Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Why The Masked Arab is Masked: Falsehood Makes one Bashful Does The Quran Claim the Sun Sit in a Murky Water? (Updated, see under Issue 7 and the important notes also errors fixed, plus a footnote removed)







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

Important Notes:

Before reading this article please take your time and read the following two articles and watch the following videos 23456 it's very critical to see those videos and read those article before you start with reading mine, as they cite several sources including Lane lexicon dictionary who is for the sake of brevity I won't cite in this article of mine, please also take note is that I don't fully endure their conclusion and methodology.

Very Important note: to clarify aswell i received some messages that I'm claiming this verse is figurative, this is false, I'm not making any claim I'm not claiming the verse being literal or figurative but rather I'm responding to fabricated lies and claims by The masked arab

Introduction:


The masked arab is currently a growing channel among the atheist community, his videos are now being held and shared among secular atheistic youtube videos, such as secular talk, at the start I didn't care much about his videos it was not as popular as it's right now, only after the incident of charlie hebdo where his video and his channel gained the publicity it seeked, the masked arab is of Iraqi background like me however this article isn't directed at him, or the article purpose is not to change his mind or opinion on the issue or to his fans to change their mind, but rather serves as a refutation to his blatant lies and deception and serves primarily as a reminder to the muslims watching his videos and anyone who watch his videos, to be clear, the masked arab is a polemicist

only @3:22 does the masked arab start his video, what rambles in the introduction is a blatant generalization, insults, mockery at all muslim apologetics, any mockery or generalization or any statement that has no basis in our issue or any joke will be automatically ignored

the verse in Question is Verse 86 of Sura Al-kahaf





Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."

Issue #1:


@3:54 of his video the masked arab claim that this verse should be clear to any rational person who isn't heavily indoctrinated into islam, what concerns me here is his association with irrationality to those who follow the islamic faith, according to such idiotic guilt of association fallacy anyone who even dare in slight attempt to be skeptical about your myopic statement is by default labeled irrational simply for not believing the nonsense that you spew out, as we will later see, you will cite a fabricated story in the history of Tabari and explicitly claim the authenticity of a specific hadith when in reality it's not classified as sahih, I shall critically look in to your video point by point, ignore your trolling or asinine behavior, and back again to the point of ijma, where all scholars need to abide and agree by your hypothesis, polemicists such as yourself will be put into question even by arabs such as myself
@4:05 of your video you claimed that if this verse was found in the bible or the Hindu scripture muslims will laugh at it, however that is a strawman fallacy, laymen muslims might do so, but critical thinkers and skeptical apologetics will look at the Hindu explanation, if all Hindu scholars agree with general consensus that this verse literally means the sun sits in a murky water, let alone all sects of Hinduism then your point will be valid, but as it's stand now, this is a strawman fallacy

Issue #2:

@4:45 of your video you claimed the Quran is clear and you cited several verses to support your argument including 12:1, 43:1, 16:103 and 27:1, there is no issue here, however what come later on @4:55 you said “to suggest that this is anything but literal suggest that the Quran is not Actually Clear” this is however is yet another myopic statement, any rational or critical thinking observer will clearly see the difference between figurative and literal interpretation of the Quran, if I say words like “Her head was spinning from all the new information.” or, “I’ve told you a million times to clean your room!” these are figurative words, anyone who has slight of common sense, even dishonest polemicists such as yourself will clearly see the meaning of these words, did she really spinned her head all over from new overwhelming new information? Did I literally said for million times count to clear up your room? No, but my speech is understood and clear to understand, even if it was not meant to be taken literally, however the main objection here is Not figurative speech in the verse, but rather a misunderstood and a strawman fallacy from your side of this verse

Issue #3:

@5:05 of your video you state that we should be honest with ourselves that if the sun was really discovered in the west sitting on a muddy water in Mexico will we consider it a miracle?
I'm not one of the supporters of the miracles of the Quran claim, however given the fact that if such scenario acquired it will be an interesting discovery, but I won't put it as a miracle at all, some muslims might, but I believe from that you irrationally and uncritically will take the opinion of these muslims and apply at as a general consensus as we shall see next

Issue #4:




@5:34 of your video you claimed that if the Quran wanted to state that this is from Dul-Qaranian perspective It would have used words like “He thought he saw it” this is a flawed analogy, using the word he thought he saw it, will be an irrelevant extra wording to the verse, at the end of his video he claims we should take the Occam's razor conclusion, why not apply it on the verse? the more proper use of the word though should be as follows

“he thought it was sitting in a murky water”

Not

“He thought he found it sitting in a murky water”

This is a more pragmatic conclusion for the use of the word thought, take this example:
“He thought it was sitting in a murky water”

Not

“He thought he found it sitting in a murky water”

This is a more pragmatic conclusion for the use of the word thought, take this example:
“He looked at the sun he found it sitting on a building”

From the above statement do you really think that I believe the sun sits on a building?

If I do believe so, I would have used the following statement

“the sun sits on a building”

Now let us use the word though regarding the building example
“he thought he found it sitting on a building”

Both thought and found address visual perspective, but thought is an unnecessary word as found clearly demonstrate visual observation

However I used the word “found it” to demonstrate my vision perspective, I precluded it from the later example to demonstrate my mental perspective


However what follows in your video is your first blatant error, let us proceed to Issue #5


Issue #5:

@6:57 you claimed that the word Wajada is found in 35 verses of the Quran, however this is false, the word Wajadah and it's root is found in 268 verses in the Quran, however this is irrelevant, but what relevant is that you asked for a challenge that we should provide a single verse that doesn't give the indication of finding, but rather from a visual perspective

out of the first page I was able to find 7 example of figurative uses of the word, how knows how many examples I can bring if I explore all the pages from the search result provided by the Quran search engine
there are actually verses that use the word Wajadah or it's root without the verbal meaning of location, this is an utter exposure of your lack of research, a simple Search on quran.com, will easily refute your argument, I will not just bring one example I will bring several

Example #1:



TRANSLITERATION

Alam yajidka yateeman faawa

Translation

Did He not find thee an orphan and give thee shelter (and care)?


The above verse doesn't give any indication of the use of location in Yajid
the word yajidka comes from the root of the word wajad


Example #2








Transliteration

Qaloo wajadna abaanalaha AAabideen

Translation

They said, "We found our fathers worshiping them."

the above verse clearly state that the deliverers Found their fathers worshiping the idols before them, this doesn't need an explanation of why it's not a location indication and not a observer perspective

Example #3


Transliteration

Wawajadaka dallan fahada




Translation

And He found thee wandering, and He gave thee guidance.

The above verse indicate the use of the word Wajada to describe a conditional statement, the the individual in question is found wandering, and so he received guidance, this is also an indication of personal observation
being that god Found him wandering, as he appears wandering, that doesn't imply location use

Example #4



Transliteration

Wawajadaka AAa-ilan faaghna

Translation

And He found thee in need, and made thee independent.

