(English isn't my first language so i might make grammatical mistakes)
Introduction:
I’ve dealt with the masked arab several times before, but
since I have tackled issues related to chapter 18 of the Quran, I decided to
wrap it up and make one last reply to the issue related to chapter 18, and what
better to start it that the very video that started the hole discussion by the
masked arab, the masked arab has wasted 3:51 minutes of his video dealing with
incoherent arguments and red herrings regarding Muhammad allegedly running away
from challenges, even though what the masked arab have done is a red herring
fallacy and has nothing to do with the topic, even he admitted that, but I
couldn’t fathom that he didn’t cite the context of each verse where Muhammad
allegedly run away from challenges, I shall deal now with his instruction
Although this entire segment can be ignored duo to the fact
that it has nothing to contribute to the subject, feel free to ignore it and jump
to Issue#2 and beyond
There are Two Main Issues in his video that forced me to make
this article, the claim that Muhammad ran away for 15 days with no answer and
complained to Gabriel, and the so called Ibn mas’ud manuscript, please keep
that in mind, since it’s my main argument and the cornerstone of my article and
his video that he base all of the verses of the seven sleepers all depends on
the so called narration the following in Issue#1 are not my main arguments, but rather my objections
If I made any mistake or an error, please advise me in it, in
a form of a civilized reply, any insulting and mocking reply won’t be allowed,
don’t act as a child
If there is any weak narration within the tafsirs I will cite
then please notify me of it, I will edit it out
What it needs to be meet:
In order for the masked arab to provide concrete evidence and
fixed interpretation that is agreed upon scholars, he have to provide evidence
that his interpretation is used by all tafsirs and not a single contradiction
should exist, please keep this in mind , this is very critical for the entire
article, and this response won’t be effective so as his video if we see
scholars agreeing and have general consensus regarding said interpretation, any
disagreement regarding a verse or an interpretation will render the masked arab
claims are purely moot
Please keep this in mind, this is very critical, if you gonna
claim that said interpretation and meaning is fixed and objective, then you
better bring evidence for it
Issue#1:
Right at @00:6 the masked arab claims that Chapter 18 shows
Muhammad to be just another false prophet, he already jumped into the
conclusion without presenting evidence for his hypothesis, but let’s ignore
this for now
@00:26 the masked arab claim that so
far Muhammad has so far brushed off any demand to prove his prophethood, this
is a claim that requires citation
The masked Arab start with the verse
3:183:
[They are] those who said,
"Indeed, Allah has taken our promise not to believe any messenger until he
brings us an offering which fire [from heaven] will consume." Say,
"There have already come to you messengers before me with clear proofs and
[even] that of which you speak. So why did you kill them, if you should be
truthful?"
The Masked arab claimed that this is a
Non sequitur, the masked arab state that Muhammad is saying “look I’m not going
to do that because your ancestors killed prophets before me”
Non Sequitur
When a conclusion is supported only by
extremely weak reasons or by irrelevant reasons, the argument is fallacious and
is said to be a Non Sequitur. However, we usually apply the term only when we
cannot think of how to label the argument with a more specific fallacy name.
Any deductively invalid inference is a non sequitur if it also very weak when
assessed by inductive standards.
Example:
Nuclear disarmament is a risk, but
everything in life involves a risk. Every time you drive in a car you are
taking a risk. If you're willing to drive in a car, you should be willing to
have disarmament.
The following is not an example:
"If she committed the murder, then there'd be his blood stains on her
hands. His blood stains are on her hands. So, she committed the murder."
This deductively invalid argument uses the Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent,
but it isn't a non sequitur because it has significant inductive strength.[1]
Let us examine what the verse is saying
using the following premises
·
"Indeed,
Allah has taken our promise not to believe any messenger until he brings us an
offering which fire [from heaven] will consume."
·
Muhammad
said "There have already come to you messengers before me with clear proofs
and [even] that of which you speak. So why did you kill them, if you should be
truthful?"
By the above two sentences we see the
verse is derived of one claim and the second sentence is a question
Non sequitur fallacy requires at least
two premises claims, then followed by a conclusion that doesn’t logically
follow the previous premises, what the masked arab is claiming is that Muhammad
here has committed the non sequitur fallacy, however This is a strawman
fallacy, at no point does the verse make such statement, I don’t even need to
use the tafsirs to explain that, anyone with an average IQ can see it, Muhammad
was questioning the integrity of the Jews, not that he is saying he won’t do
it, at no point does the verse make such statement, even if Muhammad was making
such statement this is not a non sequitur fallacy as Muhammad is not making any
conclusion based on any premise, however the masked arab does this without
citing any tafsir any explanation, it seems that he only does such thing when
it suits his convenient, however, how is this a non sequitur is beyond me, the
verse state as follows
The Jews claimed that they won’t believe
in a prophet unless he showed a sign
Muhammad asked (not concluded) that
they killed the prophets before him even when they showed them signs that they
believed in, so how can he trust them?
In conclusion, Muhammad is stating how
could he convince them if they simply kill those who show them signs that they
believed in, this is Not a non sequitur, non sequitur is the conclusion that
doesn’t follow the previous premises, this just demonstrate the masked arab
lack of knowledge in logical fallacies, what he did here is a strawman fallacy,
Muhammad in this verse is not making any conclusion based on premises earlier ,
but he is questioning their integrity and honesty regarding the issue
However, let us see what major Tafsirs
have said regarding this verse
“فقال الله تعالـى لنبـيه مـحمد
صلى الله عليه وسلم: { أَن لا نُؤْمِنَ لِرَسُولٍ حَتَّىٰ يَأْتِيَنَا بِقُرْبَانٍ
تَأْكُلُهُ ٱلنَّارُ قُلْ قَدْ جَاءكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِّن قَبْلِى بِٱلْبَيّنَـٰتِ } يعنـي:
بـالـحجج الدالة علـى صدق نبوتهم وحقـيقة قولهم؛ { وَبِٱلَّذِى قُلْتُمْ } يعنـي: وبـالذي
ادّعيتـم أنه إذا جاء به لزمكم تصديقه، والإقرار بنبوّته من أكل النار قربـانه إذا
قرّب لله دلالة علـى صدقه؛ { فَلِمَ قَتَلْتُمُوهُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَـٰدِقِينَ } يقول
له: قل لهم: قد جاءتكم الرسل الذين كانوا من قبلـي بـالذي زعمتـم أنه حجة لهم علـيكم،
فقتلتـموهم، فلـم قتلتـموهم وأنتـم مقرّون بأن الذي جاءوكم به من ذلك كان حجة لهم علـيكم
إن كنتـم صادقـين فـي أن الله عهد إلـيكم أن تؤمنوا بـمن أتاكم من رسله بقربـان تأكله
النار حجة له علـى نبوته؟”[2]
Translation:
And God
Almighty said to his Prophet {Indeed, Allah has taken our promise not to
believe any messenger until he brings us an offering which fire [from heaven]
will consume." Say, "There have already come to you messengers before
me with clear proofs} meaning evidence that shows their prophethood and the
truth of what they say , {and [even] that of which you speak} meaning even with
what you demanded that if it was revealed you will believe and admit his
prophethood of those who brought an
offering which fire [from heaven] will consume as evidence for their honesty {why
then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?} he tells him to ask them, other
prophets before came onto you with evidence of what you demanded, but you
killed them, so why did you kill them if you acknowledge of what they brought
of evidence if you were truthful that Allah took a promise from you not to
believe in an messenger unless He showed you a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From
heaven). As evidence for his prophethood?
