While I work on my first video on my channel, I decided to read a specific Quora published article by a self proclaimed ex Muslim named Mike Muluk, here we shall go off the usual professional attitude as I did when I responded to Reddit trolls (which I shall do again and respond to more articles attacking me) today we will tackle a usual claim made by ex Muslims that I already discussed before and debunked many times, but this is only for fun and education
this is his article:
Red Text is Mike claims
I knew that darned meme would crop up. Well, if it takes a meme from 2015 to prove that Mohammad was a peaceful fella, you know something is fishy.
Yes, Memes, the best invention in history, the one thing that simple minds like Mike can only understand, yes, why resort to critical and detailed explanations, why not use memes?
The justification for killing women & children:
"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)."
Sahih Bukhari 4:52:256
It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet)" Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids". He said: "They are from them".
Sahih Muslim 19:4322
The same repeated Nonsense that I already refuted over and over, children and women are only killed when they engage in battle against the Muslims so I’m going to quote myself here
“According to the following explanation by Imam Nawawi
“The Ulama Agreed on the execution of the Hadith, and prohibiting the Murder of Women and Children If they didn’t Engage in Battles, But if they do Engage and attempt to kill Muslims then only in this case they should be killed”[1]
This above explanation is direct reference to the same hadith above, under the hadith this commentary is by imam nawawi explaining what majority of scholars agree upon
Meaning women and children are not to be killed except if they are engaging in battles
Killing the whole male population after they surrendered is also being praised as “great judgment” by Muhammad:
For example, after the death of Banu Qurayza, Muhammad gave over the decision of what is to be done with the captives to a lieutenant, Sa’ad, who lost a kin in the battle:
Then the Prophet said, "O Sa’ad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sa’ad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives." The Prophet said, "You have given a judgment similar to Allah's Judgment (or the King's judgment).
"Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:148
Already here we have a sign of stupidity if you read the above title “Why did Prophet Muhammad, while fighting polytheist enemies, also kill their family and other people who did not attack him?”
This whole “article” by Mike is directed toward the prophet, yet this ex-Muslim Dimwit with that low IQ didn’t realize how his own quote above just shows how insane he is
“O Sa’ad! These people have agreed to accept your verdict." Sa’ad said, "I judge that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as captives."
How dumb do you have to be to not read carfully what your own source says, I read a lot of citations in my life from insane and dumb anti-muslim indivuals, but I have never seen somone destroys his own credibility with such citations, your own quote Mr.Mike destroy you, as stated this was not the judgment of Muhammad as he says ““great judgement” by Muhammad:” this was the judgment of Sa’ad who judged them based on their own holy scripture, not only that he didn’t kill non combatants, only those who have the capacity (and Did) carry swords and fought muslims are to be killed, non combatants and civilianse were left to live, I mean I can’t fathim the amount of mental gymnasitics he went through to cite a source that completely says the opposite of what he says, let alone not a single sentence here in this source says “whole male population” is to be killed, only warriors are
Even one woman (who apparently was becoming crazy witnessing the slaughter) was killed:
Narrated by Aisha: No woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed.
Sunan Abu Dawud 14:2665
Oh let us read, did Muhammad actually killed her?......nope, it’s actually one of Muhammad soldiers who was terrified of her insanity so he beheaded her, where does it say Muhammad by his hand executed her? Honestly how many times do you Mr.Mike have to fail?
CONCLUSIONS:
It is easy to see, that Muhammad thought of the civilian population of the enemy as complicit in the enemy’s warfaring activities. That is the reason why women and children were always taken as slaves, the property was always seized and on some occasions, the whole male population was mercilessly butchered to the man.
This attitude can also be found in the doctrine of modern terrorist organizations such Al-Qaeda and ISIS, who have studied most and foremost Muhammad’s armed Jihad.
Wait? Hold on, that’s it? That’s all you got for us? That’s your conclusion? Ok let us Recap
Mike first cited two hadiths that he misunderstood and never cared to give us explanations from scholars
Then he proceeded to say Muhammad judged people of Banu Qurayza, the traitorous criminal tribe, yet his own source clearly states it was not Muhammad judgment, then he goes on and accuse Muhammad of killing a crazy woman when at no point does the hadith imply that
Then he makes this idiotic conclusion?
Here is the “Official” statement by ISIS regarding today’s attacks in Brussels and why they were “justified” was also sent out by Amaq News after the Brussels Airport Attack:
Paris Attack (13th Nov. 2015) and Brussels Attack (22nd March 2016) in the light of the Islamic Shari’ah.
Justifying the Paris attacks/Brussels attack(& the likes of it) in the light of the Qur’ān and Sunnah and the ijmā’ & quotes from the scholars of the salaf.
