that a Muslim must not be killed for killing a Dhimmi as majority of scholars agree, this is similar to the death penalty that many protesters in western countries try to rebuke, but a Muslim will receive lashes and will be locked in jail for years for his crime, basically a Muslim doesn’t get away from this crime, if he does why even invoke it as a sin, why even state time and time again that a Muslim is not allowed to kill or treat a Dhimmi unjustly? as noted by the scholars of Islamweb the most authentic source of Islam in the web
“فمن كان من أهل الكفر بينه وبين المسلمين عهد أو أمان أو ذمة فإنه لا يجوز قتله، بل ولا يجوز الاعتداء على ماله ولا على عرضه، ولا فرق في ذلك بين المسيحي واليهودي وغيرهما”4
Translation:
and among those of infidels who had the treaty of safety or Dhimmi between him and Muslim he is not permitted to be killed, even so, it’s not permitted to assault him and his money or his honor, and there is no difference in that between Christian or jew or others
they proceed to later cite the same hadith cited by Dr.Haitham that a Muslim won’t enter heaven for unjustly killing Dhimmi
“فإن قتل النفس التي حرم الله إلا بالحق كبيرة من أكبر الكبائر وجريمة من أعظم الجرائم، فقد قال الله تعالى: وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ {الإسراء:33}.”5
Translation:
whoever kills a soul that God forbade unless it’s for just reason is one if not the biggest catastrophe and among the biggest crimes, god said {And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right.}17:33
let’s go back to his accusations that the hadith is weak because there are “unknown” narrators, the unknown narrators he alleged are “number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other” it’s basically narrations from the sons of prophet companions, Now how is that unknown, we know who they are, they are the sons of the companions of the prophet that their fathers narrated from them, so no Abu sakhir al madini was not the singular narrator, it was him and the sons of the companions of the prophet
Dr.Haitham tal’at later cites verse 8:61 {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.}6
and state it was the last phase of what is revealed (madinan) of course as you guessed it Hisham disagrees, but more astonishingly claim it’s abrogated, which it’s not and we will see that from Imam Tabari who he called ISIS member
@06:03 Hisham state “no darling sura alanfal was not the last of what is revealed of quran, surah anfal was revealed after battle of badir meaning at the start of the madinan phase, and i corrected these errors for you in the chronological order of verses but you insist to add other errors the verse says {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing} did Haitham look if he looked and said that then he is deceptive and if he didn’t then he better look it up before he put himself in bad spots, Muhammad ibn abdul a’la told us : muhammad ibn thaor , from mu’amar from qutada : {And if they incline to peace} said : to peace said it was abrogated by {and fight the disblivers where ever you find them } 9:5 (what makes this so funny is that Hisham is using Tabari, the Very man he called ISIS memeber, but let we will see that Tabari his own source slap his claim) and even of those who say that it’s not abrogated then it’s no better and what god said in Barah (the other name of chapter 9) {kill the polytheists where ever you find them} is not contradictory to {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also]} because what god says {And if they incline to peace} is meant by bany qurayza, and they were the jews of the people of the book, and god permitted for muslims to make contract of treaty with people of the book and not fight them by taking jizya and as for {fight the disbelivers where ever you find them} it meant the polytheists of those who worship idols, those who should not be taken jizya from them, no jizya is taken from them, so what is taken from them? islam or be killed, then a Muslim will claim Islam is neither religion of murder or blood”
the more I dive into your video the more dishonest you appear and this is my first reply to you
let’s disect this, so you try and respond to Tabari who says that your claim of abrogation is nonsense by saying it’s worse and you go and say that 9:5 allows for either convert or die (we will address that from Tabari himself later) this won’t be the first time Hisham misquote his source, we will see later how he took a Ph.D. Thesis book about sharia law and misquoted it to make Islam look imperialist
first let’s address it, what Dr.Haitham meant by “last revealed” is that it’s in the last phase, not the final surah, nowhere did he say this is the final surah, he was referring to its nature as madinan verse, there is another example verse 60:8-9 which neither any commentator no Tabari state it’s abrogated, and it’s a madinan verse
anyways
