Saturday, March 5, 2016

Why The Masked Arab is Masked Falsehood Makes one Bashful Does the Quran Teach the earth was created on a giant whale?

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



Note:

It seams that Some of the masked arab fans are not careful readers, the point in this article is to address the claim that why are many scholars cite the Whale narrative, this question is a false assumption by the masked arab based on the following premises:


1-It dictates that Scholars must have general consensus and general agreement regarding the meaning of the litter, which as i will demonstrate later on, that this is not the case

2-The Scholars have cited many other possible meanings to the litter, rendering the masked arab Hypothesis to be futile.


from the above two premises we can clearly see that the masked arab question as to why many scholars regard the Whale narrative as the only possible explanation, Or as some of his fans strawman this question to desperately save his fallacious argument, as they put it, why do so many scholars cite the whale narrative in their Tafsirs, as stated again, from the above two premises, this question is regarded as a strawman on all scholars of the Tafsir, first non of them regard the whale narrative is the only possible explanation, which means that we don't have general consensus (Ijma') regarding the Issue

second, they cite many other possible meanings


Introduction:

Honestly this has to be one of the most deceptive videos, I have ever dealt with on YouTube, I actually couldn’t believe that the masked arab (spoiler alert) has completely left out sources that clearly puts an issue to his hypothesis

What is needed:

For any case of general consensus we need Ijma’ of scholars on a particular issue to provide general understanding of a specific verse, so in order for the masked arab to make sense from his claim at least he need general consensus of scholars, any disagreement or contradiction will thoroughly dismiss his claims as false and doesn’t hold to the merits of the reality

Issue#1:

The masked arab rambles in his video with incoherent claims that holds no merits to the subject of the video, I shall ignore it all together and start directly at the point where he start the video

Issue#2:

Finally @6:14 of his video he actually start his argument, this was 6 minutes of incoherent rambling where he never addresses the main issue ahaid, but I shall start now critiquing his video

@6:40 he cites tafsir Ibn Kathir

@6:53 he stat the following “the first thing god created was the pen, he ordered it to write, it said, what shall I write? He said: write the fate of everything, so it wrote what will happen from that day until the day of judgement, then created the nun (whale), then he raised the water and created the heavens with it, and laid the earth on the back of the nun (whale), the nun (whale) moved and so did the earth, so it was fixed down with the mountains”

This is where my main issue lies down, what the masked arab did is that he dishonestly left out the rest of the tafsir where there is a clear contradiction regarding what non is and this story of creation, let us now use the very link and the very source used by the masked arab to uncover this dishonesty
Infact the next contradiction is a reported narration of a hadith from the prophet Muhammad himself, this is found in the very link to Ibn kathir Tafsir used by the masked arab
[حديث آخر] في ذلك، رواه ابن عساكر عن أبي عبد الله مولى بني أمية عن أبي صالح عن أبي هريرة: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: " إن أول شيء خلقه الله القلم، ثم خلق النون، وهي الدواة، ثم قال له: اكتب، قال: وما أكتب؟ قال: اكتب ما يكون ــــ أو ما هو كائن ــــ من عمل أو رزق أو أثر أو أجل، فكتب ذلك إلى يوم القيامة، فذلك قوله: { نۤ وَٱلْقَلَمِ وَمَا يَسْطُرُونَ } ثم ختم على القلم، فلم يتكلم إلى يوم القيامة،[1]

Translate into: [another hadith] regarding that, it was narrated from ibn ‘askar from abi Abdullah  the master of the Banu Umayah from abi Salih from abi Huraira  I heard the prophet  Muhammad said: the first thing god created was the pen, then the Nun and it’s the inkwell then he said to it write, and it replied what shall I write, he said write what will happen or what is happening from a deed or gain or mark, then it wrote down to the day of resurrection and so it sais “nun by the pen and what they write” then he sealed down on the pen and never write till the judgment day

This is quite astonishing, the masked arab clearly left out this part of the tafsir because it clearly refute him, by now it shall be apparent that the video is refuted, we have a clear hadith from the prophet however the issue doesn’t stop there we have another alleged narration directly from the prophet in the very tafsir used by the masked arab right on  


قال ابن جرير: حدثنا الحسن بن شبيب المكتب، حدثنا محمد بن زياد الجزري عن فرات بن أبي الفرات عن معاوية بن قرة عن أبيه قال: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم " { نۤ وَٱلْقَلَمِ وَمَا يَسْطُرُونَ }: لوح من نور، وقلم من نور يجري بما هو كائن إلى يوم القيامة وهذا مرسل غريب، وقال ابن جريج: أخبرت أن ذلك القلم من نور، طوله مئة عام، وقيل: المراد بقوله: { نۤ }: دواة، والقلم[2]


Translate into: Ibn Jarir said : we were told by Hasan ibn Shabib al-maktib, we were told by Muhammad bin ziad al-jizri from furat bin abi al-furat from mu’awia bin qura from his father said: the prophet said: [Nun, by the pen and what they write] it’s a tablet of light and the pen is from light that write down what happens to the day of resurrection,  and that hadith is Mursal (disconnected) garib (strange) and Ibn Jarir said: I was told that the pen is from light his length is hundred years and it was said: what he meant by [nun] it’s an inkwell

We will see later on the masked arab will glorify Ibn Abbas, but what makes it so ironic is that ibn abbas has another narration contradicting what the masked arab claims on page 2 of the link he gave
" خلق الله النون، وهي الدواة " وقال ابن جرير: حدثنا ابن حميد، حدثنا يعقوب، حدثنا أخي عيسى بن عبد الله، حدثنا ثابت الثمالي عن ابن عباس قال: إن الله خلق النون، وهي الدواة،[3]

Translate into: “god created nun and it’s the inkwell” and Ibn Jarir said: we were told by ibn hamid, ya’qub told us, we were told by my brother ‘isaa ibn abudllah, we were told by thabit al-thamani From Ibn Abbas he said: god has created nun and it’s the inkwell

وقال آخرون: { ن } حرف من حروف الرحمن[4]

Translate into: and others have said {nun} one of the letters of Rahman
It can’t get more embarrassing than that, this is the man that the masked arab will later on glorify as the ultimate authority in tafisr and he clearly contradict himself

ذكر من قال ذلك:

حدثنا عبد الله بن أحمد المروزي، قال: ثنا عليّ بن الحسين، قال: ثنا أبي، عن يزيد، عن عكرِمة، عن ابن عباس { الر، وحم، ون } حروف الرحمن مقطعة.[5]
Translate into: we were told by Abdullah bin Ahmed Al-Maruzi said: we were told by Ali bin Hussain, he said: we were told By my father, From zaid From Ibn Abbas {al,rahm,wn} the litters of the merciful one seperated
@8:19 the masked arab criticize the translators of Qtasir website when they don’t cite the full translation of Ibn Kathir and he says “like maybe they trying to hide something from you” this is very ironic, I ask now, why did you hide the rest of the tafsir that you cited when it clearly contradict you?