We have seen so many people in the social media claiming that The Islamic state was not justified in killing the French “innocent” citizens in the blessed ghazwa in Paris, and that of the Brussels attack now.We have also seen some evil “scholars” – Scholars for the dollars quoting the textual evidence out of context. Today, we shall tackle this topic with evidence from the Qur’ān and Sunnah and the ijmā’ & quotes from the scholars of the salaf
First, we want to make it clear to all that what makes the kafir’s blood permissible to spill is not him fighting the Muslims, rather it is his “KUFR” that necessitates his killing. So if one asks, can you kill a Kafir (who does not fight Islam and Muslims)? the answer is a big YES.
[■] Explaining the “Mafhūm Al-Mukhālafah” (the understanding of the opposite) in Usūl Fiqh:
This is like when Allāh said: “And never pray (funeral prayer) upon any of them (i.e. the hypocrites) who dies, nor stand at his grave.” (At-Tawbah verse 84). So because the disbelieving hypocrites were those whom Allāh specifically identified as being prohibited to have the funeral prayer performed upon and their graves visited, then this necessitates that the Muslims are those who are to be prayed upon and whose graves are to be visited. And this is understood by the rule: “Mafhūm Al-Mukhālafah” (the understanding of the opposite), because if we say the disbelievers are those whom Allāh specified a prohibition regarding something, then this necessities that the opposite ruling would apply for those who are opposite to them (i.e. the believers). So this is the explanation for the rule: “Mafhūm Al-Mukhālafah”, which is also referred to as: “Dalīl Al-Khitāb”. ○●○●○●○
The example of the prohibition of praying the funeral prayer for the disbeliever indicating the permissibility of praying the funeral prayer for the Muslims and visiting their graves was used by Shaykh Al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah frequently, as he said: “And do not ever pray upon anyone of them who dies and do not stand at their graves.” Therefore, the ‘Dalīl Al-Khitāb’ is that the believers are prayed upon and their graves are to be stood at.” [“Majmū’ Al-Fatāwa ”, Vol. 3/399; also look to Vol. 24/330 & Vol. 24/346 & Vol. 27/448]
Allah says: “…But if they repent and perform As-Salat, and give Zakat, then leave their way free…” (At-Tawbah Verse 5)
NOTE: Repentance in the above ayah means saying the shahadatain and entering Islam. Ibn ‘Umar narrates that the Rasulullah(saw) said: “I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and until they establish the Salah and pay the Zakah. And if they do so then they will have gained protection from me for their lives and property, unless [they commit acts that are punishable] in accordance to Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allah the Almighty.” [Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim] Therefore, the ‘Dalīl Al-Khitāb’ in the above ayah & hadeeth is that, if the kuffar don’t become Muslims, their blood would not be protected and would be legal to spill and their wealth would be halal to take.
Allah also has made the blood of every kafir legal to spill in the general ayah: “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush” (At-Tawbah verse 5).
Allah just said the mushrikeen(idolators), so he never differentiated the “innocent civilians” from the “fighting soldiers”. So who are we to differentiate the kuffar today?
Ijmā’ of the ulamaa on the legality of spilling the blood of the Kuffar:
● Ibn Kathir said: “Ibn Jareer narrated an Ījmā'(scholarly consensus) that it is permissiable to kill a kafir if he has no protection even if he is in Baytul Harām or Baytul Maqdis” [Tafsīr Ibn Katheer 2/6]
● Al Qurtubi said: “The ulamaa have gathered in consensus(ijmā’) that; if a kafir was to wrap his neck with his hands and the backs of all the trees in the Haram(Makkah) (in an effort to save his life); that would not prevent his killing if he had no previous contract of security” [Tafsīr At-Tabari 6/61] ♢♢♢♢♢
Quotes of the ulamā’ of the salaf about the legality of apilling the blood of the kuffar even if they dont fight us:
● Imam Ash-Shafi’ said: “Allah the exalted & blessed legalized(to spill) the blood and wealth of the kafir unless he pays the jizya(tax) or he is granted protection for a certain period” [Al Umm 1/264]
● Imam Ash-Shawkāni said: “As for the Kufar, their blood is basicaly legal(to spill) as it is in the ayah of the sword(At-Tawbah verse 5), what about if they start fighting(us)?” [Al Sayrul Jarār ..