This is yet also a clear indication of conditional use, that God have found the human being in need so he made him self-sufficient
this is yet another example of conditional use, and god have found from his perspective that the human being is in need

Example #5






Transliteration

Inna almunafiqeena fee addarkial-asfali mina annari walan tajida lahum naseera

Translation

The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them

the above verse indicate that the deliverers will not find a helper (identification use), another example of the flexibility of the word wajada



Example #6:


Transliteration

Latajidanna ashadda annasiAAadawatan lillatheena amanoo alyahooda wallatheenaashrakoo walatajidanna aqrabahum mawaddatan lillatheena amanooallatheena qaloo inna nasara thalikabi-anna minhum qisseeseena waruhbanan waannahum layastakbiroon

Translation

Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

Another example of the flexibility of the word Wajada and it's roots, this verse indicate that the believers will find the most harsh people to them are Jews and polytheists, which is yet another indication of the use interms of observer finding and perspective

a single example from all of those is simple enough to answer your challenge, but the next example is the final the nail in the coffin

Example #7


Transliteration

Qaloo bal wajadna abaanakathalika yafAAaloon

Translation

They said: "Nay, but we found our fathers doing thus (what we do)."


it can't get more simple than that, the challenge is answered with more than a single verse and this final one makes it abundantly clear that wajada Can mean found it under observation
moving on


Issue #6;

The next argument the masked arab brings on is citing a specific verse to verify his hypothesis
Verse 18:93
Until, when he reached (a tract) between two mountains, he found, beneath them, a people who scarcely understood a word.

@ 10:50 
he claims that this verse is the nail in the coffin for Islamic apologetics
he attempts to argue that this verse refute the claim of the word Balagah which some muslim apologetics use to indicate time, however the masked arab cited no sources no references to accommodate his claim of muslim apologetics use the word balagah to reference time, I myself never heard either of such attempt, and this is rather a red harring fallacy and has nothing to do with the initial response of the apologetics
however my biggest problem is at @11:22 where the masked arab claims that Dul-Qaranian reached the place where the sun sits, in reference to the above verse in question, this is a strawman fallacy typical of any polemicist like him, at no point is the above verse reference to the mountains being the place where the sun sits, as we can see later on, if this verse was in context to (verse 94-95) it's referring to Gog and Magog, which substantially a reference to building the wall, this is a strawman.
@11:48-13:09 claims that in no way shape or form there is a spring large enough to appear as the sun sits on it, this is a red harring fallacy and is irrelevant to the issue in hand, however the example he cites pose a question, where do we find evidence that Dul-Qaranian was actually there? what evidence do we have of his knowldge regarding that spacific spring?

however what follows is the most important part of the refutation


Issue #7:

@13:22 the masked arab cite a hadith from the prophet Muhammad claiming this hadith confirms his propaganda that the Quran literally claims the sun sits in a muddy water
Narrated Abu Dharr:
I was sitting behind the Messenger of Allah who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets ? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water (Hamiyah).5
Grade: Sahih in Chain
I want the reader to pay attention the this word “Sahih in Chain” because this is where the masked arab flawed research comes in, he claims this grade means that the hadith is classified as sahih, however that is not true at all, he claims it's ridiculous to insist that the Quran didn't actually mean the sun sits in a warm water.

the grade is called Sahih in Chain, but does that mean the hadith is regarded as sahih? No

the Hadith is consistent of 2 parts, the Sanad Chain, and the Matin (متن)
the Sanad chain, is the Chain of narrators orally transmitting the hadith from one to another
the Matin, is the text buddy of the hadith and it's authenticity

now what do scholar say in terms of the grade Sahih in chain
there are 5 conditions to meet to authenticate a hadith:
1- All narrators should be authenticated
2- all the narrators should carefully observe what they narrate
3- the connection of the sanad from the start to the end of the matin
4- the matin and sanad should be clear of any odd insertion
5- the hadith should be clear of any flaw from it's sanad to it's matin

Abu 'Umro Ibn Al-Salah said:
as for the Sahih hadith, it's the Hadith that the Sanad authenticated and certified and connected to the Matin and should not be odd (abnormal) or contain any flaw”6

now let's us deal with the main issue
Ibn Al-Salah says
“ when they say (this hadith is Sahih in Chain or Hasan In Chain) without saying (Hadith is Sahih or Hasan) because it might be said Hadith Sahih in Sanad only and not accepted becaues it's odd and has a flaw”7

Ibn Kathir also said
the Hukom (judging) in the authenticity or the hasan of the sanad only without the matin this makes it odd or flawed”8

as we can see the matin has no authentication in the above hadith, and as Ibn Al-Salah explained to us, the authentic or rather the Sahih Hadith need to have both the chain of narration and the matin connected from top to bottom

this in conclusion doesn't Qualify the Hadith cited by the masked arab as Sahih hadith
however, what follows from the masked arab when he quotes Al-tabari is yet another unbelievable lie

Update:

yesterday i was Notified by one of his fans of a Facebook post that he made, the Facebook post is of him attempting to validate the Hadith above however, it took my only 2 minutes to crack down and analysis his source 

the Facebook post is here:



This is his Quote:

"My video showing that the Quran made a blatant error with the story of the Sun setting into a muddy spring has predictably made many Muslim apologists panic. They realise Muslims watching it who aren't entirely brainwashed could potentially see through the primitive apologist explanations for this verse.
They are trying their best to try and discredit any of the arguments I put across and the one they try to argue most is the hadith from Mohamed, even though there were many other points on the video. 
Their main issue is that this hadith is "Sahih in chain" and not just "Sahih" which only shows that the chain is correct. So, basically, we can trust a, b, c, d, e and f in the chain (all the chain) and their ability to pass on information correctly. Which by and large makes it sahih, however they spin the whole affair to try and suggest it is not sahih, and those passing it on made errors.
Well, many hadiths have variations which are graded differently depending on the version of the hadith.
This very hadith has a version which is entirely "Authentic" (Sahih)...
It can be found on page 371 of "Mukhtasar Sahih al-Jami' al-Sagheer", the second hadith from the top.
(I've only found this in Arabic)"

i will ignore the self bragging egotistical irrational rhetoric and focus on the main point, what the masked arab seams to be claiming is that this hadith cited above in his Facebook post validates his points, however, upon downloading the original book which is Mukhtasar Sahih Al-Jami' Al-Sageer, what seams that the masked arab is suggesting is that the book was written and authored by the classical scholars Al-Sayuti and Al-Albani, what's interesting is that this book Was Not written by Al-sayuti, But rather a work of a modern scholar, who is simple as he put froth in his Introduction that this book aims at reducing the number of repeated Hadiths by Al-Sayuti Jami' Al-Sageer, this Scholar goes by the name of Dr.Ahmed Nasir Allah Sabri a scholar of Hadith and Ulom Al-Quran in the Islamic university and was written in 2008



This book is not an early work but as i said was written in 2008



What's said right on the introduction of this book that the masked arab ignored is that the Author points out what his main thoughts on Al-Jami' Al-Saqeer by Al-Sayuti and point out 2 main issues with the book



Translation:

The First one: Al-Jami' Contain huge amount of Weak Hadiths and Fabricated ones
The second point: there has been many duplicated hadiths written with the same tone, and not just meaning, which took us huge efforts in refinement and revision, so it's easier for acquisition and make use of without any obstacle in hadith science.. so the book can come out with half of it's size that is on display now, and in return will be in the hands of everyone to share and make use of

so as we can see, the author of this book, dedicated this work To Al-Sayuti book Al-Jami' Al-Sageer, going back to the masked arab citation on page 371 of the book, we see the author gives two hadith numbers as reference to the hadith in Question, 5069 is the first number, however upon further investigation, this is not the reference of the hadith, so we are left with the second number 7026, when investigating in Al-Albani work of Sahih Al-Jami' Al-Sageer wa zyadatih wa da'if Al-jami' Al-Sageer wa zyadatih (translation: the authentic of Sahih Jami' Al-sageer wa zyadatih, and the weak of Sahih Jami' Al-Sageer wa zyadatih)
on Page.1177 on the Sahih Series we see Al-Albani Gives a reference the the Hadith cited by the masked arab

