Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Shari Gaber What you don’t know about Quran, Much ado about nothing part-2 (updated)

Introduction:
in Part-1 I showed how Sharif twisted his own sources manipulated his gullible audience , lied about Arius, and foolishly confused him with other historical Character, made false assumptions on Quran that no muslim make such as the claim that Islam was the first to teach Jesus was just a messenger, when no muslim make such claim, used a failed and rejected orientalist scholar like Christoph Luxenburg who we showed several times to not only twist Syriac text meaning but also lack understanding of spelling, by this point anyone who value their time and efforts should stop addressing Sharif Gaber especially since sharif blocks people who criticize him as he did to me on twitter, this kid is clearly not interested in dialog but interested in the money he gains on patreon which is equivalent to money gained by 3 full paid qualified doctors, he thrives on money and deception like no other polemicist I have ever dealt with, and rely on the foolishness of his audience, of all the videos I addressed (which I stated that many times on many people I addressed) his video on Quran has to be the most deceptive an weakest video I ever dealt with, in all honesty it doesn’t need much research to debunk everything he comes up with, not only he claimed to have memorized the quran but never backed that with evidence, when you memorize the quran either by yourself or by the supervision of an imam in a mosque you need to be examined and when you pass you need a certificated that affirms you passed the exam of memorization, this kid made this claim with no evidence of him passing any exam, this doesn’t shock me in slightest if he lied about his memorization of quran, since we saw not just in part-1 but on other occuations I dealt with him he is ready to lie and fabricate his sources to make up his claim, so why should I believe that he memorized the quran now? In the mean time I shall now start with completing my refutation to his worst video yet, and I well explain why I got a bit harsh on him later when this article is completed, we will be continuing our refutation to his so called Syriac origin nonsense, as I said before any academic can just point to reviews of Christoph Luxenburg work and see how his work is received poorly and just skip all sharif arguments regarding Syriac origin of quran since he heavily rely on him, but I shall continue to debunk him claim by claim, we will all also debunk the claim that Quran in Syriac as a title means a christian script and reveal were the confusion come from, the last allegation regarding the British library quran being different will also be addressed and spoilers it will display how bad his research is, all will be addressed in subsequent articles.



Islam was the first to call Christians Nasara?
@11:39 sharif state “the names of all the religious figures in Quran are written in Syriac text (displays ibn warraq book Syriac influence on the style of the quran quoting Alphonse Mingana) names like Ishmael, Solaiman, Ishaq , Jacop, Zakaria, Mariam , Noah, the naming of all these names is Syriac , and not just names but also religious terms in Quran mostly are Syriac(displaying Robert Spencer book did Muhammad exist quoting also quoting mingana we shall address this so called historic figure alhonse mingala and expose ibn warraq and Robert and sharif) , among them aya, kafir, salat , nafis (self) , janah (heaven) Sayaat (sins) but even Quran calling Christians , there is no language in the world that called Christians Nasara except Syriac”
Now this kid mentioned many false things, we shall debunk the so-called figure alphonse Mingana for now
For complete dismantle of aphonse mingana credibility please visit Islamic awareness detailed explanation of his credentials
the great scholar Muhammad Mustafa Alazami even pointed out that Mingana have a poor grasp of Arabic language, often making mistakes when copying from bukhari
(Muhammad Mustafa al azami shows images of the inscription and the evidence he presents to refute Mingana, I can’t display it here, the book is available for free to download link presented in part-1, I will provide footnotes and you see the images yourself)
“Turning our attention to Dr.Mingana’s Hypothesis that early Arabic lacked an alphabet, I will present few dated and highly developed inscriptions which clearly shows otherwise, there are many Arabic inscriptions from 6th century c.e. which vearly nearly approach the Arabic palaeography used in the first century A.H./ seventh century C.E.; my examples will progress from these into the Islamic era. (professor Azami proceed to present 6 examples and inscriptions with images to pre Islamic Arabic text)[1]

Later Al-Azami present Mingana as an ignoramus in Arabic script, making blunders in his copying of sahih bukhari
“Prof.Rev.Mingana held by some as ‘a great scholar of arabic’, has in fact shaky grasp of the subject at best, publishing an important manuscript of the tradition of bukhari he commits, in copying only handful of lines, the following blunders: incorrect transcription of وحدثني  (which he transcribes as وخدمني ); أبو الفضل بن  read as أبو المظفر  ; omission of such words as مقابلة  ; inability to read partial words such as اجازة  (which he conveniently drops altogether); addition of an extra و  ; erroneous translation of the terms ثنا  and أنا  , and so on, in a series of errors that can only be classified as incompetence (presents one of the plaimpsets leaves used by mingana)”[2]
I would not just add incompetence in place of azami words who is soft in describing mingana, any native Arabic speaker won’t make such hideous blunders as displayed above, mingana isn’t just incompetence he is also an ignorant , this is the scholar that ibn warraq, Robert Spencer and this Logan Paul of exmuslims YouTubers sharif gaber rely on?
Page 311 is where Azami dedicate a title for mingana dismantling his credibility, please proceed to read it