This is
clearly a strawman committed by the masked arab, Muhammad is not making any
form of conclusion here to follows that he can use the non sequitur fallacy, he
is testing their honesty
Example:
John claim
that he will believe in empirical evidence when he sees it, but he is known to
ignore it and stray away from it, jack claims that he is a messenger
Johan says
“I won’t believe it unless you bring empirical evidence”
Jack
replies “why then did you ignore all those people before me who showed you
empirical evidence and you run away?”
Here this
is not a non sequitur but begging the Question, this is jack testing the honest
of John beliefs
We are
already a minute in and the masked arab strawmaned the Quran
@01:25 the
masked arab cite the Quranic verse 6:8
“And they
say, "Why was there not sent down to him an angel?" But if We had
sent down an angel, the matter would have been decided; then they would not be
reprieved.”
The masked
arab later on state that this is yet another “ridiculous excuse” for not
providing a miracle, what the masked arab seems to imply is that here god won’t
send down an angle because Muhammad is incapable of providing a miracle or that
god Can’t send down an angle, if this is what is seems to be his argument then
he just misquoted the verse, because the later verse clearly state that god can
send down an angle
He also
claim that the commentary of the tafsirs , it claim that if we send a sign they
have to belive imidiatly otherwise they have to be destroyed , then go forth
and claim this is what the tafsirs agree upon, now that is what I call a
ridicules midquotations, why didn’t he cite the rest of the tafsirs that
clearly shows different interpertations?
حدثني محمد بن عمرو، قال: ثنا أبو عاصم، قال: ثنا عيسى، عن
ابن أبي نجيح، عن مجاهد، في قول الله تعالى: { لَوْلا أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهِ مَلَكٌ } في
صورته، { وَلَوْ أنْزَلْنَا مَلَكا لَقُضِيَ الأمْرُ } لقامت الساعة.[3]
Translation:
Muhammad
bin ‘Amru said: Abu ‘sam said: Isa said: from ibn abi Najih from Mujahid in
god’s words { And they say, "Why was there not sent down to him an
angel?"} in his image {, the matter would have been decided; then they
would not be reprieved} meaning , the judgment day will come.
So we see
here a tafsir claiming that this could also mean judgment day, not punishing
them persay
حدثنا أبو كريب، قال: ثنا عثمان بن سعيد، قال: أخبرنا بشر،
عن عمار، عن أبي روق، عن الضحاك، عن ابن عباس، قوله: { وَلَوْ أنْزَلْنَا مَلَكا لَقُضِيَ
الأمْرُ ثُمَّ لا يَنْطُرُونَ } قال: لو أتاهم ملك في صورته لماتوا.[4]
Translation:
Abu Karib
told us: Uthman bin Sa’id told us, Bashir told us, from ‘amar, from abi rooq,
from Dahaq, from Ibn Abbas, god’s words { And they say, "Why was there not sent down to him
an angel?" But if We had sent down an angel, the matter would have been
decided; then they would not be reprieved} said : if he brought an angle in his
image they would have died.
So here we
have another intended meaning to the word Qadiah al amir
We have
here multiple interpretation, first one cited by the masked arab is that they
will be destroyed, the sound one state the judgment day will come, and the
third one state that they would have died
So why did
he pick the first one? Surly he checked multiple tafsirs and commentaries for
that matter
However as
I stated, verse 6:9 does lay down that god can send down an angle
6:9:
And if We
had made him an angel, we would have made him [appear as] a man, and We would
have covered them with that in which they cover themselves.
According
to Tafsir Al-Tabari
“حدثنا أبو كريب، قال: ثنا عثمان بن سعيد، قال: ثنا بشر بن عمار، عن أبي روق،
عن الضحاك، عن ابن عباس: { ولَوْ جَعَلْنَاهُ مَلَكاً لَجَعَلْناه رَجُلاً } يقول:
ما أتاهم إلا في صورة رجل، لأنهم لا يستطيعون النظر إلى الملائكة. [5]”
Translation:
Abu Kareib
told us he said: Uthman bin Sa’ed said: Bashir bin ‘Amar from Abi Ruq from
Dahak From ibn Abbas: {And if We had made him an angel, We would have made him [appear as] a man}
he says: he will only show up in the image of a man because they can’t see
angles
This doesn’t
mean Muhammad is making an excuse for not providing a miracle, the verse is
saying that even if we bring down an angle they won’t believe it and they shall
bare punishment we shall explore at the end of the article several sources that
shows Muhammad answering challenges and providing proofs of his prophethood
Of course I
could be wrong here in what I assumed the masked arab is claiming regarding if
Muhammad won’t provide a miracle or that allah won’t send an angle
Later on
the masked arab cite 6:37
“And they
said: "Why is not a sign sent down to him from his Lord'' Say: "Allah
is certainly able to send down a sign, but most of them know not”
The masked
arab state that this is a nonsense response, again tafsirs are required
If we check
what Jami’ Albaian Fi Tafsir Al-Quran, it makes the following statement
“وكان هذا منهم تعنتاً بعد ظهور البراهين؛ وإقامة الحجة بالقرآن الذي عجزوا أن
يأتوا بسورة مثله، لما فيه من الوصف وعلم الغيوب. { وَلَـٰكِنَّ أَكْثَرَهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ
} أي لا يعلمون أن الله عز وجل إنما ينزل من الآيات ما فيه مصلحة لعباده؛ وكان في علم
الله أن يخرج من أصلابهم أقواماً يؤمنون به ولم يرد ٱستئصالهم. وقيل: { وَلَـٰكِنَّ
أَكْثَرَهُمْ لاَ يَعْلَمُونَ } أن الله قادر على إنزالها. [6]”
Translation:
This is
just an intransigent from their side after all the evidence that was
presented , and establishing the proof with the Quran that they were unable
to bring one like it, for all the things in it from description and the science
of the unknown { but
most of them know not} meaning that they don’t know that God only send down
verses that has special benefit for his slaves, and one of the sings of god
knowledge is to bring among them people who believe in him and he didn’t desire
to separate them and what is meant :{ but most of them know not} that God is able to bring
forth such signs
This tafsir
clearly state that signs and evidence was already presented to them, yet they
were stubborn not to believe in them, why would the masked arab cite verses
without tafsirs at one point, then use tafsirs at another when it suits his
convenient?