● Umar bin Al Khattab said to Abu Jandal (May Allah be pleased with them both): “For verily they are Mushrikeen(polytheits), and the blood of one of them is like the blood of a dog” [Reported by Ahmad & Al Bayhaqi]
● Ibn Muflih said: “There is no expiation nor blood money paid for killing a kafir that has no peace treaty, because his blood is generaly permissiable(to spill) like the pig” [Al Mubdi’ 8/263]
● Ash-Shawkāni said: “The kafir, whether he fights(the Muslims) or not: his blood is permissiable(to spill) as long as he is a kafir” [Al Sayrul Jarār 4/369]
● Al Kāsāni: “Basicaly: Anyone(who is a kafir) from the fighters(i.e. the male that has reached the fighting age): it is permissiable to kill him whether he fights(the Muslims) or not” [Badā’ As-Sanāi’ 7/101]
● Al Qurtubi said: “If a Muslim meets a kafir that has no contract(of protection): it is permissiable for him to kill that Kafir” [Tafsīr Al-Qurtubi 5/338]
● As-Sarkhāsi said: “There is no sin upon one who kills the appostates before calling them to Islam because they are the same with the kuffar and the Message(of Islam) has reached them” [Al Mabsūt 10/120]
●Imam An-Nawawi said: “As for the kafir that has no contract of peace(with a legitimate Islamic State to which he pays Jizya), there is no liability in killing him, from whatever religion he might be” [Rawdhatu Tālibīn 9/259]
●Ibn Hajar Al ‘Asqalāni said: “The existence of the disbelief (Kufr) is what permits the blood” [“Fat’h Al-Bārī ”, Vol. 12/326; publication of “Maktabat Dār As-Salām” & “Maktabat Dār Al-Fayhā’ ”, 1st Edition, 1418 H.]
♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢♢
For those that say that we mistranslate these Quranic verses of Jihad and Qitaal and we go against the ‘known’ ‘ulamaa’:
then give them this audio by Shaykh Ibn ‘Utheymīn who they respect alot who says exactly what we have said now
Shaykh Ibn ‘Utheymin(rh), said in a tape recording regarding this topic: “And the second (matter) is the forbiddance of killing women and children in times of war. But if it is said: ‘If they (the kuffār) do this to us – meaning that they kill our children and women – Then do we then kill them?’ The apparent [dhāhir] is that it is (permissible) for us to kill their women and children- And due to the generality of the Statement of Allāh: “Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him”{ Al-Baqarah: 194} [Refer to the side “B” from the third cassette of Kitāb al-Jihād from Sharh Bulūgh al-Marām. Starting at time frame 29:09]
In addition to the above cattegories of those of the kuffar that we shouldnt kill, we have :
1. The Children
2. The Women
3. The Old etc.
》》 So All those kuffar cattegories we mentioned that their blood is protected; they can be killed anytime should they violate their contracts by:
A.) If the dhimi/Mu’āhad starts fighting the Muslims etc he is killed and his blood would be legal to spill despite him paying jizya
B.) If the kuffar kill our children/Women/old we do the same: Allah Says: “So whoever has transgressed against you, then transgress against him in the same way that he has transgressed against you” [Al Baqarah 194]
So how many Muslim women and children and old have The French Kuffar killed in Syria, Iraq and other parts of the muslim lands???? We have not yet settled the scores, a few hundreds aint enough yet.
Allah also says: “And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed” [An-Nahl 126]
Allah Also Says: “And the retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it” [Ash-Shūrah 40]
Allah also says: “And those who, when an oppressive wrong is done to them, they take revenge” [Ash-Shūrah verse 39].
So, this was a piece of article for the one who cry and mourn on the death of the Kuffar, while the death hundreds of muslim men, women, old and children dying daily in the airstrikes don’t effect them in anyway.
MAY ALLAH ACCEPT THE EFFORTS MADE TO COLLECT THESE PROOFS N EVIDENCES N MAY HE UNITE THIS UMMAH UNDER ONE LEADER AND ONE BANNER, M MAY ALLAH GRANT IZZAH TO ISLAM N MUSLIMS EVERY WHERE ON THE EARTH N MAY HE GRANT VICTORY TO THIS RELIGION ESTABLISHING THE SHARI’AH OF ALLAH IN EVERY CORNER OF THE EARTH.
AAMEEEN.
Offical? Really? so what is the source? I checked all sources including ex-Muslims Reddit, and it all point toward
apparently, the article is not accessible at all, so how can you I used the way back machine to dig back the deleted article
the article has been saved over 42 times which I opened all of them
I was able to find the official story here in English
https://web.archive.org/web/20170225033305/http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/official-isis-announcement-state-on-belgium-attacks-bombings-attack-brussels-paris-attacks-france-amaq-news-agency-terrorism-bombs-tweet-twitter-english-translation/
https://web.archive.org/web/20170225033305/http://heavy.com/news/2016/03/official-isis-announcement-state-on-belgium-attacks-bombings-attack-brussels-paris-attacks-france-amaq-news-agency-terrorism-bombs-tweet-twitter-english-translation/
Big problem is that Heavy gives no direct link to the quote when they said that a longer version can be found, there is littraly not a single cite out there that give reffrence to this fake translation that Heavy provided, so I was left with no option other than to find the original Arabic text, the best option we have is the A’maq news agency the official ISIS news outlet that was the first to proclaim the attack, unfortunantly for our research A’maq was taken down by a group of muslim Hackers (see how muslims fight ISIS and ex-muslims complain like cowards?)yet I was left with no lead to the website since it was taken down dabiq was then left and was not accesable since it was blocked, the only magazine I was able to access with the publication “why we hate you and why we fight you” other than that both website and magazine are blocks
So we are left with a claim made by Heavy news outlet where they point out the source yet the source doesn’t exist, I looked over all Arabic sources that contain quotations to Brussels attack statements from ISIS, neither any of them had a reference to that big quote ISIS made, so far we have a questionable source with questionable link that was deleted by the source itself
Why does anyone take this seriously?