But let’s address this claim for a moment, that Quran is Syriac in origin because it mentions several Syriac names, how does that follow? That is a logical fallacy of non sequitur, just because a book mentions words that are Syriac in origin doesn’t mean the book itself is Syriac in origins, if I write a book of 100 pages and all the names I mention are Arabic the book, however, is in English, does this mean the book is originally in Arabic? How does anyone take such claim for real? Infact this claim shall backfire on Christoph Luxenberg himself, if a book becomes a different language by virtue of mentioning names that are originally on a different language then this renders Christoph Luxenberg book on quran originally in Arabic, because he mentions names that are Arabic in origin in it, does that make any sense to anyone?

Let’s debunk another claim, is it true that All prophetic names in quran are Syriac in origins? Yes, sharif stated “all” so no one here can claim I strawmanned him, but is it true?
Let’s take a name, Isa (jesus in Quran) does it compare to Yashwa in the bible?
Yashwa is ܝܫܘܥ
Isa is ܺܣܰ
Take Yahya, in Arabic ܛܰܗܝܰ
In Syriac (bible) it’s Yohanan ܛܳܗܰܢܰܢ or Johana ܗܰܢܰܢ
There are also Prophets names mentioned in Quran never mentioned in Bible or any Syriac text
Like Salih
Hood or Hud
Tho Al-Kifl

So much for “the names of all the religious figures in Quran are written in Syriac text”
seriously why did he make such claim?
Now let’s throw all these blunders out of the window
Is it true that Quran was the only book that called Christians with Nasara like any Syriac text?
First, we will read the combined Arabic translation of the bible and see if Nasara exist in the bible and work our way from there

As you can see from above, the word Nasara in Arabic is found in the combined Arabic translation of the bible this is also find is Iasu’ translation and the Catholic translation of Arabic Bible
The following is the Greek script containing the earliest mention of the word Nazrani

From Acts 24:5[3]
As you can see from above word

But will you believe me if I tell you that even sharif strawmanned mingana?
Sharif quoted Mingana via Robert Spencer and ibn warraq stating all prophetic terms in quran are Syriac in origin, but even mingana never said that
“however, it was shortly thereafter that alphonse mingana set the foundation for research on the Qur’an in light of Syriac in a study entitled “Syriac Influence on the Style of the Kuran” he provided a brief typology and some examples of Syriac words used in Quran, asserting that 70 percent of the quran’s “foreign vocabulary” is Syriac in origin”[4]

So sharif and ibn warraq and Robert Spencer took what mingana said and twisted it to make it sound that all terms in Quran are Syriac in origins, not just foreign terms, but all terms, literally making quran entirely Syriac, something mingana never said as stated above
That is astonishing, this trinity of deception (Sharif, Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer) even twist their own sources to fit their agenda




@12:17 sharif state “and of course there are words that have no meaning in Arabic nor any meaning in any other language, and has no meaning even if you try to filter it and return it to it’s origin (a method we already refuted in part-1) like the word Kawthar that has an entire Surah in Quran with it’s name, no one knew what it meant, and like usual hundreds of tafsirs, so some people said Kawthar this means spoils of war , and others said no this means great good or Qurtubi who mentioned 7 meanings to the same word or ibn al naqib who mentioned 26 different meaning to the same word”.

Hold a second? What is this kind of logic? If a word has multiple meaning, therefore it has no meaning? Is sharif smoking something here?
This is the first time I have ever heard of such logic if a word has multiple meanings, therefore, it has no meaning, let’s apply that to English.
"set," which had 430 definitions in the Second Edition of the  Oxford English Dictionary published in 1989. This record was certified by the Guinness Book of World Records.

In that edition of the OED, the entry for set runs 60,000 words.

It beats the others. Here are the runners-up for that edition:

Here's how the others stack up:

Run - 396 (definitions)
Go - 368
Take - 343
Stand - 334
Get - 289
Turn - 288
Put - 268
Fall - 264
Strike - 250[5]

So based on sharif logic, set, run, go, take, stand, get, turn, put, fall and strike all has no meaning
can anyone take that seriously? The fact that there are meanings to the word Kawthar Proves that it Does have to mean
Kawthar was also used in pre-islamic Poetry
يُحامي الحَقِيقَ إِذا مَا احْتَدَمْن ... وحَمْحَمْنَ فِي كَوْثَرٍ كالجَلالْ[6]
@12:50 Sharif state “the repeated citation of words and tafsiers and meanings to the majority of terms in quran in this shape, this is the biggest evidence that no one knew the meaning of these words”
Above sentence further proves that sharif believes that having multiple meanings to a word proves it has no meaning.