He states
the following “if you look at some of the commentaries they will suggest this
knowledge is the fact that if they see a miracle and they still don’t believe
it they will have to be destroyed as a people” citation needed, where are these
commentaries?
This tafsir
cited about claim that evidence were already presented, and they were stubbern
not to belive in it, why didn’t the mask arab use this tafsir?
Tafsir
Al-Tabari lays down another commentary
والآية العلامة، وذلك أنهم قالُوا: ما لِهَذَا الرَّسُولِ
يأْكُلُ الطَّعَامَ وَيْمشِي فِي الأسْوَاقِ لَوْلاَ أُنْزِلَ إلَيْهِ مَلَكٌ فيكونَ
مَعَهُ نَذِيراً أوْ يُلْقَى إلَيهِ كَنْزٌ أوْ تَكُونُ لَهُ جَنَّةٌ يأْكُلُ مِنْها.[7]
Translation:
And the
verse is a sign, and that they said: what is this prophet eating food and walk
in the market? If god has sent down an angle then he could be with him as an
advicer or, bring down upon him a tressor, or heaven he eats from
That is an
odd interpretation by al tabari, it seams that he is suggesting here is that
the polytheists where asking why not god send down an angle to accomedate
Muhammad in his daily tasks and spoil him with food?
Not to send
down an angle as an evidence
As we can
see, there are multible interpretation to this verse and what it actually
means, there is no fixed interpretation agreed upon by all tafsirs, let us
check another one, Jami Ahkam Al-Quran by Qurtubi
وكان هذا منهم تعنتاً بعد ظهور البراهين؛ وإقامة الحجة بالقرآن
الذي عجزوا أن يأتوا بسورة مثله، لما فيه من الوصف وعلم الغيوب[8]
This was an
Intransigent after all the evidence that was presented, and arguments from
Quran that they were unable to bring forth a chapter like it, because of the
linguistic style in it, and the knowledge of the unknown
Another
tafsir that seems to suggest that evidence was already presented to them
@02:20
The masked
arab cite the verse 8:31-33
{And when
Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard. If we willed, we
could say [something] like this. This is not but legends of the former
peoples.", And
[remember] when they said, "O Allah , if this should be the truth from
You, then rain down upon us stones from the sky or bring us a painful
punishment.", But
Allah would not punish them while you, [O Muhammad], are among them, and Allah
would not punish them while they seek forgiveness.}
He claims
that this is another “poor excuse” and state if allah is capable of anything
couldn’t he use laser like technology at his disposal
Is this
supposed to be a joke? Laser guided system? He states that they were not asking
for forgiveness but they were challenging him and mocking him
Please
citation is needed
In regards
to his response to the muslims who claim that the quran is a masterpiece in
Arabic, he cited the earlier notion in the verse {And when Our verses are
recited to them, they say, "We have heard. If we willed, we could say
[something] like this. This is not but legends of the former peoples."}
yet again a tafsir is required so let us examine it
In Jami’
Ahkam Al-Quran
" نزلت في النَّضر بن الحارث؛ كان خرج إلى الحِيرة في التجارة فاشترى أحاديث كَلِيلة
ودِمنة، وكِسرى وقيصر؛ فلما قصّ رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أخبار من مضى قال النضر:
لو شئت لقلت مثل هذا. وكان هذا وَقاحة وكذِبا. وقيل: إنهم توهموا أنهم يأتون بمثله،
كما توهّمت سحرة موسى، ثم راموا ذلك فعجزوا عنه وقالوا عِناداً: إن هذا إلا أساطير
الأوّلين." [9]
Translate:
This was
revealed in regards to Nazir bin Harist, he was outside to al-hira in a market
so he bought weak and corrupted hadits, so when the prophet Muhammad told
stories of the old al Nazir said: if I wish I could say just like that, and
this was foolishness and lies from him, and it was told that they were deluded
into thinking that they can bring like it just like how the wizards of Moses
where deluded when they throw their sticks and was unable to bring forth like
what he did and remained stubborn and said : { This is not but legends of the former peoples}.
This is
actually kinda embarrassing to Nazir bin Harith which we will deal with him
later, instead of bringing hadiths of his own, he had to buy them, and he even
bought weak ones
We will
deal with him and his alleged murder shortly
But, Tafsir
Al-Tabari gives us a different account, but also include Nazir Bin Harith
حدثنا القاسم، قال: ثنا الـحسين، قال: ثنـي حجاج، قال: قال
ابن جريج، قوله: { وَإذَا تُتْلَـى عَلَـيْهِمْ آياتُنا قالُوا قَدْ سَمِعْنا لَوْ
نَشاءُ لَقُلْنا مِثْلَ هذَا } قال: كان النضر بن الـحرث يختلف تاجراً إلـى فـارس،
فـيـمرّ بـالعبـاد وهم يقرءون الإنـجيـل، ويركعون ويسجدون. فجاء مكة، فوجد مـحمداً
صلى الله عليه وسلم قد أنزل علـيه وهو يركع ويسجد، فقال النضر: قد سمعنا، لو نشاء لقلنا
مثل هذا للذي سمع[10]
Translation:
Al-Qasim
told us: he said Hussain told us, he said Hajaj told us, he said ibn Jarir told
us I regards to {And
when Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard. If we
willed, we could say [something] like this. This is not but legends of the
former peoples."} said: Nazir bin Hartih was a merchant on his way to
Persia, so he came accurse Christians reading the gospel and kneeing down in
worship, so he came back to meccah and saw Muhammad was receiving revelation
and kneeing down and worshiping, so Nazir said: we heard, and if we desired we
can say the same to this
Another
interpretation to the story, here we see nazir seems to think Muhammad is worshiping
and doing the same prostration as the Christians he observed doing, therefore
he stated that he could do the same and this is nothing special
So at one
tafsir we see him buy weak hadiths, and in another we have another tafsir state
that he saw Christians bowing down and worshiping like Muhammad
Which one
is correct? As we can see there are multible interpretation to the story yet
again, yet the masked arab treat it like all tafsirs agree upon his
interpretation
The masked
arab state “why would any just and fair god demand people to believe without
evidence?”