فإن ظنّ ظانٌّ أن قول الله تعالى ذكره: فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ ، [سورة التوبة: 5]، يدلُّ على خلاف ما قلنا في ذلك, إذ كان ذلك ينبئ على أن الفرض على المؤمنين كان بعد انقضاء الأشهر الحرم، قتْلَ كل مشرك, فإن الأمر في ذلك بخلاف ما ظن, وذلك أن الآية التي تتلو ذلك تبين عن صحة ما قلنا، وفسادِ ما ظنه من ظنّ أن انسلاخ الأشهر الحرم كان يبيح قتل كل مشرك، كان له عهد من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، أو لم يكن له منه عهد, وذلك قوله: كَيْفَ يَكُونُ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْدٌ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعِنْدَ رَسُولِهِ إِلا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ فَمَا اسْتَقَامُوا لَكُمْ فَاسْتَقِيمُوا لَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ ، [سورة التوبة: 7]، فهؤلاء مشركون, وقد أمر الله نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم والمؤمنين بالاستقامة لهم في عهدهم، ما استقاموا لهم بترك نقض صلحهم، وترك مظاهرة عدوهم عليهم.
Translation:
For those who think {And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them} meaning proves in differ to what we mention, that this implies that permission to the believers after the passing of the months to kill polytheist, then this is in contradiction to what we said, and that this verse that is mentioned shows the authenticity of what is we said , and it’s wrong and corrupted for those who think that the passing of the holy Months, that it’s permissible to just kill every single polytheist, even those who had treaty with the prophet ﷺ or even those who didn’t in accordance to { How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].} (9:7) those are polytheist, and god ordered his prophet and the believers to be loyal to them in treaty, so long as their loyal (in reference to polytheist aswelll) by not breaking the treaty, and leaving their proclamation of animosity and hate to the believers
Oh, Tabari now sounds so much like ISIS now does he Hisham? that is the most violent verse in the Quran? the so-called verse of the sword Hisham? take a look at the text above, see how Tabari just slammed over 50 years of Islamophobia propaganda in just 7 lines, so much for “religion of murder or blood”
Dr.Haitham later state that preemptive jihad is for those who fight us when we spread the religion of god he states that there are 42 verses on jihad 40 defensive and 2 offensive
but later Hisham will do one more irrational thing, he will cite a Ph.D. thesis of a scholar on Jihad and political violence to make Islam look imperialist, but we shall see how he misquote this author on the same work
@10:04 Hisham state “there are more than 2 offensive verses on jihad, but that is all right, there is defensive jihad, and there is offensive jihad in Quran, Beautiful, what did sheikh of Islam said? brother Haitham doesn’t cite sources, doesn’t cite tafsirs nor does he cite explanation (accusing him of something you did yourself Hisham?) this is mentioned in book Majmu’ fatwa vol.28 page.354 and if the bases of jihad is fighting and based on that religion is for god, and god word is the highest , so whoever not commit to such duty is fought as agreed by all Muslims, those who are not among the groups that should not be killed like women and children and monks and elderly, and blind and sick and others like them are not killed by general consensus of scholars, except if he fight by words or actions , and some interpreted it even if some allowed killing of everyone just for disbelieving except women and children for them being money like property for Muslims, but the first interpretation is correct, because fighting is only for those who fight us if we wish to bring the religion of God as god said {Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.}2:190 and in sunnah so the context is not like how Haitham want us to know, that who doesn’t fight you you don’t fight, that is defensive jihad, this is defensive jihad, someone fight you you defend yourself , here it’s about offensive jihad, and offensive jihad is mentioned here (highlight portion of the book) meaning when you try and bring religion, but i won’t explain Ibn taymiya, so one one say i explain as i want, explain as i wish, i leave for you the words of Dr.Muhammad Khair Haikal in his book Jihad and fighting in sharia politics, the book is a PhD thesis page 1262 we read, and he mentions what Ibn Taymia mentions, and he says that in page 1261, and here in page 1262 he says “this is what ibn taymiah said as it’s made clear that Jihad is obligated to spread the rligion of god against all those who prevent it from spreading, and it’s obvius that we realize the idea that spreading the religion of god spread to other countreis , is the application of the system that god religion was built upon on these countries , and ruling will be by the hands of muslims on these countries to make that religion, and after that who remained in desbelive among the disbeleivers from countries of the infidels , and their hands was removed from goverment, no harm comes from his disbeleife , no in muslims and no in the counrty in that matter, but the harm of his disbelife comes back to him alone , and that is opposite of what will happen if the ruling remained in the hands of the infidels in infidel country, they apply the systems of disbelife , there is no space in saying here that muslims will apply the religion of god there and they see the religion of god is being ruled , and the religion of disbelife or it’s goverment is the ruller and in that case, if the men on goverment never handed over the goverment to muslims , by means of peace to apply the religion of god , then jihad is obligated on all those who prevented it from Kufar even if they didn’t start by attacking muslims that is the offensive Jihad , you ask the other countries to hand over the goverment so you rule by god sharia
well that seems damning isn’t it, in case you missed it the author gives us a hint that Hisham the Whataboutist walked over because he knew his audience are too stone headed to see it, infact the basic thing is to go the the dedicated chapter in that book regarding invasion of other countries where the author gives us the reasons to why Muslims should fight, read the following
“no harm comes from his disbelief , no in Muslims and no in the country in that matter, but the harm of his disbelief comes back to him alone, and that is opposite of what will happen if the ruling remained in the hands of the infidels in infidel country”let’s read carefully, the first sentence speaks about the harm of individual belief, where it states no harm to the belief of the disbeliever will come when he live in Muslim lands, but the opposite is true, that if a Muslim lives in nonmuslim land his life will be harmed directly
this gives us a hint at the chapter of vol.1 that Hisham glassed over
in Vol.1 Chapter 3
the author gives us on page 130 3 conditions where rebellion or overthrowing a regime based on disbelief is required or not where he details rogue rulers that also applies to Muslim ruler.
1-if the ruler himself announce disbelief
2-disbelief based on individuals of Muslim community like apostasy
3-the disbelief that is based on ruling system (this is our target here let’s explore what the author say)
on page 131
3-و أما دلالة الحديث عن المنازعة حالة قيام النظام على عقيدة الكفر فذلك لان النص الشرعي لم يحصر المنازعة لأصحاب السلطة في الكفر فقط بل قال : (.. الا ان تروا كفرا بواحا) رؤية الكفر تصدق على الكفر الذي يرى من الحاكم و تصدق على الكفر الذي يرى من غير الحاكم كما تصدق على الكفر الذي يرى في نضام الحاكم عندما يقوم على عقيدة الكفر و يجري فرضه على الناس
Translation:
3-for the evidence of hadith regarding the overthrow of a government based on disbelief, that because the sharia never made it exclusive for government in disbelief in what it said : (.. when you see public disbelife} seeing disbelief and witnessing disbelief from a ruler, and witnessing disbelief on others beside the ruler , as witnessing disbelief in governing system of the ruler and when it’s based on the ‘aqida of disbelief, and when it’s forced upon people
ah forced? sounds now like defensive jihad to me
let’s read more
بناء على هذا فبمجرد أمر الحاكم للناس بمعصية
based on that even when the ruler force people to commit sin
all these on the very chapter that address the issue of overthrowing governments and you Hisham glossed over all these statements that clearly state if the ruler forces people to commit sin (people here including Muslims) then he is to be overthrown, imagine if a country like Myanmar that is now oppressing the Rohingya Muslims and committing genocides and mass murder, if a Muslim country with power see this, based on the above statements they are obligated to intervene to save the oppressed Muslims
the same applies when a government forces Muslims to commit sins outside their religion they are then faced with jihad
not if a country or a ruler never prevent Muslims for doing their daily obligations as Muslims, on that case no need for jihad, if that was the case the world will be set on fire and Muslims from 50 countries will wage war
infact the above 3 line is enough to shut that insane rhetoric up
on the same chapter again on Issue six المبحث السادس القتال ضد انحراف الحاكم regarding fighting a roge ruller which also applies on page 117
و من انحرافات الحاكم : ان يسطو على افراد الأمة بالأيذاء من الضرب و تعذيب و مصادرة الأموال
Translation:
and among the deviation of a ruler: that he robs the members of the ummah, by harm or hitting or torture or confiscating money
that sounds a lot like Myanmar
on page 118 the author state that these deviations could also be applied to a Muslim ruler
in chapter 5 the author titled: the reasons for Jihad in Islam, the author get more specific as he differentiate between Dar al Islam and Dar al kufor page 682
Translation:
as for when it reaches harm on Muslims living in nonmuslim lands of nonmuslim countries, then this oppression might come from the government that these Muslims belong to.