Area underlined in red: is the Hadith text

however we need to pay attention to the area underlined with the Cyan line
Translate to : (D) from Abu Dhurr

now what is interesting is that Al-Albani Gave a single letter (D) as a reference , if we check the introduction of his book we see that this litter serves a purpose

within page 61 of his book he gives a category called (the letters reference used in this book)
since our main litter in use is D د 
we see Al-Albani gives the meaning of the reference to the litter

Translation: (D)............................Sunan Abi Dawood


so let us recap:
The masked arab Gave a source seemingly claiming that it's a genuine book by Al-Sayuti And Al-Albani, however upon further investigation the book is actually a very late revisionist book of a modern author in 2008 aiming to shorten down the number of duplicated hadiths in Al-Jami' Al-Sageer, which means that the hadiths cited by this book are not actual Hadiths but Rather a reference to shekh Al-Albani Work, upon further investigation, using the same Hadith number used in the book as reference we found the hadith in Question in the work of Al-Albani, if we understood the reference categories we see a reference in a form of a litter, upon reading the category of references given by Al-Albani, this litter seams to be referring to Sunan Abi Dawood, which suggests that this hadith Originally comes from Sunan Abi Dawood

as for the final step we shall see the original hadith in Sunnan Abi Dawood, and what grade of Hadith did Abi Dawood gave to the Hadith in question

The Hadith is Found In Sunan Abi Dawood, Book 32, hadith 4002

Area underlined in Red: is the main Hadith in Question

Area in the yellow Rectangle: The Hadith Number and the Sanad as shown to be Sahih only in chain


if this is still disputed we Have Sunnah.com website giving a translation to the meaning of the Sanad





Conclusion of the Update: as we can see, The masked arab gave a reference to a book authored by a modern revisionist scholar thinking that it's an authentic book by Al-Albani and Sayuti, he gives a citation of the hadith in question with the number and the Sanad

However upon further investigation which took me only 2 minutes to refute, this is Not a genuine work of Al-Sayuti and Al-Albani, but rather a work of reference to the original author Al-Sayuti, who is upon further investigation gives a reference of the hadith to Sunan Abi Dawood, when citing Sunan Abi Dawood from the exact same narrator who is Abu Dahrr, this Hadith is as shown is sahih only in Chain, but not in Matin.

Subsiquantly in conclusion the masked arab has failed ones again in conducting a pragmatic research and have not fact checked his sources at all 

Issue #8:

@14:57 of his video the masked arab cites one of the most senior scholars of early nascent islam, Muhammad Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari, in His book tarikh Al-Rusol Wa Al-Mulok, volume 1 page.66 Al-Tabari narrates an account
@16:30 after fully narrating the narration of Al-Tabari account the masked arab claims the following “so we can clearly see, muslims like the prophet cousin Ibn 'Abas or the very least scholar like Al-Tabari believed literally the sun sits in a muddy spring”
at first myself I couldn't believe what I saw, at first I thought this has to be a long forgotten Islamic narration that shed light to problematic issue
however, upon further research into the authenticity of the narration, I discovered that the narration as it's put by islamweb, one of the largest if not the largest collection of online scholarly opinions on specific issue have classified the Tabari narration brought forth by the masked arab as Maudu' or fabricated 9



However, the Issue doesn't stop with the online scholars thoroughly refuting the narration, Al-tabari book is filled with fabricated accounts that Al-Tabari himself admit that his book contain fabricated narration in the Very introduction the masked arab Ignored:

Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence, if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us.10

However, given the fact that we established above that Al-tabari book is full of Fabrication, one Question leaves us, is the narration cited by the masked arab considered fabricated? The answer is Yes.
In a book authored by Al-Tabari and Muhammad Ibn Tahir Al-Barazinji and Muhammad Subhi Hasan Halak titled Sahih Wa Dai'f Tarikh Al-Tabari
this book is dedicated in identifying each narration and each story cited by Al-Tabari and proclaim the Sanad,
the Story as cited by the same author



The Endnotes in the bottom is the Sanad for the Narration

Translation

In it's Sanad is Maudu' among them are unknowns and weak ones see (Ilali Masno'a 1/60)
And Al-Tabari Himself cited it as Dai'f as follows (in it's sanad there are mistranslation and misinterpretation so it's not authenticated to consider it Sahih) Tarikh Al-Tabari volume 1 page.78

Nevertheless, see the bottom endnotes as the anthers claim Altabari Himself casted doubt upon the narration, so let us Check What Al-Tabari Said regarding the chapter

But don't take my word for it, take the word of the Author of the same Book the masked arab used himself, Al-Tabari11


The area highlighted in yellow translate As follows:

and Even if one of the two narration (footnote 2) is regarded as Sahih we would have mentioned it”

The Area Highlighted in Purple is the footnote regarding the narration the masked arab used

The Area Highlighted in Cyan translate as follows:

But in it's sanad there are mistranslation and misinterpretation so it's not right to consider it Sahih”

the Footnotes are as follows


As we can see, Footnote number 2 is in reference to the page 65 and 64 which are the pages that contain the narration used by the masked arab


what the mask arab later on is nothing but a predilection of his claims with a condescending tone

Issue #9:




After exploring the masked arab Embarrassing methodology and lack of research let us see what he discovered of all the tafsiris he could find

For the sake of Brevity I will not showcase the Tafsir Images and translate one by one for that will take too much time and will increase the length of the article, however I will cite some tafsirs and translate them to pin point the argument, I will make a further commentary on the masked arab biased interpretation

@17:56 the masked arab goes on and cite several tafsirs to accommodate his hypothesis he cites first tafsir Mujadhid Ibn Sulaiman, and he claims as I Quote “what's amazing is that this tafsir interpret the verse exactly as it's” which as he claims in a nutshell, that Tafsir Mujahid claims the verse is literal and that the sun cits in a murky water, however as an arab myself I read his Tafsir, and I was shock of yet another blatant lie by the masked arab, the Tafsir Doesn't claim at all that the sun literally sits in a Murky water but states the following


أَنا عبد الرحمن، قال: نا إِبراهيم، قال: نا آدم، قال: نا ورقاءُ عن ابن أَبي نجيح، عن مجاهد: { فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ } [الآية: 86]. يعني: طينة سوداءَ ثأط.

Translation:


I'm Abdi Al-Rahman said: from Ibrahim said: from Adam said: From Warqa Ibn Abi Najih From Mujahid {In a muddy spring} Means a black mud


that is literally all of what it says, at no point does the Tafsir claims the sun sits in a muddy water

the Masked arab then cites the next early Tafsir, which is Tafsir gharib Al-Quran by Zaid Ibn Ali

he claims that there is no change and it's exactly as the early tafsir mentioned, I myself agree, because this Tafsir ones again doesn't make any literal claim, but rather translate the meaning of the words

وقوله تعالى: { فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ } معناه سَوداءٌ.