But as we
examined the hadiths shortly Muhammad did provide evidence so why is the masked
arab now forgetting the main plot of the conversation
@03:05 the
masked arab claim that muslims often claim the quran is a masterpiece in
Arabic, then he cites 8:31 claiming from the text “We have heard. If we willed,
we could say [something] like this. This is not but legends of the former
peoples” he interpret it as somehow this is referring to the linguistic ability
of the Quran, however this is yet another strawman, what the verse is referring
is stories, Not the linguistic and grammar of the Quran persay , this is a reference
to the stories of the old, not the ability of the people to produce one chapter
with better linguistic style
Issue#2:
@04:10 finally
we entire the main plot of the video @04:21 the masked arab claim that Al-Nadir
was skeptical of Muhammad and caused him embarrassment and when the muslims caught
him he was executed, of course this is a lie and of course the masked arab
doesn’t provide sources for it, he later on claim that Nadir was educated, yet
he cites no sources no references for such claim, but I shall deal with all
that at the end of this article
@04:51-6:30 the masked arab cite an English translation of the occurrence
between Al-nadir and the jews
He claims
that at the end muhmmad was made to look frustrated because he was presented to
be like a fraud, what puzzles me is that he didn’t bother to check the
sanad for the narration
However, I
was able to gain full access to the entire chain of narration regarding the
story
“وَأَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْحَافِظُ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو
الْعَبَّاسِ مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ
الْجَبَّارِ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا يُونُسُ بْنُ بُكَيْرٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ إِسْحَاقَ
، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنِي رَجُلٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ مَكَّةَ ، عَنْ سَعِيدِ بْنِ
جُبَيْرٍ ، عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ : " أَنَّ مُشْرِكِي قُرَيْشٍ بَعَثُوا النَّضْرَ
بْنَ الْحَارِثِ ، وَعُقْبَةَ بْنَ أَبِي مُعَيْطٍ إِلَى أَحْبَارِ الْيَهُودِ بِالْمَدِينَةِ
، وَقَالُوا لَهُمْ : سَلُوهُمْ عَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ ، وَصِفُوا لَهُمْ صِفَتَهُ ، وَأَخْبِرُوهُمْ
بِقَوْلِهِ فَإِنَّهُمْ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ الأَوَّلِ وَعِنْدَهُمْ عِلْمُ مَا لَيْسَ
عِنْدَنَا مِنْ عِلْمِ الأَنْبِيَاءِ ، فَخَرَجَا حَتَّى قَدِمَا الْمَدِينَةَ ، فَسَأَلُوا
أَحْبَارَ الْيَهُودِ عَنْ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ؟ وَوَصَفُوا
لَهُمْ أَمَرَهُ بِبَعْضِ قَوْلِهِ ، فَقَالَتْ لَهُمْ أَحْبَارُ يَهُودَ : سَلُوهُ
عَنْ ثَلاثٍ نَأْمُرُكُمْ بِهِنَّ ، فَإِنْ أَخْبَرَكُمْ بِهِنَّ فَهُوَ نَبِيٌّ مُرْسَلٌ
، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَفْعَلْ فَالرَّجُلُ مُتَقَوِّلٌ فَرَوْا فِيهِ رَأْيَكُمْ ؛ سَلُوهُ
عَنْ فِتْيَةٍ ذَهَبُوا فِي الدَّهْرِ الأَوَّلِ مَا كَانَ مِنْ أَمْرِهِمْ ، فَإِنَّهُ
كَانَ لَهُمْ حَدِيثٌ عَجِيبٌ ، وَسَلُوهُ عَنْ رَجُلٍ طَوَّافٍ قَدْ بَلَغَ مَشَارِقَ
الأَرْضِ وَمَغَارِبَهَا ، وَمَا كَانَ نَبَؤُهُ ؟ وَسَلُوهُ عَنِ الرُّوحِ مَا هُوَ
؟ فَأَقْبَلَ النَّضْرُ وَعُقْبَةُ حَتَّى قَدِمَا مَكَّةَ عَلَى قُرَيْشٍ ، فَقَالا
: يَا مَعْشَرَ قُرَيْشٍ ، قَدْ جِئْنَاكُمْ بِفَصْلِ مَا بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَ مُحَمَّدٍ
، قَدْ أَمَرَنَا أَحْبَارُ يَهُودَ أَنْ نَسْأَلَهُ عَنْ أُمُورٍ ، فَأَخْبَرُوهُمْ
بِهَا ، فَجَاءُوا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ، فَقَالُوا
: يَا مُحَمَّدُ ، أَخْبِرْنَا ، فَسَأَلُوهُ عَمَّا أَمَرُوهُمْ بِهِ ؟ فَقَالَ لَهُمْ
رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : أُخْبِرُكُمْ بِمَا سَأَلْتُمْ
عَنْهُ غَدًا ، وَلَمْ يَسْتَثْنِ ، فَانْصَرَفُوا عَنْهُ ، فَمَكَثَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ
صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَمْسَ عَشْرَةَ لَيْلَةً لا يُحْدِثُ اللَّهُ إِلَيْهِ
فِي ذَلِكَ وَحْيًا ، وَلَمْ يَأْتِهِ جِبْرِيلُ حَتَّى أَرْجَفَ أَهْلُ مَكَّةَ ،
وَقَالُوا : وَعَدَنَا مُحَمَّدٌ غَدًا ، وَالْيَوْمُ خَمْسَ عَشْرَةَ قَدْ أَصْبَحْنَا
فِيهَا لا يُخْبِرُنَا بِشَيْءٍ مِمَّا سَأَلْنَاهُ عَنْهُ حَتَّى أَحْزَنَ رَسُولَ
اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مُكْثُ الْوَحْيِ عَنْهُ ، وَشَقَّ عَلَيْهِ
مَا يَتَكَلَّمُ بِهِ أَهْلُ مَكَّةَ ، ثُمَّ جَاءَهُ جِبْرِيلُ عَلَيْهِ السَّلامُ
مِنَ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِسُورَةِ أَصْحَابِ الْكَهْفِ فِيهَا مُعَاتَبَتُهُ إِيَّاهُ
عَلَى حُزْنِهِ[11]”
Translation:
Abu ‘ubain
told us said: abu Al-Abass Abu Muhammad bin Ya’qub said, we were told by Ahmed
bin abduljabar he said: Yunis bin Bukair told us, from Ibn Ishaq , said
: I was told by some man from the people of Makkah, from su’ad bin Jubair, from
Ibn Abass said : the polytheists of Quraish sent Nazir Bin Harith, and
Uqbah bin Abi Mu’et to the Jewish rabbis in Madinah and said to them, ask them
about Muhammad, describe him to them, and tell them what he says, for they are
the first people of the scriptures and have knowledge which we do not possess
about the prophets, they carried out their instructions, and went to the jews
and described his manner to them by using some of his words, so the jewish rabbis
asked them, ask him about three things of which we will instruct you, if he
answer them correctly he is a prophet, and if he don’t , then he is a rogue, so
form your own opinion about him, ask him what happened to the young men who
disappeared in ancient days, ask him about the mighty traveler who reached the
confines of both east and west, ask him what the spirit is , then Nazir and
Uqbah returned to Quraish at mekkah and told them that they had a decisive of
dealing with Muhammad, and they told them about the three questions, they came
to the apostle and called upon him to answer these Questions , he said to them
“I will give you the answer tomorrow” but he didn’t say “if god will” so they
went away; and the apostle, so they say waited for fifteen days without a
revelation from God on the matter, nor did Gabriel came to him, so the people
of mekkah began to spread evil reports saying “Muhammad promised us an answer
on the morrow and today is the fifteenth day we have remained without an
answer” this delay caused the apostle great sorrow, until Gabriel brought him
the chapter of the cave, in which he reproaches him for his sadness
Now you
might have noticed that I highlighted two parts of the story, one is a name the
other is a description, these are the flaws in the sanad
The first
one Ahmed bin abduljabar is
regarded as weak[12]
(ضعيف الحديث) translation: Weak in Hadith
Therefore,
the narration is rejected, however, the second one is interesting as it says
just a random man narrated it aswell, so we have a weak narrator, and an
unknown source that is narrating the story, and the unknown narrator is not
accepted
" الثامنة : في رواية المجهول ، وهو في غرضنا هاهنا أقسام :
( أحدها ) : المجهول العدالة من حيث الظاهر والباطن جميعا
، وروايته غير مقبولة عند الجماهير على ما نبهنا عليه أول"[13]
Translation:
Eighth: in
the narration of the unknown and here are some sections regarding it
(one of
them): the unknown in narration from interior and exterior, his narration is