@8:20 of his video he cite the English translation of Tanwir al-miqbas claiming that it translate it accurately, but honestly I couldn’t believe what he did there either, but I believe his fans didn’t noticed something strange within the English tafsir he cited, the full text of the tafsir is as follows

“And from his narration on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that he said regarding the interpretation of Allah's saying (Nun): '(Nun) He says: Allah swears by the Nun, which is the whale that carries the earths on its back while in Water, and beneath which is the Bull and under the Bull is the Rock and under the Rock is the Dust and none knows what is under the Dust save Allah. The name of the whale is Liwash, and it is said its name is Lutiaya'; the name of the bull is Bahamut, and some say its name is Talhut or Liyona. The whale is in a sea called 'Adwad, and it is like a small bull in a huge sea. The sea is in a hollowed rock whereby there is 4,000 cracks, and from each crack water springs out to the earth. It is also said that Nun is one of the names of the Lord; it stands for the letter Nun in Allah's name al-Rahman (the Beneficent); and it is also said that a Nun is an inkwell. (By the pen) Allah swore by the pen. This pen is made of light and its height is equal to the distance between Heaven and earth. It is with this pen that the Wise Remembrance, i.e. the Guarded Tablet, was written. It is also said that the pen is one of the angels by whom Allah has sworn, (and that which they write (therewith)) and Allah also swore by what the angels write down of the works of the children of Adam,”[6]

The masked arab yet again claims this translation mentions the whale, but if we read carefully as you can see in the highlighted text with bold and underline, this says that there is other meanings of nun, I didn’t manipulate anything here, you can go directly to the website or click on the masked arab link yourself, I was honestly shocked when I noticed none of his fans pointed out such error, is this how gullible they are? Is this how myopic they are? Couldn’t they notice this direct contradiction within the source cited by the masked arab?

so as we can see , scholars are not clear about the actual meaning of the letter, and they contradict themselves regarding the meaning

Issue#3:

@10:07 he cites tafsir Al-jalalain to accommodate his hypothesis that early muslims believed the earth is flat, not only this is a red herring fallacy and has nothing to do with the topic of whale nun in the quran but let us address it anyways, the problem here is that this Tafsir is very late, right after the discovery of the sun being larger, even al-jalalain himself admit to the discovery of the astronauts, yet he disapprove it, his tafsir is very late, notice how in his video regarding the Quran claiming that the sun sits in a murky water he tries to cite the earliest tafsirs to claim that the verse is literal, which I addressed in my previous articles, however let us see what the earliest scholars of tafsir said about this verse

{ وإلى الأرض كيف سطحت } أي كيف بسطها الله ووسعها ولولا ذلك لما صحَّ الاستقرار عليها والانتفاع بها وهذه من نعم الله سبحانه على عباده[7]
حدثنا بشر، قال: ثنا يزيد، قال: ثنا سعيد، عن قتادة { وَإلى الأرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ }: أي بُسطت، يقول: أليس الذي خلق هذا بقادر على أن يخلق ما أراد في الجنة.[8]

Translate into: {and the earth how it was spreaded out } meaning how it was expanded and made it vast extended, and if he did now do that,  then living in it and benefiting from it will be impossible
Translate into: we were told by bashir he said: zaid told us from Qutada {and the earth how it was spreaded out] meaning extend and he said: can’t the one who created this can create what he want in paradise?
According to Qurtubi
{ وَإِلَى ٱلأَرْضِ كَيْفَ سُطِحَتْ } أي بُسطت ومدّت[9]
Translate into: [and the earth how it was spreaded out] meaning it was spreaded out and extended

So as we can see the overwhelmingly majority of classical scholars agree that the verse is referring to the earth on it’s proto state being spread out, NON of them suggest a flat, earth, why did the masked arab used a very late tafsir that was even written after the discovery of round earth? This is rather a perplexing and quite honestly a dishonest tactic, but his claim that this tafsir in Arabic says Ulama agreed on flat earth is still worth addressing, at no point does al-jalalain claim ijma of scholars he merely point out that there are scholars who claimed a flat earth, interestingly

According to Ibn Hazim in his book al fasil fi al malal wa al ahwa wa al nahil
Under chapter (the evidence for the spherical shape of earth) he state the following:
Abu Muhammad said: and that is when we inshallah in mentioning some of what they objected to and that is that they said that evidence suggest that the earth is spherical, and the majority agree on that
This is ibn hazim who died at 456 hijri
Interestingly enough Ibn Taymia state the following narration:
وسئل رحمه الله : عن رجلين تنازعا في " كيفية السماء والأرض " هل هما " جسمان كريان " ؟ فقال أحدهما كريان ؛ وأنكر الآخر هذه المقالة وقال : ليس لها أصل وردها فما الصواب ؟ فأجاب : " السموات مستديرة عند علماء المسلمين ، وقد حكى إجماع المسلمين على ذلك غير واحد من العلماء أئمة الإسلام : مثل أبي الحسين أحمد بن جعفر بن المنادي أحد الأعيان الكبار من الطبقة الثانية من أصحاب الإمام أحمد وله نحو أربعمائة مصنف ، وحكى الإجماع على ذلك الإمام أبو محمد بن حزم وأبو الفرج بن الجوزي ، وروى العلماء ذلك بالأسانيد المعروفة عن الصحابة والتابعين ، وذكروا ذلك من كتاب الله وسنة رسوله ، وبسطوا القول في ذلك بالدلائل السمعية ، وإن كان قد أقيم على ذلك أيضا دلائل حسابية ، ولا أعلم في علماء المسلمين المعروفين من أنكر ذلك ، إلا فرقة يسيرة من أهل الجدل لما ناظروا المنجمين قالوا على سبيل التجويز : يجوز أن تكون مربعة أو مسدسة أو غير ذلك ، ولم ينفوا أن تكون مستديرة ، لكن جوزوا ضد ذلك ، وما علمت من قال إنها غير مستديرة - وجزم بذلك - إلا من لا يؤبه له من الجهال ...[10]