Translation:

And God Almighty says {in a spring of muddy water} means blackened

again no literal interpretation at all

he later on cite the Tafsir of Muqatil Ibn Sulaiman, also as usual the masked arab claims that there is no change, and again not shockingly the tafsir has no literal interpretation but add a little bit more detail

{ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا بَلَغَ مَغْرِبَ ٱلشَّمْسِ وَجَدَهَا تَغْرُبُ فِي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ } ، يعني حارة سوداء، قال ابن عباس: إذا طلعت الشمس أشد حراً منها إذا غربت

{Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water} means Hot and Black, Ibn 'Abbas said: If the sun rises it's more hot than in it's sitting

again no interpretation of sitting in a murky water

what comes later on is another display of dishonesty, the masked arab cites Tafsir Sufyan Al-Thuri, and claim that there is no change, anyone who will check and look this Tafsir will be shocked to find actually there is No Tafsir for this verse, yes that is correct, this tafsir has no explanation to the verse, yet the masked arab with his undeliverable confirmation bias claims there is no change

Later on he cites Tafsir Al-Quran by Al-Tasaturi, however ones again this Tafsir has no explanation for the verse in Question

later on he cited Tafsir Al-Hibri which is yet again has no explanation for the verses in question

later on he cites Tafsir Furat By Kufi again no explanation cited

later he cites Tafsir Al-Hiuari, however we do have an explanation for this verse, but it's the same as the usual earlier Tafsir, where Al-Hiuari gives nothing but explanation on what it means

later he cites Tafsir Al-Nisai which is again has no explanation

Finally he cites Tafsir Al-Tabari
@18:45 he claims that Muhammad companions took the verse exactly as it's.

This is a blatant lie, not only at no point does Al-Tabari claim this is a literal interpretation and no one claimed that the verse clearly state the sun sits in a muddy water, but rather they even disagreed on the interpretation
infact right at the start Al-Tabari claim that the Qura (readers) have disagreed on the interpretation right at the startيقول تعالـى ذكره: { حتـى إذَا بَلَغَ } ذو القرنـين { مَغْرِبَ الشَّمْسِ وَجَدَها تَغْرُبُ فـي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ } ، فـاختلفت القرّاء فـي قراءة ذلك، فقرأه بعض قرّاء الـمدينة والبصرة: { فـي عَيْنٍ حَمِئَةٍ } بـمعنى: أنها تغرب فـي عين ماء ذات حمأة، وقرأته جماعة من قراء الـمدينة، وعامَّة قرّاء الكوفة: «فـي عَيْنٍ حَامِيَةٍ» يعنـي أنها تغرب فـي عين ماء حارّة.

Translation:

God Almighty said {Until, when he reached} Dul-Qaranian {he found it set in a spring of murky water} then the readers disagreed on the interpretation, some in madina and basra said {in a spring of murky water} means: that it sits in a spring of boiling water, and a group of madina read it among them majority of kufa {in a spring of murky water} means it sits in a hot water

this is the introduction into his explanation, at no point did anyone above claimed literal interpretation of the verse, but rather a disagreement on the meaning of the word hami'a, this is rather a strawman fallacy committed by the masked arab, at no point does any of the narrators claimed as this “the Quran claims the sun sits on a murky water” or rather “the sun sits in a murky water, as Allah Almighty said”

I could go on and translate each narration but for the sake of Brevity let's continue

he later on cites the Tafsir of Nazhat Al-Qulob by Sajistani
however what the sajistany does is going on grammatical explanation of what the word means

later on he cites ta'wilat Ahl Al-sunnah, Althought this is one more detailed than Al-Tabari, however the main thesis of what they discuss is the nature of the damage the sun will do when it sits or rise

however he cites later on Tafsir Al-Kabri By al-tabarani, he claims later on that it's a fraud and attributed falsely to Al-Tabarani, however the link he provided at no point claims the Tafsir is Fraud, but rather falsely attributed to al-tabarini, this is another strawman fallacy, the reason why it's not fraud is because some muslims scholars has identified the tafsir to be one of the copies of abi baker al-hadad al yamini more likely the book of (kashif al-tanzil fi Tahkik Al-Mabahith wa Al-Ta'wil12

he later on cite Bahir Al-ulom by Samarqandi, dispite the details provided by this tafsir we are ones again faced with another explanation of the meaning

later on he cites Tafsir Al-Quran Al-'Aziz by Ibn abi Zamanain, this tafsir cites the exact same narration as the above hadith

he later cites Tafsir Ali Ibrahim Al-Qimi, which also give proper details but no literal interpretation

later he cites Haqa'ia Al-Tafsir by Al-Slmi which gives no comment at all on the verse

he later on cites a poem in which he thinks is the original source for the verse, however this is a fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, which state that
Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X
this is fallacious argument and should be further rejected, however it get worse, the topic in hand is that does the Quran claim the sun sits in a murky water? Arguing where the verse came from is a red harring fallacy and has nothing to do with the topic

Issue #10:

Here is were the masked arab Actually gives us a clue on the literal interpretation we are looking for, he cites Tafsir Al-Tibian By Al-Tusi, he cites Ibn Al-Akhshad after 450 from the prophet Muhammad Death, we Finally have a scholar that claims it to be a literal interpretation and that the Quran really says the sun sits in a murky water the masked arab claims “it pulls the rug from underneath desperate Muslimshowever one problem here

this Tafsir is by a Shia author, therefore subsequently make it rejected by the overwhelming majority of muslims around the world, this is astonishing because at no point Did the masked arab ever claimed this Tafsir is of Shia source, and even the scholar who took this as literal interpretation did so despite scientific evidence as the masked arab did, so the earliest claim we have of the so called literal interpretation came right after the scientific discovery and Not during the time of nascent islam

this is unbelievable as the masked arab continue on his condescending tone to claim that he finally made the jackpot
the earliest source we have of literal interpretation was the very narration by Al-Tabari cited early by the masked arab in issue #7 but as we all saw, it's regarded as fabricated

the tafsir cited by the masked arab known as Tafsir Al-kabri by Al-Tabarni falsely claimed by the masked arab to be a forgery, however even the very source he provided, at no point do they claim it to be a forgery, but rather attributed to a different scholar , this is a strawman fallacy

later on I will ignore his final insults and mockery and his argumentum ad baculum, where he says if you are a muslim will you are Irrational

Summary:

so to recap the masked arab begins with mocking the muslim faith mocking all apologetics and paint them all with a single brush, then proceed to cite irrelevant story of how Egyptians interpreted the sun sitting, then he proceed to strawman the verse at start and accommodate verse 93 as somehow an indication of Dul-Qaranian reaching the place where it sits on mounties Yet the verse is speaking about Gog and Magog in context, he process to provide a challenge to show a single use of the word wajadah without location verbal use yet he fails and bring a false number of 35 uses of the word when in reality there are over 268 uses of the word, I was able to answer the challenge with more than a single example which utterly demolish his claims, he later on cites an account from Tabari claiming that this is the earliest source to validate his claim, however upon further investigation the Tabari account turned out to be nothing but a fabricated lie, he later on cites a hadith from the prophet, even the very website says “Sahih in Chain” moreover he cites another hadith from the prophet but makes an irrelevant comment that this hadith suggest a flat earth, without making any logical explanation of why, later on he cites 21 tafsirs only 1 of them finally has a literal interpretation that we are seeking, yet upon investigation, not only the Tafsir Itself is self contradicting as the early scholar mentioned reject literal interpretation but a later scholar who makes the claim explicitly reject a view of figurative interpretation which suggest that there is no ijma or general consensus, to make matter worse, the tafsir is a shia source, the masked arab with his dishonesty never admitted that it's a shia source at least, because he knows if he does so it will be rejected by 95% of muslims around the world, on top of all that he cites a poem to suggest is the source for the verse, this is both a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc and a red harring fallacy as I explained