Not accepted among the overwhelming majority of scholars as we first noted
So as we
can see we have an unknown narrator since this man name is not known, therefore
he is not accepted
Possible
counter argument from polemicist and fans of the masked arab
“but the
books of Tafsirs contain these narrations, like Tafsir Al-tabari and so on,
therefore it must be correct”
This
argument is an appeal to authority fallacy, just because an Figure of authority
mentions it doesn’t make it right, on top of that, scholars have acknowledged
that the books of Tafsirs Do contain weak and fabricated narrations
Translation:
Ibn Kamal
said: the books of Tafsirs are filled with Hadiths that are Maudu’a
“قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية:
} وهذه الكتب التي يسميها كثير من الناس كتب التفسير
فيها كثير من التفسير منقولات عن السلف مكذوبة عليهم ، وقول على الله ورسوله بالرأي
المجرد ، بل بمجرد شبهة قياسية أو شبهة أدبية }”[15]
Translation:
Ibn Taimia
said:
And these
books that a lot of people call the book of Tafsirs, has a lot of narrations
from the old people that are lied to them, and mere words on Allah and his
apostle, but just a calculated or poetic allegation
So as we
can see, not everything mentioned in the books of Tafsirs is correct, and we
shall see in an example in tafsir al tabari regarding the alleged ibn mas’ud manuscript
Issue#3:
@06:43 the
masked arab that Quran 19:64 was the response of Gabriel and he claimed that it
made it’s way into the Quran, what he seems to imply that this is not the word
of god, but the word of Gabriel directly, again not surprisingly the masked
arab cited no sources no reference for any of his claims
And claimed
that muslims think the Quran is the literal word of god in every letter, I have
not seen any evidence for such claim nor did the masked arab presented such,
the muslims claim the Quran is god words not god literal words, you still have speeches
and quotes god is citing from the mouth of the likes of Isa when god asked him
if he told people to worship him and his mother, of course isa reply is
directly mentioned in the Quran, is this reply god words? Or isa words?
How do you
know that these are the conscious words of Gabriel and not Gabriel directly
responding from god , or Gabriel inspired by god? Similar to how the Gospels
are inspired by god?
if we visit
the Tafsirs, such as Tafsir Al-Tabari , it seems to imply that this was a verse
revealed , and not direct words from Gabriel
“حدثنا أبو كريب ، قال : ثنا عبد الله ، قال : ثنا عبد الله بن أبان العجلي ،
وقبيصة ووكيع ; وحدثنا سفيان بن وكيع قال : ثنا أبي ، جميعا عن عمر بن ذر ، قال : سمعت
أبي يذكر عن سعيد بن جبير ، عن ابن عباس ، أن محمدا قال لجبرائيل : "ما يمنعك
أن تزورنا أكثر مما تزورنا" فنزلت هذه الآية ( وما نتنزل إلا بأمر ربك له ما بين
أيدينا وما خلفنا وما بين ذلك وما كان ربك نسيا ) قال : هذا الجواب لمحمد صلى الله
عليه وسلم”[16]
Translation:
Abu Kreb,
said: we were told by Abdullah, he said, Abdullah bin Aban Al-Ajali told us,
and Qubaisa and Waki’; we were told by Sufian bin Waqi’ said: we were told by
my father, all of them from Umar bin Nathir, Said : I heard my father mention
from Su’aid bin Jarir, from Ibn Abass, that Muhammad said ones to Gabriel “what
prevented you from visiting us ?” then this verse was revealed (And we [angels]
descend not except by the order of your Lord. To Him belongs that before us and
that behind us and what is in between. And never is your Lord forgetful) he
said: this was the answer to Muhammad peace be upon him
So it
states that this verse was revealed directly not as words of Gabriel first then
inserted later to the Quran
So again my
question is, how do you know that this was not Gabriel inspired by god?
However I
find it interesting how the masked arab view the Quran, so basically according
to him every word every letter ever claim must be directly the word of God, if
the Quran is the word of god, then every letter and every word must be exclusively
and utterly said by God, this is a non sequitur, what muslims mean by word of
God is that, the teachings, the revelations and the morals and what this book
teach is from god, not that every letter is god’s speech, shall we all ignore
the conversations that happens between figures in the bible ? shall we all ignore
the conversation laid down between God and Jesus in the Quran when God asked
Jesus did he ask the people to worship him?, is that supposed to degrade the
Quran?
Issue#4:
@07:15 the
masked arab cites the story of the seven sleepers, other than that he makes
some assertions on the issue of flat earth and the direction of east and west,
but since this is not part of the conversation we will ignore it
@08:14
however the masked arab suggest that Muhammad should tell them that this story
is actually a myth and a legend, why is that relevant is beyond me, the Jews
tested if Muhammad knew the story and knew it’s details, not the authenticity
of the story, he later on state that Muhammad answered the challenge only two weeks
after it was proposed to him, I already dealt with the issue of this so called
narration but let us continue
He cites
18:9-11
{Or dost
thou reflect that the Companions of the Cave and of the Inscription were
wonders among Our Sign?, Behold, the youths betook themselves to the Cave: they
said, "Our Lord! bestow on us Mercy from Thyself, and dispose of our
affair for us in the right way!", Then We draw (a veil) over their ears,
for a number of years, in the Cave, (so that they heard not):}
he later claim that everything is vague, the first problem is that he didn’t
specify which part he consider vague, the second problem is that this is not
the full narration of the story, the story goes from 9-26, of course this won’t
matter as he will later on give us more details
Including
names, forgetting the fact that in the legend itself we don’t even know the
names of these sleepers
@10:08 he
asked for a scientific explanation as to how in verse 18:16-17 the sun photons
avoid the sleepers
How is that
an error or an absurdity is beyond me, the masked arab didn’t even bother to
ask at what direction the cave door was facing, take this example if I was to build
a door facing north and the sun rise from the east and sits in the west is it
possible for the sun “photons” to hit me? This is apparently the case with the
people of the cave according to scholars like Ibn Kathir[17]
@11:35 the
masked arab claimed that even muslims during the time of Muhammad didn’t know
who suggested mosque being built, the masked arab cited ibn kathir online
tafsir and claimed this is in al tabari aswell, the problem here is he cited no
sources no references that muslims during the time of Muhammad didn’t know who
suggested to build the mosque, Al-Tabari was born in 838 AD died 923 AD, Ibn
Kathir was born 1300 AD died at1373 AD, so far we don’t have a single evidence
that muslims during the time of Muhammad didn’t know who asked to build it
@12:00 the
masked arab cites verse 22
{(Some) say
they were three, the dog being the fourth among them; (others) say they were
five, the dog being the sixth, - doubtfully guessing at the unknown; (yet
others) say they were seven, the dog being the eighth. Say thou: "My Lord
knoweth best their number; It is but few that know their (real case)."