Yes! Thank you so much.
ReplyDeleteActually the woman was killed because she slaughtered someone by smashing his skull with a millstone according to William Muir.
ReplyDeleteFrom the wikipedia article, that woman was fucked up. Read: According to Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, one woman who had thrown a millstone from the battlements during the siege and killed one of the Muslim besiegers, was also beheaded along with the men. 'Ã'isha, one of Mohammad's wives, is cited as describing the woman as laughing and chatting with her during the massacre, down to the moment her name was called out:
ReplyDeleteMike is actually defending her, a woman who murdered a man and laughed about it, he's one fucked up individual.
If you intend to make a Quora account, please report him as factually incorrect, which will collapse the answer and it will no longer be seen unless he corrects it, (yes, Quora is that awesome!) or answer this question: https://www.quora.com/Can-any-Muslim-counter-to-Mike’s-point-that-Islam-is-not-a-religion-of-peace
Ibn ishaq biography isn't completely accurate and i would be carefull using Wikipedia
DeleteJust saw the video Zaid, pretty good for a start...
ReplyDelete3 questions
ReplyDelete1. With regards to reddit will you answer this guy who daily posts a hadith which he claims are bad
2. Could you as an arab answer this claim and maybe some of the comments under the reddit post claiming the quran wasnt preserved ( see the post by xmalik )
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/7rb9q5/a_challenge_for_muslims_about_the_language_of
3.About this hadith, they claim it shokws muhammad saws did violence or the like of it.
It is the hadith of the story about dhul khalasa. There are about 4 hadith about it and i dont really understand the context
Bukhari 3823
There was a house called Dhul-Khalasa in the Pre-lslamic Period and it was also called Al-Ka'ba Al-Yamaniya or Al-Ka'ba Ash-Shamiya. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said to me, "Will you relieve me from Dhul-Khalasa?" So I left for it with 150 cavalrymen from the tribe of Ahmas and then we destroyed it and killed whoever we found there. Then we came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and informed him about it. He invoked good upon us and upon the tribe of Ahmas
This hadith makes it seem they killed some people who were doing nothing
And another hadith is about the same story and they claim it shows people were compelled to go away from their religion.
Bukhari 4357: When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination. Someone said to him. "The messenger of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) is present here and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck." One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, "Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah.
"1. With regards to reddit will you answer this guy who daily posts a hadith which he claims are bad"
ReplyDeleteWhich Guy? if he does it daily then it will be impossible for me to refute him since he make up nonsense every day i have to respond everyday
" Could you as an arab answer this claim and maybe some of the comments under the reddit post claiming the quran wasnt preserved ( see the post by xmalik ) "
which comments? what part?
"
This hadith makes it seem they killed some people who were doing nothing"
"who were doing nothing" is there evidence for that?
i looked for the first hadith and in Fatih al bari fi sharih sahih bukhari it state that
according to fatih al bari fi sharih sahih bukhari, the man who killed those people was Jarir Radia allah 'anh, he was the one who ordered their killing (in another narration says they burned down the house with no mention of killing) but this is referring to qazwa Al-Khalsa, those people were involved in the murder of the father of Umro alqais, so he went out to revenge his father, so apparently they were involved in a murder
"And another hadith is about the same story and they claim it shows people were compelled to go away from their religion.
Bukhari 4357: When Jarir reached Yemen, there was a man who used to foretell and give good omens by casting arrows of divination. Someone said to him. "The messenger of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) is present here and if he should get hold of you, he would chop off your neck." One day while he was using them (i.e. arrows of divination), Jarir stopped there and said to him, "Break them (i.e. the arrows) and testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, or else I will chop off your neck." So the man broke those arrows and testified that none has the right to be worshipped except Allah."
did the prophet order him to compel him to leave his religion? if so where is the evidence? and what did this man do?
this is how you approach the claims
Assalamu alaikum. Thanks for the answer on dhul khalasa.