What needs to be meet:

What the masked arab need to provide is Ijma' or general consensus of the sun sits in a murky water, this is generally provided by the fact of all tafsirs need to obied by the general idea that the quran claims the sun sits in a murky water, any contradiction or disagreement among scholars cited will be taken as no consensus, that include ibn kathir and many other scholars



therefore the masked arab, in order to accommodate your hypothesis with factual evidence these evidence need to be the ijma of the scholars, if any contradiction is spotted your hypothesis is demolished and no longer accepted

in conclusion I would love to leave one video that summarize his hole hypothesis



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpuRcmPnSTM







2  https://quranmisconceptions.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/dhul-qarnayn-and-the-muddy-spring/#_ftn1
3  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF-FqnAzJ9M
4  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE-jDAqBiqg
5  http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/03/sun-sets-in-murky-water-as-per-quran.html
6  http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/09/weak-hadith-sun-spring-warm-water.html?m=1
5  Sunan Abi Dawud 4002
6  Ulum Al-Hadith By Imam Abi 'Umro Ibn Al-Salah Page.11 Dar Al-Fiker Edition
7  Muqadima Fi ulom Al-Hadith by Ibn Al-Salah
8  Ikhtisar Ulom Al-Hadith By Imam Ibn Kathir
9  https://library.islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?bk_no=334&hid=92&pid=156319
10  Muhammad Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari Tarikh Al-Rusol wa Al-mulok Volume 1 Page.13
11  Muhammad Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari Tarikh Al-Rusol wa Al-mulok Volume 1Page.78
12  http://vb.tafsir.net/tafsir16530/#.VqdWUB_S08o

44 comments:

  1. Only fools insult others, if you can't debunk Al-Iraqi's arguments, go do something more productive than insulting others

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's unblivable so far all of his fans did nothing but insults and mockery, I had to enable comment moderation to keep comment section clean
      Recently I got a comment saying "f*** Islam" and some idiot claims that I have been debunked
      Where? How? Cite your evidence
      And when his insults are deleted he goes on rampage claiming I'm hiding something, why would I hide somethings if I'm responding in the first place ?
      I feel like I was dealing with kids at school leve

      Delete
  2. Thank you very much for this! May God reward you for your efforts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thank you for the kind words, keep in mind I'm going to update it with new refutation since the masked arab made a new facebook post attempting to refute my skepticism on the hadith of the prophet muhammad

      Delete
    2. the masked christian used weak hadith http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2012/09/weak-hadith-sun-spring-warm-water.html

      Delete
    3. I'm not sure why do you call him the masked christian, but i understand where you are coming from, he did used weak hadith and his latest justification for it in his Facebook post is childish and has been refuted here

      Delete
  3. I'll be honest - I do not find it interesting to read this post.
    If someone made a video on it - I would be grateful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i don't think you read the warning i gave above , but at least your comment was not insulting, but you have not pointed out what issue you have with my blog
      video on what? like the masked arab replying to my blog?

      Delete
    2. Asalamualaikum
      Respected brother in Islam may ALLAH (SWT) bless you for your efforts
      What I think the brother is saying is that most people these days don't really read much.So if a video could be made on this it would be appreciated
      JazakaALLAH

      Delete
    3. Asalamualaikum
      Respected brother in Islam may ALLAH (SWT) bless you for your efforts
      What I think the brother is saying is that most people these days don't really read much.So if a video could be made on this it would be appreciated
      JazakaALLAH

      Delete
    4. Asalamualaikum
      Respected brother in Islam may ALLAH (SWT) bless you for your efforts
      What I think the brother is saying is that most people these days don't really read much.So if a video could be made on this it would be appreciated
      JazakaALLAH

      Delete
    5. Walikum al Salam, as i said and I'm sorry for that, i have my own personal reasons why i don't want to make a youtube video, yes i might get more attention but attention is not what i seek nor will it solve any problem we have, also making an article takes way less efforts than a video

      thanks for the comment anyways

      Delete
  4. So it appeared to Zul-Qarnain he saw the sun set into something. This explanation is odd when reading the English due to the wording used for the verse. It says he "reached" the sun, which means he traveled and would be very close to it, but certainly close enough to see where it went.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. to clarify I'm not making any argument here, i'm not saying it's literal or figurative, all what I'm saying is that TMA used fabricated sources and lied about the tafsir to verify his claim that is all, why do people think i claim the verse is figurative? anyways, why is it odd? when the quran speaks from the visual perspective of someone elase, why do you think it's odd? the wordding is of translation of the word wajadah which has over 6 meanings in general

      can you please tell me why it's impossible for the verse to be figurative if that is what you claim?

      Delete
    2. The verse was clearly "revealed" for a purpose. Why would God send down a verse which states that Dhul Qarnayn thought he saw the Sun setting? It makes the verse pointless and unnecessary. However if the meaning of the verse was that HE LITERALLY FOUND IT SETTING IN A MUDDY SPRING, it'd make more sense to why the verse was revealed and it'd give a more necessary purpose to the verse. It was obviously revealed by Muhammad to show how great this Mythological man known as "Dhul Qarnayn" is. Muhammad obviously told his believers to show that this was an apparent "miracle of Allah".

      Delete
    3. and what was that purpose? can you tell me?
      "Why would God send down a verse which states that Dhul Qarnayn thought he saw the Sun setting?"
      again strawman, he didn;t say that, he said that Dhul Qaranayn "found it" sitting in a pool of muddy water, not that he thought it was sitting, stop copying the masked arab strawman

      "It makes the verse pointless and unnecessary"
      non sequitur, how does it make it pointless?

      "However if the meaning of the verse was that HE LITERALLY FOUND IT SETTING IN A MUDDY SPRING, it'd make more sense to why the verse was revealed and it'd give a more necessary purpose to the verse"
      how?

      " It was obviously revealed by Muhammad to show how great this Mythological man known as "Dhul Qarnayn" is. Muhammad obviously told his believers to show that this was an apparent "miracle of Allah"."
      source?

      Delete
    4. If you keep WALKING TO THE PLACE where the sun sets, what will you find when you get there? It will be noon! That is becuse the earth is round, hence you keep going towards daytime !
      You will only move towards the sun and actually see it set only if the earth were flat such that you arrives at the edge. Otherwise, MOWING TOWARDS the sun means moving towards daytime, and when you actualy get to the sun, it will be daytime, not sunset! To see sunset, all you need to do is stay out, and the sun will set....not run towards the sun!!!!

      Delete
    5. i have no idea why you posted that, perhaps you misunderstood my point, no where did i said this verse is literal or figurative, but rather my main point is that this verse is talking from Dul-Qaranian perspective

      if i said "i found the sun sits on a building" this doesn't suggest that i believe the sun physically sets on a building, this is rather an allegorical statement (Quran verse 3:7)
      but that is not the case, what if the earth that is flat rotate on it's axis? what if it rotate to the opposite of your direction, and you head towards the ledge you keep running and still you will see the sun

      so on rotating earth wither it's flat and rotates on it's axis or spherical and rotate around itself you will still see the sun

      "Why would God send down a verse which states that Dhul Qarnayn thought he saw the Sun setting?"
      same as how when i say i talk about john and say he found the sun sitting on a building, does this suggest that i believe the sun literally and physically sits on a building?

      so now please answer this honestly, and forget about the verse, imagine we are not discussing it
      when i talk about John and i say

      "and John found the sun sitting on a building"

      does this mean i believe the sun physically sits in a building?