and might come from the people of these countries they live in, and might be legislated from a foreign country.. and on all these, if the oppression is on Muslims then rescuing them is required
Jihad sounds that awful to you? why you didn’t read this Hisham? why do you misquote this author to make Islam look bad? how desperate you need to be?
in conclusion:
Hisham took a hadith out of context and strawmanned it, resorted to whataboutism, claimed that there is no punishment for killing a Dhimmi while not providing any evidence for this, proceeded to claim a hadith is weak when it's not while displaying incredible ignorance in hadith science, proceeding to ignoring ibn Taymiah debunking him and used a PhD thesis that if read in context shred his argument, proceeded to call tabari an ISIS member but if we see his opinion on 9:5 he debunks the last decades in Islamophobia in just 7 lines
one of the worse atheists I have ever dealt with, incredibly condescending no sign of humbleness no accepting of defeat in any way shape or form, resorting to strawman after strawman red herring after red herring and quoting sources out of context
I usually never go emotional in my response, but if you have an argument try not to start your video by called muhammad an ISIS members without knowing how close he is to 1.7 billion people let alone not provide evidence for that statement, if you wish for a civilized discussion don't start with a pathetic insult to a prophetic figure
the problem here is that sharif so idiotically confused the book of Esther with Targum of Esther.
“The targumim (singular: "Targum",) was spoken paraphrases, explanations, and expansions of the Jewish scriptures (also called the Tanakh) that a rabbi would give in the common language of the listeners, which was then often Aramaic. That had become necessary near the end of the 1st century BCE, as the common language was in transition and Hebrew was used for little more than schooling and worship”1
so Targum is basically an insertion and commentary to Jewish scriptures
due to the fact that rabies has weakened their connection to Hebrew text, they started translating their scriptures to Aramaic, and from there we get Targums
Targums have two types, first and second
“The targumim of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job are generally treated as a unit, as is the Targum of the five scrolls (Esther has a longer "Second Targum" as well.) The Targum of Chronicles is quite late, possibly medieval, and is attributed to a Rabbi Joseph.”2
the most embarrassing issue here is that this book was Written after Islam, and is affected by Islam as Dr.Sami ‘amiri stated, good god sharif once again using TMA tactic here? citing a source that Quran actually predate claiming Quran plagiarize it while the opposite is true?