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd question
I was referring to the question raised in the reddit post itself and maybe you as an arab could help answer his claims, it says
Like a lot of people, I want to know the true meaning of Quranic Arabic. It seems there are so many questionable words with fishy meanings. It doesn't add up. I have been looking through lexicons, dictionaries and learning (modern)Arabic, but I am far from satisfied.
I do think the real meaning of the Quran will come out soon(Ancient Arabic), so I am going to challenge people here reading this to back up the way Arabic in the quran is translated into English as well as Arabic.
My first challenge is the word 'Allahumma' or without diacritical markers 'Allahem' اللهم. This is found throughout the Quran. Allah in modern Arabic is 'God' or 'The God'. هم is always 'they' translated in English.
As most of you know, in modern Arabic Allahumma is 'O Allah', but 'yaa' is 'O' also. So my challenge is why is Allahumma 'O Allah' when Arabic is a phonetic language, a descriptive language, a language that paints the meaning of the words by the letters it is sounded out from. Where 'هم' is always 'they' but not the case here. More to come. Thanks for any responses.
And the comment i was referring to was
There is much evidence to show that the original pronunciation of the quran was not preserved soundly. Muslims even accept about 10 different qira'at, and although they are all very similar because they follow the uthmani codex, they do contain pronunciation differences and even whole word differences, and some of the transmitters of the qira'at were even two students of the same teacher who had slight variations or sometimes there was one person who would narrate multiple different variations which serves to show that the oral transmission was not as strong as we may previously have believed. In addition to that there are some instances in the modern standard mushaf that seem to be miscopyings of words from the original copies of the uthmani codex which resulted in gibberish for example 38:16, قطنا seems very likely to be a mistranscription of فصلنا. And in the original naskh script they look almost identical. Furthermore there are other things like the Sanaa manuscript which has a lot of different phrasing than the standard uthmani codex. This all serves to show that the oral tradition was not as strong as we may have previously thought.
Anyway jazakallah khair
"Like a lot of people, I want to know the true meaning of Quranic Arabic. It seems there are so many questionable words with fishy meanings. It doesn't add up. "
Deletewhat words?
"It doesn't add up. I have been looking through lexicons, dictionaries and learning (modern)Arabic, but I am far from satisfied."
"and learning (modern)Arabic,"
that just completely destroys his insane credibility, you can't study Quran by studying the modern Arabic (Al-Arabia al 'amia)
"I do think the real meaning of the Quran will come out soon(Ancient Arabic),"
ancient Arabic? this sound like an argument from stopspamming, a moronic youtube atheist, the proper term is classical Arabic ('arabia alfusha)
"My first challenge is the word 'Allahumma' or without diacritical markers 'Allahem' اللهم. This is found throughout the Quran. Allah in modern Arabic is 'God' or 'The God'. هم is always 'they' translated into English.
As most of you know, in modern Arabic Allahumma is 'O Allah', but 'yaa' is 'O' also. So my challenge is why is Allahumma 'O Allah' when Arabic is a phonetic language, a descriptive language, a language that paints the meaning of the words by the letters it is sounded out from. Where 'هم' is always 'they' but not the case here. More to come. Thanks for any responses.
"
this is false, Hum can be senenume based on the Harkat (vocal attributes) if you add Thama on top of Ha ه then sokon on top of mem م the combination is then spelled Huma, which can be used both in Quran and more Arabic and classical Arabic (quranic Arabic)
the word اللهم meaning O god, if you notice at the end mem has what is called tanwen fatih, separating al ال From hum will result in Huma instead the first one hum, you see the difference? therefore the word allahuma اَللَّهُمَّ is distinct in its own way since Hum at the end is radically different in pronunciation duo to vocal marks from "They" Hum هُمْ
هُمْ vs هُمَّ
the first one is distinct to They, connecting al to it will give different pronunciation to allahum not resulting in the same name
"There is much evidence to show that the original pronunciation of the Quran was not preserved soundly. "
citation needed
"Muslims even accept about 10 different qira'at, "
nonsequitur fallacy, just because there are 10 Qira'at (which are not different) doesn't mean quranic pronunciation was not preserved soundly
"and although they are all very similar because they follow the uthmani codex,"
in contradiction to the first statement
"they do contain pronunciation differences and even whole word differences"
different in what? meaning? positions? Tawil? Tanwih? in what difference?
"and some of the transmitters of the qira'at were even two students of the same teacher who had slight variations or sometimes there was one person who would narrate multiple different variations which serves to show that the oral transmission was not as strong"
Citation needed
"as we may previously have believed. In addition to that, there are some instances in the modern standard mushaf that seem to be miscopyings of words from the original copies of the uthmani codex "
Citation needed
"which resulted in gibberish for example 38:16, قطنا seems very likely to be a mistranscription of فصلنا. And in the original naskh script they look almost identical. "
in what Mushaf? are they located in the same verse? what Naho drove from it? do they carry the same meaning?
where is the evidence?