Enter not, therefore, into controversies concerning them, except on a matter
that is clear, nor consult any of them about (the affair of) the Sleepers.}
the masked arab later on again cites the alleged narration of Muhammad running
away from their questions for two weeks and didn’t answer
I already
dealt with this earlier as I said so I’ll skip this again
@13:22
The masked
arab cites verse 23-24
{Nor say of
anything, "I shall be sure to do so and so tomorrow"-, Without
adding, "So please Allah!" and call thy Lord to mind when thou
forgettest, and say, "I hope that my Lord will guide me ever closer (even)
than this to the right road."}
Here the
masked arab attempt to answer any skeptic who will tell him that the story is
rubbish, what he seems to assert is that the story must be authentic from the
idea that the word tomorrow is mentioned in verse 23, this is a non sequitur
fallacy, as this is not the only part of the narration in question, did he
really went to the rabbis, did he really question Muhammad? Did Gabriel really
didn’t answer Muhammad? Did Muhammad really raged in his conversation with Gabriel?
Did the people really spread evil rumors about Muhammad not giving the answer?
From the
word tomorrow the masked arab is asserting the authentication of the entire
narration, but this is just a nonsequitur fallacy, as I have shown the
narration has an unknown figure, and a weak narrator, so how can we accept it,
never mind let us see what Tafsir Ibn Kathri says regarding this verse
(هذا ارشاد من الله لرسوله,
صلوات الله و سلامه عليه الى الأدب فيما عزم على شيء ليفعله بالمستقبل)[18]
Translation:
This is a
guidance from God to his messenger, peace be upon him on manners, and whenever
he desired something he shall do it tomorrow or in the future
So as we
can see this was just an advice from god to Muhammad to delay whatever he do
tomorrow, to claim this is in reference to the alleged story of him not
answering for two weeks is a non sequitur, but to be fair tafsir Ibn kathri
does cite the alleged narration that he waited for 15 days and didn’t deliver
answer, but as I stated before, books of tafsirs can contain weak narrations
and the masked arab will cite a new example in which we will expose and see
another example as to how can some books of tafsir do contain weak narrations
But what is
really puzzling is that even if we accept the interpretation of the masked
arab, this verse is claiming a suggestion from god to Muhammad to postpone his
reply tomorrow, while in the so called narration it was Muhammad himself who
decided to postpone his response, and no revelation was revealed to him at this
time, so if the narration claim he didn’t receive any revelation for 15 days,
how come this verse claim that he received a suggestion from god at the same
day when the story contradict it by claiming god didn’t send down any revelation
ever since the question?
So even if
we accept the masked arab faulty interpretation, it will go against the
narration he mentioned but two issues, Allah has already sent down a revelation
during that day to Muhammad while the story claim no revelation was sent for 15
days since the challenge, the other issue is that allah was the one who
suggested the delay, while in the story it was Muhammad who delayed the answer
So which
one?
@13:43-14:10
the masked arab start to ramble incoherently with nonsense citing the same
narration we critically examined yet again, it’s like he starts to run out of
jokes or something
Issue#5:
Here we
actually get into the core of the problem, the reason why I decided to make
this article and my Main issue in his video, his citation of tafsir Tabari
regarding the so called Ibn Mas’ud Manuscript
@14:37 the
masked arab cited Tafsir Al-tabari
حدثنا الـحسن بن يحيى، قال: أخبرنا عبد الرزاق، قال: أخبرنا
معمر، عن قتادة فـي قوله { وَلَبِثُوا فِـي كَهْفِهِمْ } قال: فـي حرف ابن مسعود:
«وَقالُوا وَلَبِثُوا» يعنـي أنه قال الناس، ألا ترى أنه قال: { قُلِ اللّهُ أعْلَـمُ
بِـمَا لَبِثُوا }.[19]
Translation:
Al-Hasan
bin yahyah said: Abdullrazaq said: Mu’amar said: from Qutada in god words {And
they remained in their cave} said: in Ibn Mas’ud Manuscript {and they said they
remained in their cave} meaning that it’s what people said, don’t you see that
god almighty said {Say, " Allah is most knowing of how long they remained.}
From the
above alleged narration, we see the masked arab makes the case that that the
Quran had to go through some changes and was not perfectly preserved, two
issues here
The masked
arab didn’t validated the alleged alteration In ibn Mas’ud manuscript.
The second
issue, the masked arab didn’t verify the authenticity of the narration
But never
mind let us examin if the so called manuscript is authentic
According
to one of the most modern senior scholars in Islamic theology and hadith and
Quran science Muhammad Mustafa al a’zami:
(2. Second
point: The text differed from our Mushaf
I mentioned
above the need for some kind of certitude about Ibn Mas’ud’s Mushaf. While
researching variant readings, Abu Hayyan an-Nahawi noticed that most of the
reports were channeled through Shiite sources; Sunni scholars on the other hand
stated that Ibn Mas’ud’s readings were in line with the rest of the umma. What
has trickled through us via isolated sources supersede what is known with
certainty, In page 57-73 of Kitab al-Masahif (edited by Jeffery), under the
chapter of “Mushaf of ‘Abdullah b, Mas’ud” we find a lengthy collection of
variants all stemming from al-A’mash (d. 148 A.H). Not only does al-A’mash fail
to furnish any references for his – hardly surprising given his proclivity for
tadlis (تدليس: concealing the source for information) – he is moreover
accused of Shiite tendencies, many other examples lend further support to Abu
Hayyan’s inference of a Shiite connection.[20]
Please read
the full chapter dedicated to Ibn Mas’ud manuscript to have the full picture
So as we
can see the alleged variations comes from a rejected Shiite source, and Shia
sources are rejected in Sunni tradition, and Vis versa
He later on verse 41:3 in a cheeky manner that reads the
following
{ A Book whose verses have been detailed, an Arabic Qur'an for a people who
know,}
He claims that the Quran is so Vague and ambiguous it goes
against this verse, never mind that Hugeness is a subjective term, I myself
find his citation of this verse Vague, as this verse details that the Quran is
easily understood in terms of language not in terms of historical details and
context
We finally reached the end of the plot of the video.