“ TARGUM SHENI ( “Second Translation”), a collection of homilies in Aramaic on the Book of Esther (*Scroll of Esther). It is so extensive that despite its name it can hardly be regarded as a translation. Only about 75 of the verses have been translated literally, the remainder being an extensive midrashic paraphrase”3
what you are about to see is the real “irony” Sharif stated before
“ Date Te date of the work cannot be determined exactly. Te view of S. Gelbhaus (see bibl.) that it belongs to the amoraic period, in the fourth century, is disproved by the fact that it contains later material. P. Cassel (see bibl.) dates it in the sixth century and explains its mention of Edom to be the rule of Justinian (527–565). However, this view of Edom can also apply to other periods. A basis for dating was also found among the accusations made by Haman: “They come to the synagogue … and curse our king and our ministers.” This statement is regarded as an allusion to the suspicion that Jews combine a curse with the prayer said in the synagogue for the welfare of the kingdom. Since this prayer is thought to have been composed in the eighth century it is conjectured that the Targum Sheni postdates that century. L. Munk (see bibl.) puts its date still later, in the 11t century, but he gives no proof. It seems that the most acceptable view is that which places its composition at the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century, a view that is strengthened by its relationship to the Pirkei de-R. Eliezer. Regarding its relationship to the Targum Rishon, there are features common to both Targums, but there are also many differences, and there are many aggadot in the Targum Rishon not included in the Targum Sheni. Te view of P. Churgin (see bibl.) may be accepted that they are two independent compositions.”4
the Quran borrow from a source written in the eighth or seventh century? at best hundred years after it? these atheists these days, claiming Quran borrows from sources that if investigated turned out that Quran predate it?
@26:48 sharif state “-Is the Quran a good book from a literary point of view-, Now let's look at the Quran from a literary point of view, as a normal book, Let's remove all the enticement and intimidation, "You say that the Quran itself is okay to be criticized?!!", "This is blasphemy!", Let's take it as a normal book to be fair while judging it, In fact, the Quran from the literal point of view is a very poor book, For many reasons, like what?, Like the repeated overrated unusual amount of the enticement and intimidation in it, Almost in every page of the book you'll find either.., insults and threatens with death and hell, or promises of different rewards and heaven, Using the enticement
and intimidation repeatedly is known to be a helpless way, used by someone who can't convince you to do something, So he has no choice but to threaten or reward you”
so let’s break his argument down
Premises:
1-the Quran contain poetic styles
2-Quran contain punishment of hell and rewards of paradise
Conclusion:
therefore Quran is very poor in poetic tone
Non sequitur fallacy, the argument is sound, but the conclusion doesn’t follow, therefore the argument is invalid
how did he reach from that to this? how is Quranic statements regarding hellfire can be merited as poor poetry
infact there are poems specifically made for intimidation and bullying or rewards
for example Dreams shocking truth by Houston Hararah
honestly I don’t even know why I need to point this out, it’s obvious, you can have beautiful poetry filled with intimidation and warnings that strikes feelings to you, and the same can be said for rewards poetry
if sharif is bothering himself with why would Quran use intimidation then if he thinks an idea if it’s correct as he foolishly states in his video about his imprisonment, then he is willfully ignorant about how the world work, every aspect of society works with intimidation, your parents tell you-you will fail if you don’t go to school, you go to jail if you steal, you fail in your school year if you don’t pass the exams, you stand in the wall of the classroom if you are disobedient to your teacher, and so on and so forth, why do i have to explain it? even good ideas come with intimidation, Sharif himself is guilty of this as he advocates for secularism, when he says if Arab countries don’t turn to secularism (as if they aren’t already) and leave religious extremism then they will fall behind, that is intimidation on its own
school is based on intimidation, if you don’t pass if you don’t go to college, and so on and so forth
claiming “if Islam is correct it doesn’t need intimidation” or “if Quran is the book of god it doesn’t need intimidation” is a willfully and pathetic ignorant comment that doesn’t face the reality of how stubborn human nature is, we apply the rule of intimidation on our life because if we don’t we collapse