@13:00 Sharif state “or for example in Sura ‘Abas says (verse 31) { Wafakihatan waabba} what does aabaa means? It has no meaning (displays multiple meanings) or for example in Surah Hud verse  75 { Inna ibraheema lahaleemun awwahunmuneeb} awwah? What do awwah means? And like usual hundreds of Tafsiers some people said awwah means does a lot of awh from fear of god, and other people said awwah means merciful, and other people said awwah means Da’ia for good, notice how no one knows the meaning, and because of that they will come up with all the meanings as beautiful why?, because the term return to Abrahim, so the term has to be good, but if he said inna Fir’awin lahaleemun awwah it will be different, they will tell you awwah this means something cruel, and sometimes comes in meaning of someone unjust, all make up their fatwa”

so much nonsense to pack, and a new logic (abrahim is mentioned therefore the meaning has to be nice) is this kid for real? Where is the evidence for this? Couldn’t you pull from those hundreds of tafsiers a single reference to this claim?
To understand a word we need to take it back to it’s root, awwah comes from the root of the word awh أوه
According to Lisan al arab


أَوْهِ من كذا ، ساكنة الواو ، إِنما هو توجع[7]

Translation:
Awo from this, static waow, it means pain

Having multiple meanings to a word doesn’t prove it has no meaning as explained above from 430 different meanings of the word “set” in English, by sharif Logic set has no meaning
If you place a word in the context you can understand what meaning you drive from, the hundreds of Tafsir exist to give meaning to Arabic words without minding the context, as words alone
For example, ‘ain عين has multiple meaning, either human eye, or same or this same.
If I said
لقد استلمت الملف عينه
Translation: I just received the file (‘ainaho masculine ‘ain) itself
The word ‘ain was used here in the context of affirmed position.
But if I say
اشعر بالم في عيني
Translation: I feel pain in my (‘aini) eye

This word alone has multiple meanings but when placed in a correct context which meaning makes sense is used
That does not prove this word has no meaning, the same logic applies with aabaa

First mention? Therefore, it is the wrong one.

@13:43 sharif state “or for example verse 63 from sura Shu’ara { Then We inspired to Moses, "Strike with your staff the sea," and it parted, and each portion was like a great (kattawdi )towering mountain.} tawd? What does Tawd mean? They said it could mean mountain, they tell you he split the sea into two parts and each part became like a great mountain, logical, they indeed brought a correct word, on a word that is originally written wrong, it sould be Tawr, not Tawd, the Ra instead of Dal, but it was transmitted wrong, and evidence that the word Tawd this is not mentioned anywhere in Quran, but the word Tawr was mentioned 10 times, and every time it was mentioned with the same meaning that is with this word meaning mountain”

Yet more nonsense to pack, so let me get this straight if a word is never mentioned before in the Quran, therefore, it’s the wrong word? What a great nonsequitur fallacy.
At this point I can’t give sharif the benefit of the doubt at all, I lost not just all of it, but all respect to sharif in every form, he is coming up with every nonsense to fit is agenda
But let’s unpack this
This word is in fact common in pre-islamic poetry

رِقاً بِمَاءِ الذَّوْب يَجْمَعُه ... فِي طَوْدِ أَيْمَنَ مِنْ قُرَى قَسْرِ
شِرْكاً بِمَاءِ الذَّوْبِ يَجْمَعُه ... فِي طَوْد أَيْمَنَ فِي قُرى قَسْرِ
شِرْكاً بماءِ الذَّوْب تَجْمَعُه ... فِي طَوْدِ أَيْمَنَ مِنْ قُرَى قَسْرِ
صَحارِى تَغوَّلُ جِنّانُها ... وأحدابَ طَوْدٍ رفيعِ الِجبالِ
فأبرَح غازِيا أَهدِى رَعِيلًا ... أَؤُمّ سَوادَ طَوْدٍ ذى نِجالِ
كَأنَّ الجسْمَ للِرائِينَ طَوْدٌ ... وَهاديها كَأنْ جِذَعٌ سَحُوقُ[8]

Now here is what makes Quran so clear, there is one thing in common between Tawd and Tawr, and it’s not the close terminology, it’s mountain, both Tawd and Tawr reference mountain in meaning, however, there is one great difference between them
Tawr simply means just mountain, Tawd Means Great Mountain
الطَّوْد ُ: الجبل العظيم.[9]

Translation:
Tawd: Great Mountain

Tawr, however, means Just Mountain

الطُّورُ في كلام العرب الجَبلُ[10]