      Delete
    6. From Dul-Qaranian perspective, you would expect that he has seen many sun sets! We don´t expect a grown up man to say: "yesterday, i found the sun setting on a building", ...or "the day before yesterday, I found the sun setting on a forest"...or "three days ago, I found the sun setting on a mountain". He would have seen thousands of sunsets, just like many other people that lived at the time. It is not worth mentioning everytime when you see the sun setting on the horizon....and no one needs to embark on a journy to see the sun set. They just stay at home and watch it happen.
      But this two horned fellow, Dul-Qaranian, did not stay at home to watch the sun set..No!.. He embarked on a journey to find the place where the sun sets....basically chasing after the sun. yet somehow, he finds it necessary to tell us that he just saw the sun setting in a pool of water (after all his journey).....This is a man who has seen the sun set thousands of times. yet he finds it neccessary to tell us about this particular sunset.
      And you are trying to tell us that this was just a usual sunset fom his perspective???
      Again, when you take this verse together with other verses from the quran, you realise that whoever authored the quran was of the impression that the earth is flat and the sun, and moon rotate around the earth. He believed that the sun set everyday at the edge of the world, the edge to which Dul-Qaranian travelled to find it setting in a pool of water.
      The picture is very, very clear. But you still deny to acknowledge logical deductions from the story....maybe because of the implications towards your faith?

      Delete
    7. "From Dul-Qaranian perspective, you would expect that he has seen many sun sets! We don´t expect a grown up man to say: "yesterday, i found the sun setting on a building""
      yes you would, the problem is, Does this statement suggest that the narrator of the story believes that the sun sits on a building (me as the narrator)? the issue here lies Not in what exactly did Dul-Qaranian saw and interpreted, the problem here is that the narrator of the story is being judged for narrating an event
      it doesn't matter what john believes, what matter is do i believe the sun sits in a building since i'm narrating it?
      "and no one needs to embark on a journey to see the sun set. They just stay at home and watch it happen."
      that is a strawman, even if we go by the story mentioned in quran, Dul-Qaranian was not going on a journey purely to see the son set, and if so it doesn't logically follow that the narrator of the story (quran in this case) should be judged
      "journey to find the place where the sun sets"
      red herring fallacy
      "This is a man who has seen the sun set thousands of times."
      how do you know that?
      "And you are trying to tell us that this was just a usual sunset from his perspective???"
      No, strawman fallacy again, I'm saying the Quran is narrating His perspective, which means the Quran is merely telling a story, it's a nonsequitur to claim that the author of the quran I.e god believes the sun literally sits in a pull of muddy water, this is equivalent if i say john saw the sun sits in a building, does this mean I (salam) believe the sun literally sits in a building? do you see now? that is my main point of the article
      "Again, when you take this verse together with other verses from the quran, you realise that whoever authored the quran was of the impression that the earth is flat and the sun, and moon rotate around the earth. "
      citation needed
      "He believed that the sun set everyday at the edge of the world"
      who? and where are the citation?
      "The picture is very, very clear. But you still deny to acknowledge logical deductions from the story....maybe because of the implications towards your faith?"
      no, i'm being critical you on the other hand are grasping to strawman and nonsequiturs fallacies, and using polemical instead of rational deduction, not logical as you claim to be
      the picture is very clear, it's irrational to claim that the narrator believes A if he is describing event A as a story to be literal and factual
      again back to Quran 3:7
      "He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical"
      do you get it? or maybe because my replies are causing discomfort to your life

      Delete
    8. You see that's the problem with continuous apologetics. You don't need any Tafsir or fancy Arabic lessons to know that is clearly a loophole in the text, even if for sake of argument, I agree with you that it's "metaphorical". The whole of the Koran can be defended that way, and so can any other book, yet in your mind this book is the perfect word of a perfect Creator. Yet, we see that the ambiguity of language and the sentence structure can cause huge disagreement, even among Muslims. It's very clear that in the context of the passages, "wajada" means "found". In 18:96, he found a group of people between the mountains, so clearly a literal meaning. However, the exact same structure and wording is used, and it can be easily shown that the literal interpretation is just as correct as your apologetic metaphorical one. "He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical" And which ones are allegorical? All the one in contradiction with science I'm sure. I hope you realize how poor the method of argumentation of the Koran itself is.

      Delete
    9. "You don't need any Tafsir or fancy Arabic lessons to know that is clearly a loophole in the text"
      not true, some arabic words and texts are still unclear even to an arab speaker like me, so i need tafsir and arabic lessons to figure them out
      "The whole of the Koran can be defended that way"
      not necessarily, can you defend the argument regard say conversations between individuals? you can turn events and speeches into metaphors but mostly saying that the quran can be whole metaphore will neglict the literal approach that muslims took while it was revealed
      "Yet, we see that the ambiguity of language and the sentence structure can cause huge disagreement"
      two cases here
      if it can cause huge disagreements then why claim that it has only one interpretation, say that the interpretation of ISIS is "true islam"? if what you are saying is true, how can ex muslims and non muslims say that ISIS is true islam while at the same time claim that any interpretation can be made out of it?
      second of all if it's so ambiguous how did muslims during nascent islam deal with it? sure i agree some parts are ambiguous, but saying that the book from head to toe is ambiguous is foolishness
      "It's very clear that in the context of the passages, "wajada" means "found""
      found as what? as i have shown it can have multiple meaning, found as state of mind "we found our ancestors worshiping them" or location "i found him sitting there in his car at harthia street"
      "In 18:96, he found a group of people between the mountains, so clearly a literal meaning"
      this verse is in regards to gog and magog not where the sun sits, i already made a reply to it, either you missed it or didn't pay attention, so i will quote myself
      "in reference to the above verse in question, this is a strawman fallacy typical of any polemicist like him, at no point is the above verse reference to the mountains being the place where the sun sits, as we can see later on, if this verse was in context to (verse 94-95) it's referring to Gog and Magog, which substantially a reference to building the wall, this is a strawman."
      "However, the exact same structure and wording is used"
      no, the sun is no where mentioned in that verse

      "And which ones are allegorical? "
      going back to my example
      "we found our ancestors worshiping them"
      the word found here is allegorical, clearly.
      you can't use it in terms of location other than saying
      "we found our ancestors in this temple worshiping these gods"
      you can easily distinguish allegorical from literal by following a pattern of speech, if you couldn't ask those with knowledge or scholars
      again
      "we found them worshiping them"
      "i found the sun sitting on a building"
      "we found them on a temple worshiping them"
      can you really tell me that all above "found" are literal?
      "All the one in contradiction with science I'm sure. I hope you realize how poor the method of argumentation of the Koran itself is."
      How? so far niter you nor TMA managed to cite source that claim it's literal, so tell me, how can you turn a clearly allegorical word with such poor line of reasoning into literal one?

      Delete
  5. I think in fairness you should also quote what TMA also said about tafsir Mujadhid Ibn Sulaiman. At 18.06 he says, "all it does is give us more detail on what this spring is. He tells us it's black and muddy". The way you have quoted him makes it sound like only you have revealed that this is all it said, but in fact TMA said so too.