"Furthermore there are other things like the Sanaa manuscript which has a lot of different phrasing than the standard uthmani codex. "
Citation needed
No problem brother I'm here to help but to give you extra help what the man gave above is an anecdotal claim and requires evidence, since he didn't provide one they can be easily dismissed, always use this when debating ex-Muslims
Question regarding this hadith
ReplyDeleteAmir reported the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) as saying : The woman who buries alive her new-born girl and the girl who is buried alive both will go to Hell. This tradition has also been transmitted by Ibn Mas’ud from the Prophet (May peace be upon him) to the same effect through a different chain of narrators.
Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani)
Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 4717 In-book reference : Book 42, Hadith 122 English translation : Book 41, Hadith 4699
Why does the baby girl who is buried get sent to hell?
well according to tafsir al-nisaqi this is an isolated incident, as he said "it's illogical to think this is a general case of all kufar children, this is only isolated to one woman"
DeleteWill you make a response to the masked arabs isis and islam videos as i havent quite seen a good response about those videos, also have you seen the latest video exchange of this guy called asadullah ali and maskedarab where the maskedarab has now responded to his video. Will you respond to that exchange?
ReplyDeleteafter I'm done with part 2 of my youtube video i will respond to the masked arab response to asadullah, also i already dedicated few articles on ISIS
DeleteSalam
ReplyDelete3 quick questions
1. Will you maybe ever refute this guy his name is "the rationalizer" maybe you could go over his content on yooutube really quickly and see if he is worth refuting
And secondly I dont know if you know the "jinn and tonic show" they were a podcast who made many videos on islam here is the link to their old channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtiWKwy7rrNqjkAXSTphjXg
And they are still continuing their channel however with a lot of different people and their new channel is here https://youtu.be/UFHuXMDyJig
However i find that the old channel has more points trying to refute islam and the new one is less so
3 will you ever make an article making a response / refutation of those who say the quran was borrowed from otherr texts such as the jewish talmud and as they claim it stole stories such as the one of cain and abel quran 5:31. And the story of solomon and mary giving birth to a palm tree. They say they can be found in an earlier text like the talmud or secret gospels which means that the quran is not divine according to them as this information was known before by regular humans
Jazkallah khair
1-he has stopped working on his channel as far as I'm concern, but tell me which part you wish for me to address (i'm currently active on YouTube, i'll be back to the blog after finishing part 2)
Deleteyes i'm aware of Jinn and Tonic show, they are by far the worse and irrational "skeptics" you can find
"3 will you ever make an article making a response / refutation of those who say the quran was borrowed from otherr texts such as the jewish talmud and as they claim it stole stories such as the one of cain and abel quran 5:31."
borrowed what? do they have evidence to prove anything?
"And the story of solomon and mary giving birth to a palm tree. They say they can be found in an earlier text like the talmud or secret gospels which means that the quran is not divine according to them "
that is a non sequitur fallacy
As salamu alaikum
ReplyDeleteI have a question regarding 2 ayat from surah 9
The ayat are
9:28 and 9:29. My question isnnot about violence or killing but rather about money
9:28 O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year. And if you fear privation, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.
9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
So i had 2 questions
1. Why are disbelievers unclean and what does this actually mean
2. Regarding the jizya. The aya in 9:28 says that basically since the pagans are now forbidden to come this can cause problems economically. And 9:29 is speaking about jizya.
When looking at tafsir ibn kathir it says:
(. ..and feel themselves subdued.) This Ayah means, `this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.' Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.'' Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others.
This is why Allah compensated Muslims for their losses by the amount of Jizyah that they took from the people of Dhimmah."
When i am looking at this maybe because of my lack of knowledge it sounds quite bad from the tafsir. Because it seems like the jizya was not set up as a fair tax. Rather it seems because the muslims didnt have much money they just took the money from the people of the book. So first they didnt need it so they didnt take it, but when they needed the money they just stole it from the people of the book
Can you please help me clear this doubt inshaAllah
Jazakallah khair
Walikum al Salam
Delete"1. Why are disbelievers unclean and what does this actually mean"
this doesn't refer to all disbelievers, according to Tafsir ibn Kathir page.872 the prophet sent in the tenth year Abu bakir to tell some polytheists that after that year no polytheist will go pilgrim in the house of God and do it naked
further more ibn Kathir shows that the prophet did make exceptions.
from Hussain from sharik from ash'at the prophet said that no polytheist will enter this masjid of Islam except those we had the treaty of contact with
so again not all of them are filthy, only those who go around pilgrim naked and had no treaty with the prophet
there are of course disagreement regarding that but that is the opinion of ibn kathir, the tafsir you used.