Translation:
Tawr in words of Arabs means Mountian
You can’t place a word on another just because they sound the same, we have a term for it, it’s called homophone
The, for example, the word Knew, and the word New, they both sound the same but wia th different meaning
But let’s read this line of poetry
صَحارِى تَغوَّلُ جِنّانُها ... وأحدابَ طَوْدٍ رفيعِ الِجبالِ
Deserts with it’s cover kills….and sharp curves as large as big as great mountains
Now change طود with طور
صَحارِى تَغوَّلُ جِنّانُها ... وأحدابَ طَوْر

Notice how I removed the last two sentences since they go against what Tawr means
Deserts with it’s cover kills….and sharp curves as big as mountains


It should be clear for now there is a difference in Tawr and Tawd, Tawd means Great Mountain, and Tawd just means Mountian
Update:
I also wanted to add the fact that Tawr isn't just mountain on it's own, but also the name of a mountain Prophet Moses called god from


الطور آية 1 ، 2 وَالطُّورِ وَكِتَابٍ مَسْطُورٍ ( قرآن ) : الْجَبَلُ الَّذِي نَاجَى فِيهِ مُوسَى رَبَّهُ ، سورَةٌ مِن سور القرآن . 

Translation:
Tawr verse 1, 2 Tawr and the written book (Quran) : it's a mountain that Moses called his lord from, one sura from Quran Suras

Source:
https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%B1/

so we arrive at conclusion Tawr isn't just a mountain it's an actual name of a mountain, Sharif Confused it with Tawd which is a description of a great mountain.

Wrong Order? False Meaning?

Leave it to sharif Gaber, the scholar who will teach us how the Quran should place it words
@14:51 Sharif state “ for example in sura al mumtahana when he says { And if you have lost any of your wives to the disbelievers and you subsequently obtain [something], then give those whose wives have gone the equivalent of what they had spent. And fear Allah , in whom you are believers.}(60:11) what does mean? What does it mean And if you have lost any of your wives to the disbelievers? I want you to try and understand this word by yourself, you won’t , the sentence has something wrong with it, and like always hundreds of tafsiers , most of them say it means they ran away, meaning your wives ran away and went to disbelievers, but in reality this is just Fatwa , and even if that it means they ran away, why didn’t it say and if your wives ran away to Disbelievers? Or if your wives ran away and went to disbelievers? A clear simply and understandable word with no one will differ on it and no 100 tafsir will come up”

Yes, sharif create your own quran for us, it makes sense, since you already have a cult
The verse states the following وإن فاتكم شيء من أزواجكم, which later according to Tafsir commentators means if any of your wives leave you to disbelievers, now the reason why the word فاتكم شيء which made Sharif Confused Qurtubi mentions the context behind such words


وروى الزهري عن عروة عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت : حكم الله عز وجل بينكم فقال جل ثناؤه : "و أسالو ما انفقتم وليسألو ما أنفقوا" فكتب اليهم المسلمون : قد حكم الله عز وجل بيننا بأنه ان جاءتكم امرأة منا ان توجهوا الينا بصداقها, و أن جاءتنا امراة منكم وجهنا اليكم بصدقها فكتبوا اليهم : أما نحن فلا نعلم لكن عندنا شيئا , فأن كان لنا عندكم شيء فوجهوا به , فأنزل الله عز و جل : "و أن فاتكم شيء من أزواجكم الى الكفار...."[11]


Translation:
It was transmitted from Zuhri from ‘urwa from aisha may God be pleased with her she said: God judged between us, so he said { but ask for what you have spent and let them ask for what they have spent. That is the judgment of Allah ; He judges between you. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.} (60:10 the verse before 11 here which is the context that sharif omitted) so muslims wrote to them : god has ordained us between us and you that if a woman came from us that you bring her back to us with truthfulness, and if a woman from you came to us we bring her back with truthfulness from us so they wrote to them: as for us we don’t know but we have something, so if we have something then bring it forth so god brought down { And if you have lost any of your wives to the disbelievers….}

Now you see the context that you stripped away sharif? As always if you put Quran in context it will make perfect sense

Conclusion to Part-2

originally Part-2 was larger but I took and striped this part of it to post it immediately and quickly due to demand, next we shall continue our refutation to Sharif Gaber.




[1] Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami history of the Quranic text from revelation to completion, a comparative study with new and old testament page.122-125
[2] Ibid page.311
[3] http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
[4] The Qur'an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions By Emran El-Badawi page.27, Quoting Mingana on page.80
[5] https://www.thespruce.com/which-word-has-the-most-definitions-4077796
[6] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82/
[7] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%A3%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%87/?c=%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8
[8] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%AF/?c=%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8
[9] ibid
[10] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%B1/?c=%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8
[11] Jami’ Ahkam Alquran by Qurtubi vol.18

50 comments:

  1. Salamu alaikum

    I have a question about quran 6:151. It says:

    Arabic قُلْ تَعَالَوْا أَتْلُ مَا حَرَّمَ رَبُّكُمْ عَلَيْكُمْ أَلَّا تُشْرِكُوا بِهِ شَيْئًا وَبِالْوَالِدَيْنِ إِحْسَانًا وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا أَوْلَادَكُم مِّنْ إِمْلَاقٍ نَّحْنُ نَرْزُقُكُمْ وَإِيَّاهُمْ وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الْفَوَاحِشَ مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَمَا بَطَنَ وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ ذَٰلِكُمْ وَصَّاكُم بِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ

    Literally translated it says.