    Similarly, at 18:12 TMA says, "When do Muslims scholars start to tell us that the sun doesn't actually set in a muddy spring?". Then he goes through them saying things like "nope", "no, they still didn't have a clue" etc. So I don't think he specificially claims that those tafsirs give a literal interpretation. Rather he is saying that they don't give a non-literal interpretation.

    The exception is for various narrations from Muhammad's companions recorded by Tabari, and I agree with him when I look at it, I don't see why you disagree with that - I'm talking about Tabari's tafsir, not his History with the lengthy ibn Abbas thing that you mention above. Things like, "meaning that the sun sets in a spring that contains mud.", and "He says, “the sun sets in black mud”". I think that's clear enough for anyone.

    And also at 20:26 where he talks about Tafsir al Kashf wal bayan, which gives a literal interpretation, and the two opinions mentioned in Tafsir al Mawirdi.

    For the rest he is clearly just saying that they fail to give any non-literal interpretation.

    Again when he gets to number 14, he says, "did the genuine 14th tafsir 365 years after Muhdammad's death figure out that it was not literal?". So again, he is not claiming that it does say it is literal. He is only saying that it did not say it was non-literal.

    And I think he is perfectly clear that the Iman Tabrani tafsir is falsely attributed to Tabrani and it is in that sense that it is a fraud, "largely dismissed as a fraud that was actually written 500 to 600 years after Muhammad's death. It was written by other people who tried to give it ligitimacy by attributing it to Tabrani". So he is actually saying the same thing as you about that, it is falsely attributed. As for the shia tafsir, I don't see what the issue is because nowhere does he say his videos are intended only for sunni Muslims. His point in including this is that it gives a non-literal interpretation, and has interesting detail on a disptue about whether it is literal or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. for some odd reason i can't post my reply to you, maybe it's slightly long, but i will post a link to pastebin that contain my reply to your arguments
      http://pastebin.com/RBgK2A4p

      Delete
    2. Thanks for your reply. I don't think TMA is misrepresenting and strawmaning what the tafsirs are saying: I agree with you that the reason that Tabari included those narrations in his tafsir is because there was controversy about whether the spring was muddy or hot, but that is not all that it tells us. As a by-product of this, he at the same time reveals that people took the verse literally as the sun setting in the spring. You see that they do not even say wajada, but just that it means that it sets in a muddy spring or meaning that it sets in a spring of hot water or He says, “the sun sets in black mud” etc. That is very explicit. On a related note it is interesting that there is no sign of controversy there on whether it is literal or figurative. That is not surprising if everyone assumed it was literal and it had not yet occured to anyone that another interpretation will be needed.

      By the way, I haven't suggested that any apologist claims that the tafsirs gave a non-literal interpretation.

      In answer to your question about Tafsir al Kashf wal bayan, it gives someone's opinion that says the following:
      وقال أبو العالية: بلغني أن الشمس في عين، تقذفها العين إلى المشرق.
      http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=75&tSoraNo=18&tAyahNo=86&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1
      (TMA showed the screenshot in his video)

      The opinion is that the spring propells the sun to the east (or rising place) as TMA said. That obviously indicates a literal interpretation.

      Delete
    3. thank you for the reply, it's quite rare to see someone actually care about engaging in an argument from his fans, anyways

      regarding the tafsirs, it's your confirmation bias to think that the masked arab is not misrepresenting the tafsirs, of course i could cite them directly given the fact that many tafsirs he cited doesn't even contain an explanation in the first place, yet he cited them and said "nope still have no clue" yet if you check them out it says there is no tafsir for this verse, but aside from that, i don't think i said Tabari Cited these narrations for being as you put it "controversial" infact, right at the start he says
      "واختلف أهل التأويـل فـي تأويـلهم ذلك علـى نـحو اختلاف القرّاء فـي قراءته."
      http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=18&tAyahNo=86&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

      "قول: قرأ معاوية هذه الآية، فقال: «عَيْن حامِيَة» فقال ابن عبـاس: إنها عين حمئة"
      which means that the people of knowledge and grammar disagreed regarding the interpretation of this verse, That is an explicit statement from Tabari, he is saying that they disagreed regarding the interpretation of this verse, so you can't say that scholars for the past 400 years agreed or understood what the verse means
      you claimed that he think the people, as in majority , took it as literal, can you please point out where?
      "On a related note it is interesting that there is no sign of controversy there on whether it is literal or figurative"
      the secound source is Ibn Abbas which you will later use with a link to Tafsir Kashif Al-Baian, Ibn Abbas here says :"It is muddy water", this is found in Tafsir Al-Tabari, again not a single indication of a scholar claiming litral interpretation
      this is further more contradicted by the above statement from Tabari, where he explicitly said that people of knowledge have disagreed regarding the interpretation, this statement is found right at the start of the Tafsir

      i never said that you suggest that, the masked arab tried to preemptively and childishly reply to apologists using tafsirs that he mistranslated and misinterpreted

      regarding the link you cited, what they seam to say is how the verse is Interpretation regarding the meaning, this doesn't in anyway possible suggest a literal interpretation, at no point does Ibn Abbas or the related narrators of this issue have said that this verse is literal, which makes me go back to page 1 of the Tafsir, where Tabari Explicitly as i showed, said that Scholars have disagreed regarding the interpretation of this verse

      Rendering your argument and the argument of the masked arab that all scholars or atleast most of them (keep in mind that even if some disagreed that is not regarded as Ijma' or general consensus) agreed that it's literal

      again, the scholars cited in the Tafsir are arguing the meaning of the word and how to interpret it in the light of that meaning, lets recap on these two facts

      The scholars of the Tafsirs are arguing the meaning of the word
      in like of the Word scholars are arguing how to interpret it

      however NONE of them are saying that the verse is litral

      Delete
    4. Tabari does say the people of knowledge differed on interpretating how to read it, but then he immediately lists some narrations about whether it was muddy or hot, so obviously that is what they differed about, not whether the verse is literal or non literal.

      When he lists those narrations they are mostly people saying simply in black mud or it is muddy or it is hot. However, not all the narrations are that simple.

      I've been trying to draw your attention to this one in the list attributed to Ibn Abbas (this is the 3rd example I was talking about earlier) which says this:

      ويقول: حمأة سوداء تغرب فـيها الشمس.

      Translation: He says the sun sets in black mud.
      It continues:

      وقال آخرون: بل هي تغيب فـي عين حارّة.
      Others said it disappears (تَغِيب) in a hot spring

      It is very clear that this is a literal interpretation.

      I also mention again that before the list of narrations Tabari also says that some people in various locations (Basra, Medina etc) read it as muddy, other places they say it is hot. But what is key is the wording that Tabari uses when he mentions these different readings:

      بـمعنى: أنها تغرب فـي عين ماء ذات حمأة

      Translation: "Meaning: that it sets in a spring of muddy water."

      And for Medina and Kufa reading hot spring...

      يعنـي أنها تغرب فـي عين ماء حارّة

      Translation: It means that it sets in a spring of hot water

      Again, I can say no more than what I have already said. It is very explicit.

      Regarding your 5th paragraph, I'm not sure if that is your comment on Kashf wal bayan, but I'm not sure what you are saying there. I thought it was clear enough what it says and will leave this with what I said earlier when I quoted it.

      Perhaps we are just repeating ourselves now and should call it a day. I think I've said everything I have to say on this, and anyone else reading this can look at the video to judge the other things that we've discussed for themselves.