Translate into: and he asked may Allah have mercy on him about two men were arguing on the shape of the sky and earth, are they spherical? One of them said they are spherical and the other denied it and said: it has no origin so what is the correct one?: he said: the sky is spherical according to all Islamic scholars and it was said that the scholars had general consensus (ijma’) regarding the issue except for one of them: like abi Hussain ahman bin ja’far al munadi one of the old ones from the second level one of the companions of imam ahmad and he has over 400 volume, and the general consensus (ijma’) was told by imam abu Muhammad Ibn hazim and abu alfarag ibn juzi, and the ulama narrated that with authentic sanad from the sahabah and the followers and they argued that from the book of god and the Sunnah of his prophet, and made it simply with empirical evidence, and it was also made accurate with mathematical evidence, and I don’t know any of the will known scholars of islam who denied that except a small minority of the people of rumors when they debated the Astrologers they said that it’s possible: they said it can be rectangle or six sided shaped or anything but that and they didn’t deny that it was spherical but they said it’s possible that it’s not and I never knew anyone who said it’s not spherical except those who are ignorant

But this last one is the nail in the coffin for the masked arab
 " وقال الإمام أبو الحسين أحمد بن جعفر بن المنادي من أعيان العلماء المشهورين بمعرفة الآثار والتصانيف الكبار في فنون العلوم الدينية من الطبقة الثانية من أصحاب أحمد : لا خلاف بين العلماء أن السماء على مثال الكرة ......
قال : وكذلك أجمعوا على أن الأرض بجميع حركاتها من البر والبحر مثل الكرة . قال : ويدل عليه أن الشمس والقمر والكواكب لا يوجد طلوعها وغروبها على جميع من في نواحي الأرض في وقت واحد ، بل على المشرق قبل المغرب "[11]

Translate into: and Imam Abu Hussaid Ahmed Ibn Ja’far bin Munadi, from the notable famous scholars by knowing the marks and the categories of old ones in the religious arts from the second level from the companions of Ahmed said: there is no difference between the scholars on the shape of the sphere…..
He said: and they also had general consensus (ijma’ of all scholars)  that earth with all of it’s movements from land to sea are like that of a sphere, he said :and it’s evident that the sun the moon and the stars doesn’t appear on all corners of earth except in one time, but only in sun rise and sunsets

Issue#4:

@10:50 for a man who claim to be over 30 years old, this so called ex muslim start yet another conversation with an imaginary character of his on to much all muslims who question him, although I can ignore this point all together and save me some space in this article and some brain cells I will address it anyways @11:05 he state to his imaginary character “can you leave these classy playground insults behind?” this is very ironic as the majority of his video was nothing but classy playground insults
First his imaginary character claims these hadith are not authentic, I have never seen a single apologetic who make such claim regarding these tafsirs @11:24 the masked arab cite a hadith from the prophet however this hadith is yet again contradicted by another hadith from the prophet please read it under issue#2
@1148 the masked arab cites Islam QA as a reply to anyone who claim that there is variations and other meanings regarding nun, however if we read the website in question, the questioner was specifically asking about the whale meaning, so of course it will logically follow that the author of the website will address the meaning of the whale exclusively
This was the question of the questioner in the website:
“I came across a report which says that the earth is placed on the back of a bull, and when the bull moves its head, earthquakes happen. I think that I saw this in Ibn Katheer (2/39 and 1/50). Can you explain this?”[12]

As we can see the question I directly addressing one of the meanings driven directly to the whale(or rather bull here)one, so it will not be logical for the scholar of this website to address the other possible meanings of the word

However I do have found a website that directly address the verse in question and give the general meaning of the verse
وقيل : المراد بقوله : ( ن ) دواة ، والقلم : القلم . قال ابن جرير :

حدثنا عبد الأعلى ، حدثنا ابن ثور ، عن معمر ، عن الحسن ، وقتادة في قوله : ( ن ) قالا هي الدواة .

وقد روي في هذا حديث مرفوع غريب جدا ، فقال ابن أبي حاتم :

حدثنا أبي ، حدثنا هشام بن خالد ، حدثنا الحسن بن يحيى ، حدثنا أبو عبد الله مولى بني أمية ، عن أبي صالح ، عن أبي هريرة قال : سمعت رسول الله - صلى الله عليه وسلم - يقول : " خلق الله النون ، وهي الدواة " .[13]

Translate into: and it was said: and what god said by [nun] is inkwell, and pen: pen ibn jarir said:
We were told by abdulla’la, we were told by ibn thor, from mu’amar, from hassan, from Qutada {nun} they said it’s the inkwell
And it was said that this hadith is marfu’ garib, so ibn abi hatim said:
We were told by my father, we were told by hisham ibn khalid, we were told by al hasan bin yihya, we were told by abudullah master of banu Umayah, from abi Salih from Abi Huraira said: I heard the prophet said: and allah created nun and it’s the inkwell
وقال ابن جرير : حدثنا ابن حميد ، حدثنا يعقوب ، حدثنا أخي عيسى بن عبد الله ، حدثنا ثابت الثمالي ، عن ابن عباس قال : إن الله خلق النون - وهي الدواة

Translate into: and Ibn Jarir said: we were told by Ibn Hamid, we were told by Ya’qub, we were told by my brother Isa bin Abdullah, we were told by thabit Al-timali, from Ibn Abbas said: Allah Created Nun and it’s the inkwell

Issue#5:

@13:33 the masked arab cites a hadith from the prophet where he glorify Ibn abbas, ironically as I showed above Ibn Abbas contradicted himself from claiming the meaning of nun being the whale to an inkwell, we haven’t even touched on the other meanings cited in the tafsirs such as nun being a tablet of light and being one of the names of god however this irrational citation of the hadith by the masked arab seems to suggest that he is claiming that muslims should take the Quran and Tafsir from Ibn Abbas, we actually happen to have a Hadith where the prophet give 4 names where we are supposedly should take out Quran from

“Narrated Masruq:
`Abdullah bin Masud was mentioned before `Abdullah bin `Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet saying 'Learn the recitation of Qur'an from four from `Abdullah bin Mas`ud -- he started with him--Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudaifa, Mu`adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka`b."”[14]

but the problem here is that as we saw Early Ibn Abbas contradict himself by providing several meanings to Nun

As we can see at no point does the hadith cited by the masked arab claims that we should take the tafsir or the quran from Ibn abbas, we actual have a hadith from the prophet where he suggest 4 people to learn Quran from

We finally leave the imaginary conversation between his imaginary character and him

Issue#5:

@14:27 the masked arab cites a tafsir by shaia scholars, although I’m not of shia background I can easily ignore this one but I will address it anyways, this tafsir does somehow suggest another whale narrative, but the masked arab was so dishonest so deceptive he didn’t show the other tafsirs of the Shias that suggest another meaning to nun, this is tafsir Al-Qummi
(بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ن والقلم وما يسطرون ما انت بنعمة ربك بمجنون) قال فحدثني ابي عن ابن ابي عمير عن عبدالرحمن (عبدالرحيم ط) القصير عن ابي عبدالله عليه السلام قال سألته عن ن والقلم، قال: إن الله خلق القلم من شجرة في الجنة يقال لها الخلد ثم قال لنهر في الجنة كن مدادا فجمد النهر وكان أشد بياضا من الثلج وأحلى من الشهد ثم قال للقلم اكتب قال وما اكتب يا رب قال اكتب ما كان وما هو كأين إلى يوم القيامة، فكتب القلم في رق أشد بياضا من الفضة وأصفى من الياقوت ثم[15]

Translate into: (in the name of god the most beneficent the most merciful, nun by the pen and what they write, You are not, [O Muhammad], by the favor of your Lord, a madman.) said I was told by my father from ibn abi umair  from Abdullah abudllrahman from abi abudllah said: I asked him regarding nun and the pen he said :god created the pen from a tree in heaven named al-kulid then he said to a river in heaven then it was frozen and was whiter than snow and more beautiful and soft then he said to the pen write down, the pen answered what shall I write? He said write down what will happen to the day of judgment then the pen wrote down  on a piece of leather more white than sliver and more pure than Sapphire

As we can so we can see even Shia sources contradict each other in terms of meaning, this is Tafsir Al-Qummi one of the most will respected Tafsir of the shia
@15:40 the masked arab cites another verse where nun is appeared to be cited, however I myself couldn’t believe this deceptive step, let us be clear this so called wale has different wording in chapter 68:1 it’s worded as following ن
As this simple, just a letter, however at 21:87 the masked arab cites another whale story apparent that it’s has the same whale, but this is a different wording which is prescribed as follows النون
Let us compare them now, the so called first wale ن   vs. the new whale النون   can you spot the difference?
The other problem with this is that this is a fallacious argument, it’s the fallacy of nonsequitur, it doesn’t logically follows that Nun (litter) being a whale evident by Nun (name) in verse 21:87 Notice how the masked arab was so deceptive not to cite the Arabic source, if he does the clear difference in name between the two whales in question will cast doubt to his hypothesis, my question now why didn’t the masked arab showed a screenshot of the Arabic version of this verse?


CONCLUSION



The masked arab has deceptively left out the other meanings of nun in the tafsiers he cited and quoted out of context, he deceived his gullible fans who have not paid attention to the English tafsir where it clearly give other meanings, he glorified Ibn Abbas but as we saw even Ibn Abbas contradicted himself, he cites a Quranic verse regarding flat earth when this is a red herring fallacy and has nothing to do with our topic, but he cited deceptively tafsir Al-jalalain regarding the flat earth claiming that in the arab version Al-Jalalain claim that scholars had general consensus ijma' when he clearly never made such claim, and he deceptively avoided all classical tafsirs that clearly refuting his hypothesis, he cites a shia tafsir to accommodate his propaganda yet he left out all the other shia tafsirs that contradict his, he cited IslamQA to allegedly preemptively respond to possible muslims criticism when at no point does the website denie the other meanings of the word, he cited Quranic chapter 21:87 were a whale by the name of Nun (in a form of a name not letter) to associate it with the whale of 68:1 claiming that sense this whale is similar in name to nun in 68:1 it's highly possible that nun (the litter) actually means the whale, this is nonsequitror 



[1]http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=68&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[2]http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=68&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1
[3]http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=7&tSoraNo=68&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&Page=3&Size=1&LanguageId=1
[4]http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=68&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&Page=2&Size=1&LanguageId=1
[5] Ibid
[6]http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=68&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2
[7]http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=88&tAyahNo=20&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[8] Ibid
[9]http://main.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=88&tAyahNo=20&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[10] Majmu’ Al-Fatawa (6/586)
[11] Majmu’ al-fatawa (25/195)
[12] http://islamqa.info/en/114861
[13] http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=49&ID=1880
[14] Sahih al-Bukhari 3808
[15] http://shiakotob-tafsieralkomiepart2.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_9141.html

56 comments:

  1. You seem to completely strawman his argument. He never claimed the Quran says that or that it was the only interpretation. He just asked why so many of the biggest scholars of tafsir would include it in their work. Because if they had any idea of what our reality was like, they would not put in and would disregard it.

    You seem very emotionally angry at him and the whole article comes off quite petty in my opinion.
    In doing so, you've completely missed his argument altogether and instead go off on a tirade that doesn't address the point he made.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. first error

      can you please show me where did i said that the masked arab claims the quran says Nun is a whale?

      second error

      false, as i have demonstrated scholars are In contradiction, again the key word is contradiction, non of them have general consensus that nun means a whale, you just committed a strawman on all scholars

      third error

      emotionally angry? as i stated before in a comment of mine to him when he asked why I'm not nice to him, i said eye for an eye, let me ask you, what will be your emotion when someone call you deluded just for criticizing them, mock you infront of 12k people,make an imaginary character of you and represent counter arguments from your side that you yourself don't even make, your entire second paragraph is a clear evidence as to that you read some parts and of my reply and completely closed it without continuing to read the article, i directly used his own sources against him, including his only source regarding Alexander the great showing of his poor research methodology, i cited the tafsirs he used and showed the rest of them that he willfully cut off from his fans, i simply add some humor and insults because I'm using his own style against him, i told him before that if he wish a civilized conversation, he should have made a serious video with no insults where he gets to the point, you seam to be the kind of a fan who value emotion over logic

      Delete
  2. Hey brother, very nice blog.

    Can you touch on the subject of slavery on Islam?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you
      Can you please tell me your issue with it?

      Delete
    2. Sorry for late response but it's the first thing that people charge against Islam and the Prophet(peace be upon him) that he didn't free slaves and he bought slaves.

      You should also keep on making responses to this fraud, because some Muslim brothers may believe him and leave Islam, and also to tell people how a deceptive guy this is.