@27:39 “There's no order in telling events or stories, The Quran, at least compared to the Torah and Bible, Doesn't have an organized order in telling the stories or events, Many stories are mixed together, And you'll always find a cut or a part missing in almost every story in the Quran, For example in Quran 2:221–242. For seventeen straight verses, these passages discuss women, marriage, and divorce, but suddenly verses 238-239 interrupt the discussion to exhort the Muslims to maintain regular prayers, in war times, Then, just as suddenly, the passage returns to the subject of divorce, Those two intervening verses have nothing to do with what came either before or after, And they distract the reader in an unnecessary way, Now apply this to almost every page in the Quran, While reading it you'll always find yourself going from one subject to another and then get back to the first one, And there's no focus on one particular topic, That's not a good way to write that's like collecting parts from other sources and mixing them together., “
So let’s get this argument again
Premises:
1-historical events in the Quran are not organized
Conclusion:
Quran is a poorly made poetic book
Again nowhere does Quran state it’s a history book
Unlike the bible which is a history book, Quran isn’t, plus the Quran we have today is organized based from large to small suras, not based on chronological order, ordering numbering and naming of Quranic verses/suras is ijtihadi, which means optional, it doesn’t harm nor does it invalidate quranic divinity, there are in total 6236 verses in Quran, with 114 suras, if I combine all verses of Quran of a sura into one verse making total 114 verses of Quran, does this mean 6122 verses of Quran are missing or out of order?order in poetry doesn’t matter what matter is the merit of the text
Not to mention quranic verses are revealed based on reasons for revelation, within quranic verses that sharif cited that deals with women,
But what is the connection you ask
Sheikh altahir bin ‘ashor may god have mercy on his soul stated:
The second cure: it’s an afterlife spiritual matter, and that it’s prayer that God prescribed in another verse that it eliminates immorality and bad conduct, so when it’s related to morality god insisted on it5
Meaning prayer is connected to morality which in turn connect it to the rest of the verse
@28:36 “More than 90% of the sentences end with assonance, And they're only there to add a tone to the sentences, It's like someone copies and pastes a particular few words with assonance, and then puts them in every sentence he doesn't know how to end.,”
So basically you are saying the Quran is throwing any word that matches the assonance at the end of any sentence? Here is the problem sharif, no clear authority was cited regarding the poetic style of Quran, and on top of that there are no proper words that can be used other than these words at the end of the sentences, even so far as if you remove any of them you ended up with a problem, how can you finish the sentence without harming the context and the sounding verses with different weight ? infact Dr.Haithm Tal’at in his response to sharif challenged him from the same screenshot he provided to provide a different word that fit the context of the sentence, for example 68:21 {Fatanadaw musbiheen} {And they called one another at morning,} does it really fit that we replace musbiheen with sarimin? Not only does musbiheen fit perfectly the sentence but also fits the weight and context
But what comes next is most ignorant comments regarding the poetic style of Quran, Sharif confuses politics and war with poetry, I was scratching my head trying to find out how did he even connect the two completely different topics and deceive his audience at the same time
@28:51 “There's too many unnecessary words and verbiage in the Quran, And if we removed it, neither the Quran will be affected, Nor the lives of those who won't read it will be affected, On the contrary, there are things in the Quran if we removed it.., a lot of negative things in the world will be decreased, Take terrorism as an example, which became a daily thing in our days, Now say "Terrorists don't understand the Quranic texts well", Or say "They don't represent Islam", Say what u want, what's important is that these verses that those terrorists use, to kill the innocent, Doesn't benefit anyone, except for the terrorist himself, That means, removing these violent verses is better than keeping it, It's disadvantaged are way higher than it's advantages, if there's actually any”