    Say, "Come, I will recite what has prohibited your Lord to you. That (do) not associate with Him anything, and with the parents (be) good, and (do) not kill your children (out) of poverty, We provide for you and for them. And (do) not go near [the] immoralities what (is) apparent of them and what (is) concealed. And (do) not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except by (legal) right. That (He) has enjoined on you with it, so that you may use reason."

    So it says that it is HARAM NOT to commit shirk. I.e you have to commit shirk. Because the aya says, it is forbidden by allah to not commit shirk.

    However we know that commiting shirk is the biggest sin. So this verse would be a contradiction.

    Others have also pointed out that some saw this as a peoblem so pickthall translated haram as sacred duty

    Please help

    Jazakallah khair

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It says recite to them the what is haram
      That is according to Tabari

      So basically this Aya recites what is haram not haram the following
      Note how it says "recites what is haram"
      Instead of "haram the following"

      Delete
  2. Good to see you back !

    ReplyDelete
  3. Salaam alaikum brother, i have a question do you consider hadiths which are not part of the 6 canoical hadiths such as hadith of imam malik and musnad ibn hanbal to be all weak or some that are weak?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Salaam aliakum brother, i have a question do you consider hadiths which are not part of the six canonical hadiths such as hadith of imaam malik and musnad ibn hanbal to be all weak or some weak within their collections?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the collection itself is not regarded as weak, some hadiths in it are weak
      muwatta malik is part of them though

      Delete
  5. What can u say about that "72 virgins' thing? Wikiislam cites sources deeming these hadiths authentic
    https://wikiislam.net/wiki/72_Virgins


    Also another hadith says ""..each of them will be given the strength of a hundred men in his eating, drinking, coitus, and pleasure.� Ahmad, al-Nasa�i in the Sunan al-Kubra, Ibn Abi Shayba, Ibn Hibban, and al-Hakim who declared it sahih." http://www.webcitation.org/64zXNO08I

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there are conflicting reports but we do have authentic ones, Wikiislam does a pathetic attempt at proving the authenticity from a website called webcitation, we do have an authentic tradition regarding how many wives you get
      spoilers it doesn't even go beyond 3
      https://sunnah.com/bukhari/59/57

      Delete
    2. Pls dont strawman,u seem to have a bias against Wi.

      Webcitation is not a website on its own. The link is an archived version of an islamic website. There are also other islamic websites in footnotes agreeing that ahadith are authentic.also the they have their own sources if u look.

      But your bukhari hadith says diffirent. Idk...

      Delete
    3. Prophet (s.a.w) said:
      "The believer shall be given in paradise such and such strength in intercourse ." it was said: "O Messenger of Allah! And will he able to do that?" He said: "He will be given the strength of a hundred."
      حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، وَمَحْمُودُ بْنُ غَيْلاَنَ، قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ الطَّيَالِسِيُّ، عَنْ عِمْرَانَ الْقَطَّانِ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ ‏"‏ يُعْطَى الْمُؤْمِنُ فِي الْجَنَّةِ قُوَّةَ كَذَا وَكَذَا مِنَ الْجِمَاعِ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ قِيلَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَوَيُطِيقُ ذَلِكَ قَالَ ‏"‏ يُعْطَى قُوَّةَ مِائَةٍ ‏"‏ ‏.‏ وَفِي الْبَابِ عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَرْقَمَ ‏.‏ قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ غَرِيبٌ لاَ نَعْرِفُهُ مِنْ حَدِيثِ قَتَادَةَ عَنْ أَنَسٍ إِلاَّ مِنْ حَدِيثِ عِمْرَانَ الْقَطَّانِ ‏.‏
      Grade : Hasan (Darussalam)
      English reference : Vol. 4, Book 12, Hadith 2536
      Arabic reference : Book 38, Hadith 2732

      Delete
    4. I never strawmaned you
      Yes I do have bias against wikiislam because they are a horrible source of information
      The website webcitation is still considered a website regardless of the service it provide just like how way back machine is a website aswell
      That is why I dismissed wikiislam and that source

      The sound hadith I have no clue what is your problem with

      Delete
    5. You are still ignoring that the sources are from islamic websites with references to scholarly books (like sunnipath.com), Which means this 72 virgin thing is found in authentic hadiths.