      Delete
    3. there "people" need to specify the problem they have with slavery on Islam, what is their issue? are they claiming that Islam doesn't allow slaves to be free? are they claiming that Islam treat them badly?, as for the claim that he didn't free slaves this is historically inaccurate, even orientalists makes the claim that he set free over 39 thousnad slaves and more, according to Wikipedia page regarding Islamic view of slavery, Muhammad and his family freed 39,237 slaves

      now regarding the masked arab, i don't see any point on continuing the reply, but i think you are looking to much at his channel, and you are believing him whenever he claim that Muslims are watching his videos and leaving islam, you shouldn't believe him just because he says that because either
      he is making this claim up to gain popularity
      these people that are messaging him never been Muslims and they are simply saying that to give him huge push of support

      in short, don't believe everything you see, especially from the masked arab, If those are really Muslims who are about to leave the faith, sooner or later they will come across my blog, and they will see why i stopped responding to him

      Delete
  3. Brother, thank you so much for this. I was having doubts because of this fraud.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No problem, I could have kept making refutations to him, but I was like after this I couldn't believe me eyes, plus the amount of toxin in his community is unbearable , non of them Want a civilized conversation

      Delete
  4. ههههه يحسب نفسه ذكي ههه والله عجي
    وهل تعلم الملحدين يعبدون هذا الشخص وهم لا يشعرون

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. الرجاء اخي عدم استخدام الألفاظ الساخرة يجب ان تعتبر نفسك فوق مستواهم، دعهم يسخرون و يشتمون كما يشاؤون ، اعتبر نفسك فوق مستواهم و لا تنزل نفسك بمستواهم
      هم من يخسر في النهاية

      Delete
  5. I find it rather amusing that even in the 21st century, people like you are going to such great lengths to defend iron age belief systems.
    Personally, my main point of criticism of Islam would be that it offers no empirical evidence for the grandiose, absurd miracle claims that it makes. All we see is people like you desperately scrambling to defend scripture as its iron age content squeaks and squeals under the increasing load of scrutiny and debunking that it's being subjected to.
    Amusing.
    I hope that withing a century, give or take, people can have a good laugh about all this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find it rather amusing how in the 21st century, people like you are so childish so idiotic so moronic not to address an argument instead cling into ad homienm fallacies, and react with knee jerking reaction, if you have a problem with my refutation present it as factual reply, not this moronic childish and rather silly reply

      "Personally, my main point of criticism of Islam would be that it offers no empirical evidence"
      in your case and in the case of the masked arab and your desperate defense of him, this comment is so ironic

      "absurd miracle claims that it makes"
      another anecdotal and rather emotional claim, with no logical explanation no rational deduction, you lack consistency and honesty

      "All we see is people like you desperately scrambling to defend scripture as its iron age content squeaks and squeals under the increasing load of scrutiny and debunking that it's being subjected to.
      Amusing.

      instead of actually seeing the lies presented by the masked arab, you ironically cling into your desperate ideology, any criticism to your idol the masked arab you reply with this ironic and rather childish and hypocritical reply, no logic was presented, no rationality is presented, just you and your knee jerk reaction to my refutation.
      Debunk? are you living in wonderland?

      "I hope that withing a century, give or take, people can have a good laugh about all this."

      and i hope within a century people like you will extinct and replaced with people who actually think, and not use their emotion over their brain

      your claims are outmust childish, idiotic myopic, you don't use your brain, no logical reply, all what you did is emotional reply, this is why i decided to make this my final reply to him, but I'm tempted to make more replies to him

      you will so desperately defend him with no logical reason, you didn't even point out a single alleged error in my blog

      so sad/

      Delete
  6. Please make a YouTube channel and make videos out of articles you've made responding the videos that you've already refuted of his.

    Please do so and NAME him in the title of the video and this way any person who search YouTube for refutations of him will find your video and see him for being the charlatan he is. I recommended this video response thing to another YouTuber - LearnQuranicArabic and theMaskedArab himself responded to the videos he made, this will make you know that if he can see responses to his videos then for sure his fans and the Muslims who stumbled on his videos will see it.

    I would make a video response to his videos mimicking your counter argument if I could and post it but I don't know if I should waste my time doing so.

    Jazakallah for this response those but please do not stop making responses to his videos, sure it may not benefit his deluded fans but it will definitely benefit people like me who will find out how to refute his lies eloquently as you've done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. for personal reasons i won't make a YouTube channel, please appreciate what i have to offer here in this blog

      as for continuing on making replies this will waste my time, as he will not learn to fix his lack of research credentials, and his poor excuses of arguments, plus his community is toxic and condecending at best

      as regarding my channel being available, if you look up the masked arab on google search my blog appear as the third result, so as for publicity it's out there, even his fans on Reddit made a post regarding my blog

      Delete
    2. although to be fair I'm tempted to make more replies, i have been thinking about it for the past days
      as for you making videos mimicking my Blog, you could if you can, we can talk about this privetly if you want to

      Delete
    3. Brother you need to keep responding because from his twitter, he plans to do a video about ISIS, that is just going to misguide more people and increase the hatred on Islam.

      Delete
    4. Why would you even check his Twitter, isn't my blog a reason enough for you not to check him? Plus increase hatred ? There are many anti Muslim videos regarding Isis that still and will have more popularity than him, yet doesn't make as much impact as it should

      Delete
    5. Sorry, I should have worded it better. What I meant was he is very good at deceiving people (as you can tell from his videos) so he is better at convincing people than your usual christian missionary. But it's just a recommendation.

      Delete
    6. I recommend you stick to academics regarding Isis and terrorism. Such as Norman finkelstine , Noam Chomsky , Robert pape and so on, it's actually not his videos that make him so good at deceving, if you notice it, it's actually his weak minded gullible fans , I noticed how in his discussion section of his channel how they worship him as an idol, the even went far and suggest to make a statue of him, which is just so sad.

      But as a side note, I'm actually wandering and thinking of making new replies to him, but I have to stop at one point , since I have more important things to take care of and make articles about, than some randome polemicist (yes polemicist, that is what he is) on YouTube