Wait for what? How did you connect politics and terrorism to poetry sharif? These are two completely different topics, nothing have any connection to the other, never mind let’s address it again as if I didn’t already address the violent passages in my response to TMA regarding killing innocent civilians, the violent passages in Quran exist for self-defense either directly or offensively, but self-defense jihad and offensive jihad are considered defensive, self-defense jihad is for those who directly started attacking you, offensive jihad is to attack those who are oppressing you and your people or making a threat to you by eliminating the threat before it starts, if we remove all violent passages in Quran 50 of them, then the Quran will be a pacifist book, take this scenario, if burglar robs your house, and threaten to rape your wife and daughter and you are Muslim what will you do when you have this pacifist version of Quran? You do nothing because sharif and Quran tell you to do nothing, and the burglar proceed to violate your house and your family because some idiot on youtube who changed Quran tell you not to do anything, the verses of jihad are necessary for any scenario on self-defense, the most offensive verse in Quran 9:5 was already explained by Tabari in my response to the Moroccan infidel, many scholars I cited clearly say including ibn Taymiyyah that fighting is for those who fight us, directly or indirectly, I don’t need to repeat myself, read my response to TMA where I clear up the rule of the violent passages in Quran
@29:28 “The Quran is full of unnecessary repetition, Not only in the words, sentences or even the assonance, But also in the stories, For example, the story of the prophet "Lot" was mentioned 8 times, The story of "Noah" was mentioned 11 times, "Ibrahim" was mentioned 69 times "Pharaoh" was mentioned 74 times, "Mosa" was mentioned 136 times and his story was mentioned 7 times, Why?!, What did we gain from you telling us that Mosa turned his stick into a snake, or split the sea into two or made his hand glow, What did we gain?, Especially when these stories are not only not logical, have no evidence to support them, and were repeated many times in the same book, But because they're copied from other legends and religions that came before Islam itself, And even after they were mentioned all these times no one actually benefited from them, And even if there was a small benefit to gain from them, it doesn't deserve to be mentioned that many times, “
Hold a second, so your logic is that if a name is mentioned many many times that is evidence of poor poetry? How ? just how did you reach that conclusion? Who taught you this logic? If I wrote a book of history in 7th-century Arabia and cited Muhammad 112 times, does this mean my book has no benefit nor does it have any merits based on your logic? If I wrote a book about Jesus and mentioned him in the book 50 times does that mean my book has no benefit?
On top of that sharif give us no evidence no sources for his claims of repetition
Second of all the repetition is not the same, we saw that in Sharif example where he tried to associate Muhammad as Jesus but citing two identical verses, but if we read them completely they do have difference, one verse state if Muhammad died you turn on each other, the other doesn’t, when stories are repeated there is a difference between each other to differentiate, they are not identical copy paste
Let's take a look at a lot for example, and how many times God says he saved him (8 times) and let’s see if they are identical to each other
7:83
{So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; she was of those who remained [with the evildoers].}
21:74
{And to Lot We gave judgment and knowledge, and We saved him from the city that was committing wicked deeds. Indeed, they were a people of evil, defiantly disobedient.}
21:71
{And We delivered him and Lot to the land which We had blessed for the worlds.}
26:170
{So We saved him and his family, all,}
27:57
{So We saved him and his family, except for his wife; We destined her to be of those who remained behind.}
29:32
{[Abraham] said, "Indeed, within it is Lot." They said, "We are more knowing of who is within it. We will surely save him and his family, except his wife. She is to be of those who remain behind."}
37:134
{[So mention] when We saved him and his family, all,}
54:34
{Indeed, We sent upon them a storm of stones, except the family of Lot - We saved them before dawn}
Does any of the above apart from 37:134 and 26:170 (without counting context) sound identical? No
Every time Quran repeat a story it does so with the addition
@30:28 “But also in repeating whole topics, Like for example, the prohibition of eating pork. That was repeated 4 times, 2 times of them were typical in words!, Why ?! Why do you have to repeat the same command 4 times ?!, Haven't you say it once? and your message was received? then u don't have to say it again., Didn't the prophet say: "Good brevity makes sense"?, You delivered your message, then u should remove all these repetitions, In short, and like the orientalist Payoneer Theodor Noldeke said:, "Muhammad is not in any sense a master of style".