      My problem with this specific hadith is that it says a man will be given the strenght of one hundred men,for sexual intercourse. Dont u think thats kinda... weird?

      Delete
    6. read your source
      "allah for a martyer"
      so clearly this is talking about shahid and not martyer, that doesn't include every muslim who goes to paradise
      وأن منهم من ‏يزوج بسبعين من الحور العين وهم الشهداء
      and among those who get married t 72 virgins, these are maryters
      http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=159105&wheretosearch=0&order=&RecID=0&srchwords=%20%CB%E4%CA%ED%E4%20%E6%D3%C8%DA%ED%E4%20%D2%E6%CC%C9%20%E3%E4%20%C7%E1%CD%E6%D1%20%C7%E1%DA%ED%E4&R1=1&R2=0&hIndex=

      since you probably read arabic here is a link
      https://islamqa.info/ar/257509
      الصحيح الثابت في السنة النبوية هو الحديث عن زوجتين للمؤمن في الجنة
      what is sahih in sunnah nabawia is the hadith of the two wives for a single believer.

      "Dont u think thats kinda... weird?"
      based on that, the hole concept of heaven is weird, the fact that you get what you want there is weird

      according to ibn qaim aljuzya hadi alarwah ila bilad alafrah page.505
      "what is meant here is that this is dependable on number of women depending on the degrees these believers have"
      meaning you don't have power of 100 men in sexual intercourse on one woman, rather distributed among your wives.

      you can have up to 500 wives if you desire in heaven, that is not obligatory upon you , in that case imagine if you wanted such number it will make since for you to have power of 500 men, as ibn qaim said, this is dependable on number of women.

      Delete
    7. I dont understand arabic,so these links talk about 2 wives? Then what's with these hadiths on wi about 72 virgins,like the one i quoted below? Do We have a contradiction here?

      Delete
    8. We have a contradiction in terms of numbers of wives
      The 72 virgins is however of a lower authenticity than the 2 wives version since 2 wives is regarded sahih and 72 virgin is regarded as Hasan (lower authenticiry) and but scholars pointed out that 72 virgins are exclusive for martyrs only

      Delete
    9. And of course wikiislam is a weak source of information as they mention ahadiths like that of the market in heaven when not bringing isnad nor authenticating them because they are weak

      http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=343906

      So that is lie #1

      Lets find another lie shall we.

      They quoted a haadith from ibn majah saying the following:

      Abu Umama narrated: "The Messenger of God said, 'Everyone that God admits into paradise will be married to 72 wives; two of them are houris and seventy of his inheritance of the [female] dwellers of hell. All of them will have libidinous sex organs and he will have an ever-erect penis.' And they claim this hadith is good ( hasan )

      When they have brought no hadith scholar to back their claim. Rather dar us salam the publisher of ahadith has classed it as weak

      https://sunnah.com/urn/1294400

      Also classed weak by al albani:
      http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/forum/hadeeth-sciences-islamic-history/18103-authenticity-of-seventy-two-wives-in-jannah-hadeeth

      As for the next hadith in tirmidhi again classed weak by dar us salam

      And also by al albani and others. See: https://www.hadithportal.com/hadith-2562&book=3


      Also for the following link someone posted on the authenticity of the hadiths by wikiislam:

      http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Authenticity_of_72_Virgins_Hadith#Fatwa.E2.80.99s_on_the_Authenticity_of_the_Hadith

      They quote not a single hadith scholar in this whole field. Nor is a single hadith quoted. Also all of them are talking again about the martyrs and not regular people.

      Delete
  6. Here is another hasan sahih hadith about 72 virgins https://archive.org/stream/JamiAtTirmidhiVol.632913956EnglishArabic/Jami%20at-Tirmidhi%20Vol.%203%20-%201205-1896%20English%20Arabic#page/n409/mode/1up

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is a better page examining their authencity,again with sources and reference links http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Authenticity_of_72_Virgins_Hadith#Fatwa.E2.80.99s_on_the_Authenticity_of_the_Hadith

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That link above is already addressed

      Delete
    2. No. U just put a diffirent link saying a diffirent thing. Didnt address all these citations

      Delete
    3. Because as I said since they are from wikiislam they are not worth addressing.
      And I have already explained to you above the contradiction

      Delete
    4. 1. Stop quoting wikiislam as your source of information please. It is a horrible source.

      2. The hadiths is clear and it says it is for the martyr.

      3. If a hadith in jami tirmidhi which is hasan contradicts a sahih hadith from bukhari. We will take the sahih hadith from bukhari.

      4. Even if 72 virgins was a true thing, whats wrong with it. God shall give you what you want in heaven, and we know sex is one of the biggest things for men in this world and they think about it all times etc.