At the end of the video the mask arab tries to examine the
last alleged challenge which is about the soul, in verse
17:85:
{ And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say,
"The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of
knowledge except a little."}
What it seems from his attitude is that he is suggesting
Muhammad is running away from the challenge by saying I don’t know regarding
the soul, but if we examine hadith sources, several scholars give details about
what this actually mean, notice how yet again the masked arab won’t cite
tafsirs when it doesn’t fit his convenience
This is further demonstrated @16:57 where the masked arab
says “oh you wanna know about the soul? Will god says he is not telling anyone
so there”
Which further support the notion that he thinks Muhammad is
not giving the answer about the soul to them
Let us see what the tafsirs has to say
وهذا السياق يقتضي فيما
يظهر بادي الرأي أن هذه الآية مدنية ، وأنها إنما نزلت حين سأله اليهود ، عن ذلك بالمدينة
، مع أن السورة كلها مكية . وقد يجاب عن هذا : بأنه قد يكون نزلت عليه بالمدينة مرة
ثانية كما نزلت عليه بمكة قبل ذلك ، أو أنه نزل عليه الوحي بأنه يجيبهم عما سألوا بالآية
المتقدم إنزالها عليه ، وهي هذه الآية : ( ويسألونك عن الروح ) ومما يدل على نزول هذه
الآية بمكة[21]
Translation:
And this context require what appears to be that this verse
is madinan, and it was revealed when the Jews asked him about that in madina,
but the chapter all of it is meccan chapter, and this might be answered with
that this verse was revealed yet again just like how it was revealed before to
him in meccah, and the wahi (revelation) was revealed to him to answer them
with this verse {And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say} which is
evidence that this verse was revealed in meccah
So according to this tafsir this verse was revealed twice,
all what I’m trying to say is that this verse is not as simple as it seams
However, what comes next is what seems to be the shocker,
scholars disagree in regards to what it’s meant here by the soul
وقد اختلف المفسرون في المراد بالروح هاهنا على
أقوال :
أحدها : أن المراد [ بالروح ] : أرواح بني آدم .
قال العوفي ، عن ابن عباس في قوله : ( ويسألونك
عن الروح ) الآية ، وذلك أن اليهود قالوا للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم : أخبرنا عن الروح
؟ وكيف تعذب الروح التي في الجسد ، وإنما الروح من الله ؟ ولم يكن نزل عليه فيه شيء
، فلم يحر إليهم شيئا . فأتاه جبريل فقال له : ( قل الروح من أمر ربي وما أوتيتم من
العلم إلا قليلا ) فأخبرهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بذلك ، فقالوا : من جاءك بهذا
؟ فقال : " جاءني به جبريل من عند الله ؟ " فقالوا له : والله ما قاله لك
إلا عدو لنا . فأنزل الله : ( قل من كان عدوا لجبريل فإنه نزله على قلبك بإذن الله
[ مصدقا لما بين يديه ] ) الآية [ البقرة : 97 ] .[22]
Translation:
And Mufasiron has differed in regards to what is meant by
soul here
Some of them said that it’s the soul of Adam
And ‘Ufi said: from Ibn Abbas in the word of allah {And they
ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul} verse, it was in regards to the jews
asking the prophet: tell us about the soul and how the soul in the body is
tortured and the soul is from god? And nothing was revealed to him, so he
didn’t reveal to them anything, so Gabriel came into him and told him {And they
ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of
my Lord. And mankind has not been given of knowledge except a little.} so
Muhammad told them, and they said, who told you that? He said this came to me
from God through Gabriel, they said: who ever gave you this is an enemy of
ours, so god revealed {Say, "Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel - it is [none
but] he who has brought the Qur'an down upon your heart, [O Muhammad], by
permission of Allah, confirming that which was before it and as guidance and
good tidings for the believers."} 2:97
From the above tafsir we see that the Jews seems to have
understood what Muhammad replied to them, and from the above narration they seem
to have added extra details as to what they actually meant by the soul, and
what they demanded to learn from it, later on they accused Gabriel to be an
enemy for some reason
وقيل : المراد بالروح هاهنا : جبريل . قاله قتادة
، قال : وكان ابن عباس يكتمه .[23]
Translation:
And it’s said that
what is meant by soul here is angle Gabriel, and Qutada said that and he said:
Ibn Abbas concealed this info
Here is another
difference in regards to what is meant by soul, here tafsir al tabari says that
soul he according to some scholars can refer to Gabriel.
وقيل : المراد به هاهنا : ملك عظيم بقدر المخلوقات
كلها . قال علي بن أبي طلحة ، عن ابن عباس قوله : ( ويسألونك عن الروح ) يقول : الروح
: ملك .[24]
Translation:
And it was said:
what is meant here is a great King, as great as all creatures, Ali Ibn abi
Talha said: from Ibn Abbas god says { And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul} he says soul means :
King
Some narrations in
that tafsir went far and described this angle to have over seventy thousand
face, even the tafsir described such narration as odd
And other described
him to have over a hundred thousand head
But what I want to empathize
here is there is a later narration in the tafsir that make some interesting
remarks as to why he didn’t answer in details
وقال السهيلي : قال بعض الناس : لم يجبهم عما سألوا
؛ لأنهم سألوا على وجه التعنت . وقيل : أجابهم ، وعول السهيلي على أن المراد بقوله
: ( قل الروح من أمر ربي ) أي : من شرعه ، أي : فادخلوا فيه ، وقد علمتم ذلك لأنه لا
سبيل إلى معرفة هذا من طبع ولا فلسفة ، وإنما ينال من جهة الشرع[25]
Translation:
And Sahili said:
some people said: he didn’t answer them for what they asked because the way the
asked it with the intention of Intransigence, and it was said: he answered
them, and Suhaili insinuate that what god meant by {say:” The soul is of the affair of my Lord”}
meaning his guidance, so enter in it, and you knew that because there is no way
to know the intended meaning from impression of philosophy, but from the point
of guidance
So, according to
the masked arab, the word soul refers to human body, yet he cited no tafsir
what so ever, didn’t show that almost if not all scholars agree with this,
claimed that Muhammad ran away and this is referring to the alleged story of
him not providing an answer for 15 days, Muhammad replied that he doesn’t know
and the masked arab took it as somewhat a weak response
However, as we
examined the tafsirs we come to the following conclusions
1.
the tafsirs don’t agree that this is referring primarily to human soul
2.
there is no authentication of the alleged story of Muhammad dodging the
question for 15 days
3.
the tafsirs provide multiple meanings for this word
4.
some tafsirs claim that the jews asked this out of being Intransigence
and intimidating
5.
some tafsir claim that that the soul here in question was in reface to
the punishment it goes through
6.
some tafsirs claim that the word Amir Rabi, means the guidance of my
lord so join him, not the knowledge of my lord so I don’t know
7.