      Delete
  7. I didn't see you answer any of the questions he raises in the video, I'm frankly a little disappointed, I was expecting someone to prove him wrong.
    You just go on a long rant.
    He claims the major tafseers mention the story of the whale. It doesn't matter if they mention it as one of several options, he actually says there are interpretations which say it's just a letter if you listened to the video.
    His point is why do major mufassireen say this if Islam educated people properly and the Quran easily confirmed our scientific reality. Why would so many experts get it so wrong.
    That point stands strongly and has not been refuted or even answered.
    You're too busy talking about irrelevant small matters just to have some kind of answer but it doesn't seem you have any answer to the central question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Question? what Question?
      "I was expecting someone to prove him wrong. "
      this just proves that you are either dishonest, or didn't understand the Main premise of this article, This article is NOT to prove him wrong, but to show how dishonest he is when he never remotely even said that there are other meanings to the letter mentioned in the verse
      "He claims the major tafseers mention the story of the whale. It doesn't matter if they mention it as one of several options"
      yes it does, why would he make the assumption that almost all scholars agree that the Whale meaning is the only possible meaning to it, when they clearly cited other meanings to the litter, You need to read his Reddit post and see directly that he provide two options
      one option state that Scholars agree regarding such narrative
      two state that scholars didn't understand what the verse actually means
      Notice among these two options he gave, at no point did he stated anywhere that scholar Do have other Meanings to the verse
      "he actually says there are interpretations which say it's just a letter if you listened to the video"
      Interpretation doesn't mean literal meaning, interpretation simply means how you understand the verse context, But at no point in his video where he said that Nun can Mean one of Gods litters, which is one of the meanings provided by classical Tafsiers, can you please show me the timeline in his video where he said that there are other meanings mentioned?
      "His point is why do major mufassireen say this if Islam educated people properly and the Quran easily confirmed our scientific reality"
      Because that is Their own anecdotal interpretation, No where does the Quran makes the Claim of a Giant Whale, which means this is their own interpretation, that they are held responsibility for it NOT the Quran
      "That point stands strongly and has not been refuted or even answered."
      That Point is a Fallacious Reasoning
      "You're too busy talking about irrelevant small matters "
      such as?
      your defense of TMA is out most desperate, if you read his Reddit post, you can clearly see that he believes that Scholars think Nun Is whale, and that it's the only possible explanation we have, but if he read more, or even if he was honest enough, he would have said that there are other meanings to the litter, rendering his Hypothesis false, plus associating Islam with experts simply because they are experts is both Guilt of association fallacy and Appeal to authority fallacy
      if your central Question is why doe they believe in the Whale narrative which allegedly contradict science, then this Question is by itself is FALSE, since as i demonstrated,they DON'T believe it to be the only narrative, infact they often contradict themselves regarding the meanings, which further more proves that they had not have General consensus regarding the Issue, rendering your Question a Strawman fallacy

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. this website could cover up your concerns, although i don't agree with some parts, they make some few good points
      www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?p=99813

      Delete
  9. One more think,does the Quran say in 41:9-12 and 2:29 that the earth was created first?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the first verse seams to talk about Proto-Earth or Early earth as it was on it's early stages of development, along with the heavens I.e the stars are also on their early stages of development, so I'm not sure where are you getting the idea that the Earth in this verse, is the same earth that we are living in it today
      there is not a defentive seqence of events, the Verse doesn't say anywhere that he created this first, then this secound, then this third, and i challage anyone to prove that
      in regards to the last verse
      it says creating what is IN Earth NOT Earth itself

      Delete
  10. The Ma$ked Arab is NOT who people think he is.

    ive seen some of his comments on youtube and his comments are completely different than his videos.

    He uses psychological tools to deceive his audience. He acts nice and open minded in his videos but in the comments, he is Mr.IKNOWEVERYTHINGABOUTISLAMANDIAMSMARTERTHANYOU. He always insults the muslims and thinks he is smarter than them.

    BTW i posted a comment showing how he contradict himself, then that comment got deleted...strange

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that is one of the reasons why i stopped responding to him, he has no interest in changing his mind, and always very cocky, although I'm Tempted to make more replies to him if he come up with a video about ISIS

      he is always acting as Mr.IKNOWEVERYTHINGABOUTISLAMANDIAMSMARTERTHANYOU in both comment section and videos, if you watched his video regarding pedophilia what i refuted he mocked all Muslims who doubt him and take his claims with grain of salt and called them deluded, he only respect the Muslims who has agreement with him, he is not what he think he is, he is a polemicist NOT a skeptic, and Quite Biased one

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Making more posts to him not only will break my promise in the article where i said that this is my final reply, but also will show me as I'm not a man of my word, plus it will show the people that I'm kinda Obsessed with him, which I'm not, second of all three articles that expose him are good enough for anyone who watch his videos and is honest for research porous not to trust him, my point is not to drive people away from his channel, but to expose him and show that he should not be trusted

      anyways, can you point me out to that Muslim video that he made that childish comment in?

      but why do you insist on making more replies? is he getting into your head or something?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. how do you know that they are Muslims? you do realize that they can claim that for attention right?

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. he might make a video regarding ISIS and in accommodation i might make an article myself

      Delete
    8. First the rationlizer stopped his channel, so i see no reason to reply to him, second of all, his videos are the same old mumbo jumbo Cliche claims, i think his strongest one is regarding embryology in the Quran, if you want a decent reply to it, read the articles from Islam papers websites

      but then again please answer me, why are they getting into your head if you know they are cherry picking and being deceitful?

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. https://islampapers.com/

      so? how do you know he is not being deceitful? for example the video regarding Alexander the Great that you said made you doubt Islam, if you read the bottom of my aritcle here you can clearly see i dealt brifly with his video, Using his own source in the video against him, showing that the translation was more likely writing between eight to ninth century, which means in his logic the Quran is copying from a source that was written after it was revealed, can you grasp such logic?

      i also recommend using http://www.searching-islam.com/# if you wanna search for an issue, but i won't recommend some results like answering chrisitanity

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. contact me on Skype if you wish some of your Questions answered, this blogger account is not meant for long tedious comments

      Delete
  11. Here is a rebuttal of your claim that Alexander the great story was written later the quran: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/horned.htm

    No, it was there before the quran so the accusation is still standing and the parallelism between it and the quran is quite interesting

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. your website doesn't provide any accurate assumptions, and doesn't refute the sources provided here
      http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBgilg.html
      and here
      http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBhorned.html


      i checked each claim on your website and each quote doesn't exist in the original source that i cited, in islamic awareness, therefore your website has cited imaginary quotes that doesn't exist anywhere, this just demonstrate how you don't fact check your sources

      they make the following statement
      "During the Ptolemic dynasty, Egyptian and Greek languages were used simultaneously. During the Roman Governorship only Latin was used and occasionally Greek. Within a hundred years the Egyptian hieroglyphics were no longer used or understood by anyone and even the Roman authors of the time suggested that hieroglyphics was not even a language. In the truest sense this is now a dead language"

      yet their source doesn't exist, no author and no academic book was given

      they also state the following

      " The manuscript here consist of three version, the first one is very corrupt, but as a whole it represents the original legend. In the second the differences between the legend and history are made to be less marked, and the authorship of the composition is attributed to Pseudo-Callisthenes.