      So to conclude. If a hadith from tirmidhi which is hasan contradicts a sahih hadith from bumhari. The bukhari hadith shall be taken. Also this hadith is speaking about martyrs and not regular people. Finally even if it was authentic no problem would be found as it would be god rewarding his servant for not commiting zina in this world, believing in him and abstaining from the major sins.

      Delete
    5. Idk if ur the owner of this blog but anyway.
      https://archive.org/stream/JamiAtTirmidhiVol.632913956EnglishArabic/Jami%20at-Tirmidhi%20Vol.%203%20-%201205-1896%20English%20Arabic#page/n408/mode/1up
      This hadith is clearly about martyrs and graded authentic.u cant just deny its authencity bcs u dislike it.so stop saying "even if it WAS authentic", it already is. And if u see nothing weird about God promising virgins for men,that is even more weird really


      this wi page about authencity links to islamic websites and those websites give references from scholars. Just click the links at the end of the quotes and u will see. Its not wi deeming them authentic but islamic pages. Just bcs wi quotes them doesnt mean they are all weak hadiths. If it quotes an ayah by referencing, does that mean there is no such an ayah? Nonsense
      Example: he will be married to seventy-two of al-hoor al-‘iyn; and he will be permitted to intercede for seventy of his relatives.”

      According to another report, the martyr has six blessings from Allaah. According to other reports (the number is) six, or nine, or ten.

      (Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, who said it is a *hasan hadeeth* Also narrated by Ibn Maajah in al-Sunan, by Ahmad, by ‘Abd al-Razzaaq in al-Musannaf, by al-Tabaraani in al-Kabeer, and by Sa’eed ibn Mansoor in al-Sunan). From https://islamqa.info/en/8511

      So islamqa gives references,wi quoting them doesnt mean its weak or unreliable.
      And there are several other similar hadiths in that link

      Delete
    6. It was narrated that al-Miqdaam ibn Ma’di Yakrib said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The martyr has six blessings with Allaah: he will be forgiven from the first drop of blood shed; he will be shown his place in Paradise; he will be protected from the torment of the grave; he will be safe from the greater terror; a crown of dignity will be placed on his head, one ruby of which is better than this world and everything in it; he will be married to seventy-two wives from al-hoor al-‘iyn; and he will intercede for seventy of his relatives.”

      Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 1663; Ibn Maajah, 2799; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Tirmidhi.

      And more than that has been narrated. Abu Na’eem narrated in Sifat al-Jannah from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “A man will go to one hundred virgins in one day – i.e., in Paradise.” Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah, 367.

      https://islamqa.info/en/25843

      Delete
    7. Ok to reply firstly with regards to the wikiislam page. Their proofs and hadiths i have responded already and just refer back to that one where i expose their lies in lying about a weak narration about markets and one in ibn majah about 72 virgins.

      As for your last 2 comments to respond:

      You quoted this link: https://archive.org/stream/JamiAtTirmidhiVol.632913956EnglishArabic/Jami%20at-Tirmidhi%20Vol.%203%20-%201205-1896%20English%20Arabic#page/n408/mode/1up

      You then said it is authentic. This is a lie, the hadith is graded hasan ( hasan doesnt equal sahih )

      Secondly who denied that a martyr gets 72 hoor or even more. I was discussing regular people, for martyrs their reward eill be different. Also the quran says that we shall have in paradise what we desire. So the 72 women is not a specific thing, it was just a reminder of the blessings of paradise.

      Again nobody denied that martyrs get such a reward.

      As for your next hadith of 1 hundred. This hadith is not clear in who this person in reference is, who is he a martyr? A regular guy?
      It does t specify. Thus we look at other ahadith and see if they tell us more. And they do and they show us again this hadith is not in reference to all of us

      By sahih muslim 188 we see the blessing of the lowest man in paradise will be 2 women. And not 72 or 100

      Al-Haafiz said:

      The apparent meaning is that the least that will be given to each of them will be two wives.

      When you go back and re-read the discussion it is made clear that the guy in heaven can have what he desires. And the lowest of the people of heaven will have 2 wives. The whole thing about 72 virgins was only for a martyr and nobody denied a martyr shall get this. Who says he cant get more if he desires?

      What is the problem with 72 or 100 women etc. A man has attained paradise for his good deeds, belief and staying away from the haram in this world and he has kept himself safe from zina.

      When he attains heaven he has entered the place where god has promised him what he wishes. And if a man wishes that he has women he shall have that.

      Whats so weird about it. Also you are making it seem like all people do in heaven is hang around with their women. There is much more in heaven that god has prepared for his righteous servants of things we cant even imagine so we can do many and experience great things there, and the women is just 1 part of the whole experience.