Really? Let’s see the verses
5:3
{Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah, and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars, and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.}
6:145
{Say, "I do not find within that which was revealed to me [anything] forbidden to one who would eat it unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine - for indeed, it is impure - or it be [that slaughtered in] disobedience, dedicated to other than Allah . But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], then indeed, your Lord is Forgiving and Merciful."}
16:115
{He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit] - then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.}
2:173
{He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.}
Now the two verses Sharif talked about are 16:115 and 2:173
However, if you read the Arabic text, the English translation especially the simplified Sahih doesn’t suffice let’ see the difference
And
Notice the difference in the placement of the word بِهِ on 2:173 it’s placed before Allah, and on 16:115 it’s placed after it, which the English translation doesn’t touch (another reason as to why we tell you-you to need to read Quran in Arabic) now one might ask what is the point? Why place it before and after? What signifies the difference? First, let’s see what scholars say about this
Let’s see what Tabari said regarding this
قيل: وجه تكراره ذلك وإن كان تحريم ذلك إذا مات من الأسباب التي هو بها موصوف6
Translation:
It was said: the reason for the repetition the reason for making it forbidden, if it died for other cause other than what it’s described to
كرر سبحانه وتعالى ذكر هذه المحرمات في البقرة والمائدة والأنعام والنحل قطعا للأعذار وإزالة للشبهة، ثم ذكر الرخصة في جواز تناولها عند الضرورة.7
Translation:
God almighty repeated these forbidden things in Baqara and Maida and An’am and Nahil strictly to cut excuses and remove doubt and mentioned that it’s allowed to eat them when it’s absolutely necessary
So repetition was there to enforce the verses to prevent doubt
But let’s go back to these two verses
The reason why Bihi is placed before Allah in 2:173 the reason as to why it’s before Allah is linguistically it’s there to signify that who ever slaughter one to just eat it without mentioning god then it was dedicated to them other than Allah
And the reason to why 16:115 mention it after Allah is that if it was dedicated to something other than Allah, for example, an idol8
So let’s recap the reason why these verses (or any verse for that matter) can be repeated is to make a firm jurisdiction and to remove doubt, and 16:115 address those who will sacrifice a dead meet for anyone other than Allah, and 2:173 address those who will sacrifice it for themselves
But let’s read the part by there noldeke, is he looking at Quran from unbias point of view?
“characterized by epic repose. Indispensable links, both in expression and in the sequence of events, are often omitted so that to understand these histories is sometimes far easier for us than for those who heard them first because we know most of them from better sources. Along with this, there is a great deal of superfluous verbiage ; and nowhere do we find a steady advance in the narration. Contrast, in these respects, "the most beautiful tale/' the history of Joseph (xii.), and its glaring improprieties, with the story in Genesis, so admirably conceived and so admirably executed in spite of some slight discrepancies. Similar faults are found in the non-narrative portions of the Koran. The connection of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness. Anacolutha are of frequent occurrence, and cannot be explained as conscious literary devices. Many sentences begin with a " when " or " on the day when," which seems to hover in the air, so that the commentators are driven to supply a " think of this " or some such ellipsis. Again, there is no great literary skill evinced in the frequent and needless harping on the same words and phrases ; in xviii., for example, "till that" (hattd idkti) occurs no fewer than eight times. Mohammed, in short, is not in any sense a master of style. This opinion will be endorsed by any European who reads through the book with an impartial spirit and some knowledge of the language, without taking into account the tiresome effect of its endless iterations. But in the ears of every pious Moslem such a judgment will sound almost as shocking as downright atheism or polytheism. Among the Moslems, the Koran has always been looked on as the most perfect model of style and language. This feature of it is in their dogmatic the greatest of all miracles, the incontestable proof of its divine origin. Such a view on the part of men who knew Arabic infinitely better than the most accomplished European Arabist will ever do, may well “9
So let’s get anacolutha (a sentence or construction in which the expected grammatical sequence is absent, for example, while in the garden, the door banged shut.)
First issue thedor provided no example at all, you would think that since he provided an example of hard idkti but we do have examples of it
Second, if Muhammad used this word no less than 8 times in the Quran, therefore Muhammad is not a master of style?
The conclusion doesn’t follow
But his main objection is highlighted above
For example, he says
“The connection of ideas is extremely loose, and even the syntax betrays great awkwardness”
But what example does he have? And what does he mean by awkwardness?
The second is that he accused Quran of using lots of anacolutha but provided no example
Infact this 306 pages book doesn’t contain a single mention of Anacolutha other than the paragraph above
Infact Anacolutha is not a necessarily a grammatical error, Shakespeare uses it even in his plays10
Anacolutha are not strictly and exclusively grammatical errors, they can be errors and they can be used directly
Theodor seams to think Quran is not using it directly like how Shakespeare does if that is his argument then where are his evidence?
End of Part-5 A
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