"2. Regarding the jizya. The aya in 9:28 says that basically since the pagans are now forbidden to come this can cause problems economically. And 9:29 is speaking about jizya.
When looking at tafsir ibn kathir it says:
(. ..and feel themselves subdued.) This Ayah means, `this will be your compensation for the closed markets that you feared would result.' Therefore, Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators, by the Jizyah they earned from the People of the Book.'' Similar statements were reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Qatadah and Ad-Dahhak and others.
This is why Allah compensated Muslims for their losses by the amount of Jizyah that they took from the people of Dhimmah.""
"When i am looking at this maybe because of my lack of knowledge it sounds quite bad from the tafsir. Because it seems like the jizya was not set up as a fair tax. Rather it seems because the Muslims didn't have much money they just took the money from the people of the book. "
Tafsir Ibn Kathir in the website is extremely abridged and cuts a lot of what the original Arabic text give, in fact to the last word of 9:29 "while they are humbled" has a complete page dedicated just to this word, but ibn Kathir in the original neglected Arabic text provide a reason, but let us explore the text you provided since you didn't pay attention to it
"Allah compensated them for the losses they incurred because they severed ties with idolators,"
meaning they aided the polytheists in their aggression with the Muslims if you have paid attention to this part this won't be a problem to you, but never mind let us see what ibn Kathir have to say
he says this verse was revealed when the prophet was preparing to battle Rome, he gathered as much as he can from polytheist in total his warriors were 30 thousand, but some of the people of Madina neglected the fight, and that was a year of aggression and oppression Muslims had so he went to Tabuk to battle room and remained near water for 20 days, then god told him to return so he returned with hunger so he took jizyah from those hypocrites who didn't aid him in battle
so basically the prophet and his warriors (among them polytheists and people of the book) suffered great hunger because of some hypocrites didn't aid in military expedition causing Muslims to be weak in battle if they did aid the Muslims when they could then that won't happen.
so basically he gave extra jizyah to those who didn't aid in the military expedition, aided the enemy ideologies, and that caused Muslims to suffer during battle.
that is only from Ibn Kathir, god knows what I can find in other tafsirs
Asslamu alaikum
DeleteThanks for the reply, with regards to the arabic and other tafasir. Since i dont speak it its difficult for me. So could you maybe give what he and othwrs say in arabic?
Jazakallah khair
Mind if you wanna tell me where you are getting these accusations from? i won't be surpiresed if it was from ex-muslim reddit
DeleteNo it wasnt from the ex muslim reddit page. I saw the claim from a youtubr video.
DeleteAssalamu alaikum.
ReplyDeleteI know you have made an artucle regarding the sun setting in the muddy spring argument. I still have 1 quick question though.
It says in 18:86: Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun,
I have a question regarding this, becausd it says when he reached the setting place of the sun. However we know that there is no setting place of the sun. Also we know that the sun never actually sets.
So how do we answer these questions?
the proper word is not setting as far as i'm concern, it's Magrib, which we still use today, it means the direction where the sun sits, meaning he reached the setting of the sun, Not the place of setting
Deletenot a single translation says "the setting place" except for picktal shakir and khan
and Ahmad Ali and Ali Qarai and Daryabadi and Hilali & Khan... http://quranx.com/18.86
Deleteno, as i stated only pickthal shakir and khan say that your link (quranx is a bad source) only cites pickthal who say "setting-place of the sun"
DeleteRespectively : "the point of the setting sun" "the place where the sun sets" "the setting-place of the sun" "the setting place of the sun" ; I will let the reader judge here.
Delete"quranx is a bad source" [citation needed]
""quranx is a bad source" [citation needed]"
Deleteit claims to be supervised by "Quran.com Tanzil project. AlTafsir.com." contributed willingly to their website content without any link or proof, this website is supervised by nonmuslims as evidence by the frequent use of it there, i could not find any legislation or any islamic institution the verified their link it it, this website copies content from other websites without direct proof of their approval, why use quranx when Quran.com and altafsir and sunnah.com are already there
i'll be very careful in using it.
"Respectively : "the point of the setting sun" "the place where the sun sets" "the setting-place of the sun" "the setting place of the sun" ; I will let the reader judge here."
there are will over 68 english translations of quran, assuming your source translations are authentic (which it's quranx and we already doubt it) you are 6 vs 62 translations of english that still disagree with you
Al Qarai is unkown
https://islamawakened.com/quran/18/86/default.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Quran
"there are will over 68 english translations of quran, assuming your source translations are authentic (which it's quranx and we already doubt it) you are 6 vs 62 translations of english that still disagree with you" I never said that all or most translation agree with me, simply that there are more than " picktal shakir and khan" ; How can you say that they 62 that disagree with me, did you read them all 62 ? I used this site because it provide other translation than sunnah.com (where i didn't find quran translation) and altasfir.