      Delete
    5. Sorry for not publishing your comment imidiatly, it's late in where I live

      I think you Completly ignored the previous comment I made, so let me reiterate it
      "The scholars of the tafsir are arguing the meaning of the word
      In light of the word , scholars are arguing how to interpret it"

      These interpretation you are referring to are regarding the meaning and how to interpret it in light of the meaning

      Again I have no idea why do people ignore this part at no point I'm saying that the verse is literal or figurative as my argument, my argument is that the masked Arab mistranslated and misrepresented what the tafsirs are saying , and cited fabricated sources, and non authentic Hadith
      Regardless, also my argument is that the verse is nither literal nor figurative, my argument is that the verse is speaking from Dul-qaranian perspective

      I already replied to that part regarding ibn Abbas and I already repeated myself saying no where does ibn Abbas claim that the verse is literal

      Several scholars disagreed regarding the meaning
      Some claim it sits in a muddy water, some claim it sits in a black mud, some claim it sits a a boiling water

      Here let me make it simple, if I say the sea lashed out in anger on the ships
      Or if I say
      The sea lashed out rage and hunger eating the ships

      Both are figurine languages, but one has different meaning than the other

      Regarding my fifth paragraph ,I'm simply pointing out , that tafsir Kashif wa al Baian by al zamakhshari doesn't claim anywhere a statment like the following "and the scholars agree that the verse is literal" or " the sun indeed sits in a muddy water, exactly as the Quran discribe "
      All what it does is provide an interpretation in the verse that is all
      Again we don't have an explict statment regarding this verse. I don't see how a difference in meaning can mean a literal interpretation to you

      What you also failed to address is the ijma of scholars, why did you ignore this part? Why did you ignore my demand for general consensus regarding the issue ?

      Again I will repeat, my argument is not that the verse is literal or figurative at all , my argument is that the masked Arab have mistranslated and misinterpreted the tafsirs, and cited fabricated narration, for fit his propaganda

      You are free to have a skype char with me if you wish

      Delete
    6. tabari said, i qoute "Meaning: that it sets in a spring of muddy water."

      i know here tabari was mentioning the Ikhtilaf regarding the word hami'ha. But problem comes when he said "it sets in a....."

      Delete
  6. The verse just says that the sun sets in muddy spring. The tafsirs only mention and differ in the nature of that "muddy spring". Period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you please show me where is the verse saying that the sun sits in a muddy water without the word found it?

      also, how come all this 1400 years not a single scholar pointed out that this verse is literal and the sun indeed sits in a muddy water with an authentic narration

      Delete
    2. "The tafsirs only mention and differ in the nature of that "muddy spring". Period"

      you are repeating directly what the masked arab is saying, Nature of what? there is no such a thing as nature, only meaning in regard to a word, if i use a word like Kafir then there is multiple meanings, either a disbeliever or ungrateful, does that mean that there is two natures of the word?

      Delete
  7. https://quranspotlight.wordpress.com/articles/dhul-qarnayn-sunset-sunrise/

    I urge you to read this link. If you find any problems with it, fine. Even I have not read the full thing yet, but it is extremely comprehensive, and seems much more comprehensive than the masked arab who obviously cannot make an hour long video without losing attention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. first the article is long, so it will be ridiculous to make a reply to it, second of all it's the same argument brought forth by TMA only with more sources, it doesn't address the main response of apologist which is the word "found it"

      Delete
    2. https://qurananswers.me/2015/12/03/dhul-qarnayn-and-the-muddy-spring/
      take a look at it this it deals with an in depth analysis of the so called "expert's" arguments. Now what you choose to believe is up to you but you should now be aware of both sides of the story

      Delete
    3. Assalamu Alaikum Akhi @salam zaid

      The Work of Masked Arab on Sun-Setting issue is solely based on the work of Martin Taverille who's author of that article on quranspotlight site,

      Mashallah you've refuted most of the arguments by him single handedly.

      May Allah S.W.T Reward You for this.

      BTW i have researched on this matter and would like to share with you if you're interested.

      Delete
    4. I'm aware of his copy and paste propaganda, that is why I exposed him

      Thank you for the kind words

      Sure, although my work is long enough I'll see what you have

      Delete
  8. “Her head was spinning from all the new information.” this is a metaphor. “I’ve told you a million times to clean your room!” this is exaggeration it's not figurative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. this is actually false, both are not literal words, you completely strawmanned my argument as i'm not stating both are figurative but rather both are not meant to be taken literally

      here is my full text
      "anyone who has slight of common sense, even dishonest polemicists such as yourself will clearly see the meaning of these words, did she really spinned her head all over from new overwhelming new information? Did I ("literally") said for million times count to clear up your room? "

      Delete
    2. Assalamualaikum bro..greetings from nbangladesh..just bknow this you are doing wonderful job..may Allah bless you & increse your knowledge & make your imaan strong...bro are you planning to open a youtube channel..i think that would be awesome...

      Delete
    3. no i'm not planning to open a youtube channel, i already receive threats from blogger, youtube will be worse

      Delete
  9. one observation I find fascinating in the narration of the stories in surah kahf and im not sure if anyone has picked up on this before is that when relating the story of the people of the cave Allah mentions "It is We who relate to you, [O Muhammad], their story in truth... " (18:13). Notice where it says "their story in truth"
    and in the same chapter when narrating the story of dhul-qarnain it begins "And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, "I will recite to you about him a rememberance." (18:83) Notice where it says "a remembrance"
    there appears to be a difference between the two stories, seemingly one can be taken as a factual story whilst the other is what was known or rumoured by the people and not necessarily factual in its details but perhaps only in its essence. What is narrated is a remembrance of perhaps a number of versions (the 'remembrance' being preceded by a non definite article ie 'a' rather a definite article ie "the' or 'in truth"), so its narrated as is and how it was remembered by the people at the time and perhaps it is purposely meant as a non factual narration as in the story of the people of the cave, or else Allah would have made it clear as with the people of the cave it is a story narrated in truth. And Allah knows best.
    Remember that the story was meant to answer the questions of the Rabbis at the time who had knowledge of the story of dhul-qarnain and were testing Muhammed (SAW), and it was this particular 'remembrance' that they had knowledge of, factual or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Gabrial Sa'id Reynolds said something in relation to these stories, i contacted him via email and he said that this is an indication that the quran is simply narrating what was known at it's time
      as for the part relating in truth, it doesn't necessary follow that this means the story is factual, there could be many versions of the story that were fake, and this was the truthful one

      Delete
  10. I don't know anything about hadith. Masked Arab never affected me simply because he's masked. You don't buy stuff from a masked salesman. You have 100% skeptism level if someone masked tries to teach you stuffs. The notion of hiding his identity itself makes him look dishonest. Quran is an absolute book that can answer critism on its own, Islam is the only religion that brings you closer to God if you think more. Think my brothers and sisters, we know where the sun is. We learnt it in our schools. I don't know about you, but I don't personally need to know whether the sun had landed on Earth or not, I'm just grateful the sun is still there to provide day light. Masked Arab is pretty resourceful, he takes time to do all those videos(so many of them). We Muslims have motives to do dakwah,it is one of major good deeds we can do. If masked Arab is an atheist, what is his motive? If I were him, making Muslims hate Islam doesn't provide me much incentives. Popularity? I'm masked. XD come on guys, let them do what they wanna do, we have to do more good deeds and ibadah to prepare ourselves. Peace~

    ReplyDelete