      So, does this mean that the "corrupt" manuscripts excuse the Qur'an from the accusation of borrowing? Dr. Saifullah attempts to use the poisoned-well fallacy, that is, if there is a problem with one portion of a work, "

      this is a strawman fallacy, at no point did the authors of islamic awarness disregarded the entire book based on one corrupt manuscript

      but then again this Quote is Not found anywhere in the website in question, this is yet another imaginary quotation, and another proof that you didn't fact check your own sources
      are the authors of answering Islam, making things up and attributing it to islamic awareness?

      " Apparently, Arabs were at least familiar with some of the Alexander legends before Muhammad arrived on the scene. In fact, the Qur'an clearly tells us, in Sura 18:83, that this fable was known, by at least some Meccans, who were attempting to test Muhammad:

      They will ask thee of Dhu'l-Qarneyn. Say: I shall recite unto you a remembrance of him. "

      this is a non sequitur fallacy, just because muhammad knew about dul qaranian doesn't mean he knew about Alexander romance, or Alexander the great himself

      i could go on, and the rest of the quotations asserted to the authors of islamic awareness doesn't exist on their website, where did the authors of answering islam brought these claims? is beyond me

      Delete
    2. however, at the end finally the team of answering islam provide a quote that actually exist in islamic awareness

      " This problem does not disappear! Budge's book does not claim that this legend post-dates Muhammad, and the poisoned-well fallacy does not work because Budge used various manuscripts to reconstruct the legend from the "corrupted" texts. Remember, according to Budge, the Latin version was composed between 340-345 A.D., long before the time of Muhammad. "

      however, this is a Strawman fallacy, the team of islamic awareness are NOT dismissing the entire manuscript based on few bad apples, they are stating that there has been many additions to the story , so the story was not fixed and didn't have a single narration, this has nothing to do with translation

      and another strawman is the claim that the team of islamic awareness claim that bude is insinuating that the story pre date the Quran, this is a strawman, the date claim is not mentioned anywhere in islamic awareness quotation of budge as it's not the central argument

      "Regardless of the source of the legend of Alexander the Great, the Qur'an tells us in Sura 18:83, that the Meccans will ask Muhammad about Dhu'l-Qarneyn. How did the Meccans know about this legend?"

      again, this is a non sequitur fallacy, just because the allegedly knew about the legend doesn't mean they knew the identity of Dul Qaranian being Alexander the great

      Delete
    3. Now,if I didnt misunterstand you,(sorry if this is the case) you are saying the date claim is not mentioned anywhere. The ai page gives a source saying that story was written before the quran: "First, the oldest preserved manuscript is not necessarily the original. Second, as is often the case with "Islamic Awareness" articles, the previous sentences of the text quoted were conveniently omitted:
      The history of Pseudo-Callisthenes has been translated into Latin by Julius Valerius and Leo the Archpresbyter. Julius Valerius is supposed to have lived about the third or forth century A.D. His work was one of the sources of the Itinerarium Alexandri, a work of unknown authorship, which is composed about 340-345 A.D., and it was through this version that the peoples of the north-west and west of Europe became acquainted with the fabulous history of Alexander."


      If you accept there was a version of that story before the quran, then what's the problem? That's what TMA is saying? If there are so many similarities, why not assume the quran borrowed that story? We can think that Dul Qaranian may be Alexander the great. Like these mufassirs,including al-Jalalayn:
      https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dhul-Qarnayn_and_the_Alexander_Romance#Early_Islamic_Scholars


      #Regardless of the source of the legend of Alexander the Great, the Qur'an tells us in Sura 18:83, that the Meccans will ask Muhammad about Dhu'l-Qarneyn. How did the Meccans know about this legend?"

      again, this is a non sequitur fallacy, just because the allegedly knew about the legend doesn't mean they knew the identity of Dul Qaranian being Alexander the great#

      Here, the point is that people back then knew something about that legend. They are asking Muhammad. If the quran had been the first to mention that story and it had never been there before the quran as you think,then how did people know about it and asking?


      ~irrelevant : in fact there are more important issues to discuss when it comes to islam. Now that you are here and do your best to defend islam, I hv a question. here's an unpleasent hadith about an assasination. http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/103739
      Someone kills his slave for insulting Muhammad and he appreciates him, which is sahih According to scholars. and they all say blasphemers should be killed, based on such hadiths.there is also the story of Asma bint marwan which is similar. I wonder what you would say about that? Dont you think there is something wrong here? Is that what we should expect from a last perfect prophet of God? Is islam still "a religion of peace" ??

      Delete
    4. Ok my reply turned out to be too long, so i have to use pastebin and give you the link that contain my reply
      http://pastebin.com/VeqvkR1C

      Delete
  12. In case the link is dead: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://islamqa.info/en/103739&gws_rd=cr&ei=LCh0V4LqOIv7affFsNAP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the link being dead is not my issue as i have stated
      "yet their source doesn't exist, no author and no academic book was given"
      there was no author no book no citation given

      anyways, why did you give me a link from IslamQa about apostasy?

      Delete
    2. Did you just seriously go away without answering anything I said??

      I showed that even islamic scholars said dul qaranian was Alexander the great,therefore it was written before the quran. it makes perfect sense to think these two stories mention the same man,as the great mufassir al-Jalalayn said.


      You yourself admitted that the early version of the story was written before the quran, now, why think its impossible for Muhammad to borrow it? Why not? Thats the accusation. The verse also confirms that such a story was known by people.




      ##First, the oldest preserved manuscript is not necessarily the original. Second, as is often the case with "Islamic Awareness" articles, the previous sentences of the text quoted were conveniently omitted:

      The history of Pseudo-Callisthenes has been translated into Latin by Julius Valerius and Leo the Archpresbyter. Julius Valerius is supposed to have lived about the third or forth century A.D. His work was one of the sources of the Itinerarium Alexandri, a work of unknown authorship, which is composed about **340-345 A.D.**, and it was through this version that the peoples of the north-west and west of Europe became acquainted with the fabulous history of Alexander.##

      So, Ai says this part is in the same text of islamic awareness used as source, BUT it omitted this, so they HAVE the source for that part.