DeleteFrom your link ( thanks by the way, didn't know about this website) :
"the place where the sun sets" T.B.Irving
"the setting ˹point˺ of the sun" Mustafa Khattab
"the setting-place of the sun" Abdul Majid Daryabadi
"the setting-place of the sun" Ali Ünal
"the place where the sun sets, "Ali Quli Qara'i
"the setting place of the sun" Syed Vickar Ahamed
"the setting place of the sun" with interpretation Dr. Kamal Omar
others:
"the setting-place of the sun" Faridul Haque
"the setting-place of the sun" Maulana Muhammad Ali
"the setting-place of the sun" Sher Ali
"the place of sun setting" Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)
"the place where the sun set" Ahmed Hulusi
"the setting-place of the sun" Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli
"the setting place of the sun" with commentary Mir Aneesuddin.
"" I never said that all or most translation agree with me, simply that there are more than " picktal shakir and khan" ; How can you say that they 62 that disagree with me"
Deletebecause you say that these translations state that the sun literally sits in a muddy water, and none of them state so, infact none of 68 English translations says so
"did you read them all 62 "
no because not all of them are authentic, among them is
""the setting-place of the sun" Faridul Haque
"the setting-place of the sun" Maulana Muhammad Ali
"the setting-place of the sun" Sher Ali
"the place of sun setting" Ahmed Raza Khan (Barelvi)
"the place where the sun set" Ahmed Hulusi
"the setting-place of the sun" Sayyed Abbas Sadr-Ameli
"the setting place of the sun" with commentary Mir Aneesuddin."
none of these are accepted, see the link in my comment above
""the place where the sun sets" T.B.Irving
"the setting ˹point˺ of the sun" Mustafa Khattab
"the setting-place of the sun" Abdul Majid Daryabadi
"the setting-place of the sun" Ali Ünal
"the place where the sun sets, "Ali Quli Qara'i
"the setting place of the sun" Syed Vickar Ahamed
"the setting place of the sun" with interpretation Dr. Kamal Omar"
only these are accepted
as you can see arberry is among the controversial section because his translation is not accepted among muslim community, yet your source (quranx) provide it, that is why i won't recommend using it
"you say that these translations state that the sun literally sits in a muddy water" Where did i stated that ? We are talking only about "the place where the sun set" and direct derivative (no sunset point...), you said that there were only three translation in that sense, i gave you 4 more that give us 7 out of 33 translation with that meaning. 21%.
DeleteI agree with you that no translation say "the sun literally sits in a muddy water". But the fact that in our modern time some muslims still go for the "setting place " translation prove that they don't want to change the text and translate the meaning accordingly (Literal (Word by Word) in your source also give us this view) because they have enough faith and integrity to look at the text without putting modern glasses between.
"Where did i stated that ? We are talking only about "the place where the sun set""
Deletein general sense (see what i did there?) when someone object to my article regarding TMA and the sun that sets in muddy water they tend to claim that Quran as TMA claim literally state the sun sits in a muddy water, while i did use the word "you" i agree that i should be more precisely with my wording as i should say "you guys"
" you said that there were only three translation in that sense, i gave you 4 more that give us 7 out of 33 translation with that meaning. 21%."
correct, i was wrong about the number
"But the fact that in our modern time some muslims still go for the "setting place " translation prove that they don't want to change the text and translate the meaning accordingly "
hold on are you saying muslims should directly change quran? like removing verses and adding verse? kinda as how ayaan hirisi ali claim?
"(Literal (Word by Word) in your source also give us this view)"
that word for word translation, only give so to provide literal translations, it doesn't bother with figurative nor the context
"correct, i was wrong about the number" ok.
Delete"hold on are you saying muslims should directly change quran?" Not change the arabic text, but change the translations to push a meaning that was dimly here in arabic.
"it doesn't bother with figurative nor the context" And that probably why some translator translate it literally, because it's the first meaning of a "clear book" and the verse didn't seem very metaphorical or hard to understand.
bro could you do some articles regarding women in islam, such as womens testimony, womens inheritance because I feel like this is something bought up a lot by the kuffar
ReplyDeletewill be in the future
DeleteAssalamu alaikum
ReplyDeleteCan/will you make a response to the latest video of sherif gaber: https://youtu.be/vvqgVS8KVJA
InshaAllah you could respond to it as i have been getting some doubts over it.
Jazakallah khair.
well see if the same islamic institution that debunked his old video could respond, if they won't i'll try my best
DeleteWho is the islamic institution that responded in the past?
DeleteAl-Bayina institution
Deletehttps://youtu.be/vH8LbIGVYaY
Lol Mike's unbelievable contradictions xD . Anyways Awesome refutation .
ReplyDelete