the tafsirs claim that this verse was revealed twice to muhammad
So far as we can
see, scholars are in disagreement regarding this verse, we don’t know what soul
means let alone what amir rabi means, so that doesn’t mean Muhammad didn’t know
and ran away
Now I shall deal
with the part that says { And
mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little}
Tafsir al-tabari
for example make quite of a shocking remarks in regards to this verse, the
masked arab think this verse is reffering to the third part of the challenge
regarding the spirit, but Tabari cited a narration that seams to suggest a
different story for this verse
حدثنا أبو هشام، قال: ثنا وكيع، قال: ثنا الأعمش،
عن إبراهيـم، عن علقمة، عن عبد الله، قال: كنت مع النبـيّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فـي حرث
بـالـمدينة، ومعه عَسِيب يتوكأ علـيه، فمر بقوم من الـيهود، فقال بعضهم: اسألوه عن
الروح، وقال بعضهم: لا تسألوه، فقام متوكئا علـى عسيبه، فقمت خـلفه، فظننت أنه يوحَى
إلـيه، فقال: { وَيَسْئَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُوحُ مِنْ أمْرِ رَبِّـي وَما
أُوتِـيتُـمْ مِنَ العِلْـمِ إلاَّ قَلِـيلاً } فقال بعضهم لبعض: ألـم نقل لكم لا تسألوه.[26]
Translation:
Abu Shham told us,
Waki’ told us, Al-A’mash told us, From Ibrahim, from ‘Alqama, from Abdullah
said : I was with the prophet peace be upon him in a till in Madinah,
and with him a group of tree
fillets leaning on, and a group of jews passed by so some of them asked: ask
him about the soul, and some said: Don’t ask, so he stud up from the tree
fillets he was leaning on, so I stood behind him thinking he was receving revelation
and he said { And they ask you,
[O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord.
And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little."} ans so
some of them said to the others: Didn’t we told you not to ask him?
That is a radicly
different story than what the masked arab told us, of course this narration
could be weak, but as I stated, if I cited any narration within any tafsir that
happned to be weak, please currect me on it with evidence, not insults
So it seams some of
these jews already knew the answer so they demanded to the others who wanted to
ask him not to ask the question, however let’s keep on
Here we have
another possible explanation that the masked arab didn’t cite
حدثنا مـحمد بن الـمثنى، قال: ثنا ابن عبد الأعلـى،
قال: ثنا داود، عن عكرمة، قال: سأل أهل الكتاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن الروح،
فأنزل الله تعالـى: { وَيَسْئَلُونَكَ عَنِ الرُّوحِ قُلِ الرُّوحُ مِنْ أمْرِ رَبّـي
وَما أُوتِـيُتُـمْ مِنَ العِلْـمِ إلاَّ قَلِـيلاً } فقالوا: أتزعم أنا لـم نؤتَ من
العلـم إلا قلـيلا، وقد أوتـينا التوراة، وهي الـحكمة[27]
Translation
Muhammad bin al Muthana told us: he said ibn abdul A’la said : Dawood told us:
from ‘Ukrama he said: the people of the book asked the messenger of god peace
be upon him about the soul, so god revealed { And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is
of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a
little."} then they said: do you claim we didn’t receive from knowledge
but few and we have received Taurah which is the wisdom?
So it seems that
the part that deals with little knowledge in the verse is referring to the
Taurah
So what we have
here is multiple interpretation to both of the meanings of soul and the part
where god says you were given knowledge only few, where some tafsirs claim this
is referring to knowledge in general, and other claim this is the Torah
But the masked arab
stated that this means Muhammad didn’t know what soul is and said only god
knows and you were given knowledge only little
Nevermind the
multiple interpretation that we just observed and the multiple meanings of the
word soul and the story behind it
So why did the
masked arab never used a tafsir here? Is it because it will not suit his
convenient?
The so
called Murder of Nazir Bin Harith
The masked arab earlier
in his video claimed that Nazir Bin Harith was executed duo to “embarrassing”
Muhammad, I would love to see any authentication regarding the matter, of
course we do have evidence to the contrary
1214- (حديث
انه صلى الله عليه و سلم قتل يوم بدر نضر بن الحارث و عقبة بن ابي معيط صبرأ)
ضعيف رواه البيهقي
(64\9) عن الشافعي[28]
Translation:
1214-Hadith that the prophet peace be upon him killed Nazir bin Harith
and ‘Uqba bin abi mu’et during the battle of badir
Weak, al-bayhaqi narrated it (64/9) from al shaf’ii
According to a revisionist work by Muhammad bin Abdullah al-‘awshan,
titled what was rumored and made popular and was not authenticated in the
biography of the prophet, the auther gives a complete section dedicated to all
narrations that mentions the alleged murder of Nazir bin Harith, unfortunately,
this book doesn’t include everything weak, as the title said, it include only
those that are rumored and not authenticated
However, duo to the lengthy narrations in the chapter I will leave a
footnote to it[29]
Conclusion
at the end even the masked arab said that we didn’t get much
information, so his criticism of this chapter is that it doesn’t give a lot of
information? Not that there are contextual errors? Scientific errors? Linguist
errors? And so on? Thanks for wasting 18:02 minutes of my time, he titles this
video as the chapter that exposed the charlatan, which forth means that this
video supposedly should contain some groundbreaking examples and discoveries of
how false the Quran is, but all what we got was , the Quran is Vague and ambiguous,
nevermind the citation of Ibn mas’ud which is proved to be backed by weak
narrator, cited a weak narration and didn’t give any legitimate sanad at all
the next article Shall deal with the masked arab fans and
how they attacked my articles in several subreddit forums that I noticed, I
will show how emotionally broken they are by attacking my personality, and how
intellectually bankrupt they are by showing their numerous logical fallacies
[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#NonSequitur
[2] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=3&tAyahNo=183&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[3] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=8&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[4]
ibid
[5] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=9&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[6] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=37&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[7] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=37&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[8] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=6&tAyahNo=37&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[9] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=5&tSoraNo=8&tAyahNo=31&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[10] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=8&tAyahNo=31&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1&LanguageId=1
[11]
Dalail Al-Nibuah By Al-Baihaqi (the evidence for the prophethood) vol.2
page.269
[12] https://library.islamweb.net/hadith/RawyDetails.php?RawyID=9901
[13] Ulom Al-Hadith By Ibn Salah vol.1 type 23:
knowning the nature of who narration should be accepted
[14] Faith Al-Qadir Sharih Jami’ Al-Saqir by Imam
Al-Manawi Vol.1 Page.20
[15] Majmu’ Fatwa Shaikh Islam Ibn Taimia Vol.6
Page.388
[16] http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=50&ID=3197#docu
[17]
Tafsir Ibn Kathri, volume 5 page.142
[18]
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, volume 5 page.148
[19] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=18&tAyahNo=25&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[20] The
History of The Qur'anic Text: From Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative
Study with the Old and New Testaments Page.197-198
[21] http://library.islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?flag=1&bk_no=49&ID=1043
[22]
ibid
[23]
ibid
[24]
ibid
[25]
ibid
[26] http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=85&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1
[29]
Ma Sha’a Wa lam Yuthbit fi al sira al nabawiah (what was romured and mode
pubular and was not autneticated in the Bioghraphy of the prophet) page.129