      ~~ I just wondered if you hv an answer to that hadith about killing a slave for insulting Muhammad, so I gave that link, read my last paragraph above ~~

      Delete
    3. "Did you just seriously go away without answering anything I said??"

      have some patience, if you gave me a long text, expect a long reply seriously

      "I showed that even islamic scholars said dul qaranian was Alexander the great,therefore it was written before the quran. "

      first, these scholars DIDN'T predate the quran, these scholars have interpreted the quran and written their translations more than a hundred years after the Quran. again this is a non sequitur

      " it makes perfect sense to think these two stories mention the same man,as the great mufassir al-Jalalayn said."
      al jalalain was composed in 1459 how many years do you think this predate the Quran?

      mentioning the same man doesn't imply borrowing

      "You yourself admitted that the early version of the story was written before the quran, now,

      strawman fallacy, the center version AGAIN is the Syriac version where Alexander romance is predated by the Quran, at no point did i said Alexander romance predate the quran with the Syriac version

      "why think its impossible for Muhammad to borrow it? Why not? "
      because we don't have a single empirical evidence that he "borrow" it

      "The verse also confirms that such a story was known by people."
      again non sequitur fallacy

      "So, Ai says this part is in the same text of islamic awareness used as source, BUT it omitted this, so they HAVE the source for that part."
      this is false, the quotes used by AI doesn't exist in IA, please double check the sources, AGAIN the main focal point is the Syriac translation, in which the alleged Alexander romance was translated to Arabic, it doesn't predate the Quran as i have shown


      "~~ I just wondered if you hv an answer to that hadith about killing a slave for insulting Muhammad, so I gave that link, read my last paragraph above ~~"

      seriously for the love of god, have patiance

      Delete
    4. Okay I think I got it now.



      Well, as for that assasination, I just noticed that the same text you quoted is on the islamqa page I posted as well, with slight diffirencies: ""But when he found out that she had broken the covenant time after time, by insulting the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and reviling him, all her rights were denied, and she deserved the punishment of execution which sharee’ah imposes on everyone who reviles the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), whether he is a Muslim, a dhimmi or a mu’aahid, because transgressing against the status of the Prophets is disbelief in Allaah Almighty, and it invalidates every sanctity, right and covenant; it is a major betrayal which deserves the most severe punishment. Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah (3/1398);


      So, she broke the treaty just BY INSULTING MUHAMMAD, she didnt do anything else. The only reason of assasination was blasphemy, as islamqa says. Also, all the scholars agree that those who insult Muhammad should be killed, based on such hadiths. Sorry but you failed to give an explanation

      Anyway, there is no point discussing that since its irrelevant and you are a quranist who does not believe hadiths even if they are sahih,like this one.


      Also you might be interested:

      https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an_Only_Islam_-_Why_it_is_Not_Possible

      Delete
    5. "and you are a quranist who does not believe hadiths even if they are sahih,like this one.


      Also you might be interested:

      https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an_Only_Islam_-_Why_it_is_Not_Possible"

      as i said again, and why are you not paying attention to me? don't cite wikiislam as it's NOT an academic source and anyone can edit it
      this however should cover up your concerns
      http://free-minds.org/forum/index.php


      "So, she broke the treaty just BY INSULTING MUHAMMAD, she didnt do anything else. "
      can you please cite evidence?

      "The only reason of assasination was blasphemy, as islamqa says."
      citation needed

      "Also, all the scholars agree that those who insult Muhammad should be killed, based on such hadiths. Sorry but you failed to give an explanation "
      so only blasphemy could break a treaty? can you please cite your evidence?

      "Anyway, there is no point discussing that since its irrelevant "
      then why did you bring it up?

      Delete
    6. For Gods sake, dont you read what I posted??? Here's it is again:

      '"But when he found out that she had broken the covenant time after time, ***BY INSULTING the Messenger of Allaah and reviling him***, all her rights were denied, and ***she deserved the punishment of execution which sharee’ah imposes on everyone who reviles the Prophet*** whether he is a Muslim, a dhimmi or a mu’aahid, because transgressing against the status of the Prophets is disbelief in Allaah Almighty, and it invalidates every sanctity, right and covenant; it is a major betrayal which deserves the most severe punishment. Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah (3/1398)


      That quote says she was killed for insulting Muhammad and blasphemers should be killed. Why are you still asking for source,its quite clear.

      Also Look at this for more references on blasphemy issue: http://web.archive.org/web/20150108005555/http://islamqa.info/en/22809



      And Wikiislam provides sources, the books they use as source are given there. in fact, this is not smht needing source, that article just shows that there cannot be islam without hadiths,bcs the quran lack details. It doesnt even tell how to pray

      Delete
    7. i will ask again, where are your evidence that the insult were the exclusive reason for breaking the treaty?
      i'm asking for sources that state the insult was the only reason for killing her

      just because they cite sources doesn't mean their argument is accurate 70% of their sources are hadith sources, making their argument redundant, since they are by default rejected by quranists

      lacks details? all of these things have been answered in the link i sent you, which answers all the verses wikiislam cited

      so i will ask again, why did you cite this narration?

      let me ask you this, are details necessary for our salvation?

      Delete
    8. i also noticed how you didn't read the hadith in total as she didn't just insult him, she abused him

      "A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (ﷺ) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (ﷺ) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (ﷺ) was informed about it.
      He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.
      He sat before the Prophet (ﷺ) and said: Messenger of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.
      Thereupon the Prophet (ﷺ) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood."
      Sunan Abi Dawud 4361
      grade sahih

      Delete
  13. You strawmaned the masked arab entirely. He never claimed that no one rejected the nun whale translation.
    And why the hell would be hide an even more ridiculous story than the nun whale which is the ink well? This article is entirely based on a strawman. Nice try though

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. False, you are the one strawmaning me here, show me where did I that he said that scholars said nun translation is the only one

      The entire point of the article is to show how dishonest he is by hiding the other meanings of the word, seriouslly do ex-Muslims suffer low of IQ?
      Even more ridiculous story than the whale? Because it explain it more rationally , an ink and a pen that revisited all what happened in earth

      Nice try? How about you engage with my article and my arguments one by one instead of making idiotic strawman, and associating claims on to me that I never said

      Read the note I wrote above , don't try desperate attempts to defend your idol
      "Note:
      It seams that Some of the masked arab fans are not careful readers, the point in this article is to address the claim that why are many scholars cite the Whale narrative, this question is a false assumption by the masked arab based on the following premises:

      1-It dictates that Scholars must have general consensus and general agreement regarding the meaning of the litter, which as i will demonstrate later on, that this is not the case
      2-The Scholars have cited many other possible meanings to the litter, rendering the masked arab Hypothesis to be futile.

      from the above two premises we can clearly see that the masked arab question as to why many scholars regard the Whale narrative as the only possible explanation, Or as some of his fans strawman this question to desperately save his fallacious argument, as they put it, why do so many scholars cite the whale narrative in their Tafsirs, as stated again, from the above two premises, this question is regarded as a strawman on all scholars of the Tafsir, first non of them regard the whale narrative is the only possible explanation, which means that we don't have general consensus (Ijma') regarding the Issue
      second, they cite many other possible meanings"

      Delete