      As it says in sahih muslim

      Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying that: Allah the Exalted and Glorious, said: I have prepared for My pious servants which no eye has ever seen, and no ear has ever heard, and no human heart has ever perceived but it is testified by the Book of Allah. He then recited: "No soul knows what comfort has been concealed from them, as a reward for what they did"

      Delete
    8. Salam

      I wanted to ask some questions on 9:29

      Was the reason for the revelation of quran 9:29 general or was it specific as some say it was about the romans and tabuk

      Next if not general about fighting unbelievers. Why does the next verse curse the christians and the jews when in 9:29 it already says ti fight them. It seems that 9:29 says fight the christiand and jews and then 9:30 gives the reason i.e they are cursed for their disbelief and saying ezra and jesus are the son of god.

      3. Why does jizya need to be taken of people and what is its purpose.

      4. Why do the people need to be subdued and humbled when they pay it. Isnt this quite rude. Why do theh need to be humbled?

      Thanks

      Delete
    9. i think you are referring to 9:30 on your first reference, but no i don't think 9:30 explain 9:29, the one who invented this logic is david wood, that is what i call the david wood logic, just because a verse proceeded one it doesn't explain the one before it, that is post hoc fallacy
      in general quranic verses often explain one another in context, for example 9:13 explain 9:5 despite there is a 8 verses gab between them


      if you are referring to 9:29 alone, yet it's about battle of tabuk, 9:30 doesn't explain it, (what chrisitans and jews?)
      according to tafsir sa'di verse 30 is all about the actions that chrisitans take generally when they fight god and his message, so god put curse on them
      not because they are chrisitans, note the use of the word "so god put curse on them"

      according to Imam Shafi'i in his book 'uion al athir fi al magazi page.251
      the prophet came to salam bin mushkim and no'man bin awfa and mahmood bin dahia in a group to him they asked "how could we follow you and you left our qibla direction? and you claim that aziz (referring to jesus) is not the son of god?" so god revealed 9:30

      as you can see, 9:30 doesn't explain 9:29 in any form

      "3. Why does jizya need to be taken of people and what is its purpose."
      they are taken for military expiditons and support, it's not mandatory so long as you can take it, children women and elderly are exempted from doing it, and anyone who can't afford it won't participate in it.

      "4. Why do the people need to be subdued and humbled when they pay it. Isnt this quite rude. Why do theh need to be humbled? "
      humbled here doesn't necessary means what you think
      tafsir sa'di respond to this by saying humble here means when they are under the govern of muslim rule, this was subsiquant to the aggression they hold in order to prevent them from agressing muslims like taking high status among them


      altajibi on his revision of tabari tafsir takes an intreasting take, as humble here he thinks means when they are sitting and muslims standing, tabari himself on his on tafsir acknowledge that, he gives another meaning that they are giving it when they have lower position, but primarily Tabari explain it that this is referring to the romans that aggressively attacked muslims, so humbled according to grand imam of mufasirien reference to the Romans who attacked muslims



      BTW I'm working on Par-3

      Delete
    10. Thanks a lot for the answer

      Delete
  8. Hey az. I dont know if anyone has asked this before but what do you think of this online personality called christian prince? He is arab and claims to have a degree in islam and many people hype him up. Do you know him and is he known in the arabic speaking world?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. he is known to be a laughing stock among arab muslims due to how much he hype himself and how much he cites sources with no authenticity, he suffers NPD, his degree is unverifiable, his only source comes from his book not a single mosque or madrasa verified his claim.

      Delete
  9. Thanks bro this helped alot I have debated online with ex muslim's (somtimes pretending to be ex muslim lol)sometimes their arguments I cannot answer as I don't know arabic but you articles always work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Assalamu alaikum. Once you have finished the full refutation of shabirs video.

    Could you refute the rationalizers video on the earth being flat and the geocentric universe?

    https://youtu.be/_FaNg_nxqns
    https://youtu.be/v-rRgVh3YcI

    Jazakallah khair

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, ones i finish the scheduled articles like DTT article and TMA request

      Delete
  11. Assalamu alaikum

    I was wondering if you could helo me wuth 2 questions that i had.

    1. This had to do with the arabic language and acclaimed grammatical mistake in the quran.

    This has to do with the word بِسْمِ
    I have seen claims from non muslim arabs that claim the quran is mistaken grammaticaly in the arabic language using the word like this.

    Obviously this word is the beginning of the basmala we read in front of every chapter except tawbah. And it is the first word of the first verse of the first chapter of the quran.

    They claim it shouldnt be بِسْمِ but rather it should be بأسم

    Also if the first is correct, the quran also uses the second one.

    Next up whenever i translate the words: "in the name of" the result i get is بأسم and not بِسْمِ which is the quran.

    So could you help me with the refutation of this acclaimed grammatical mistake as they claim بِسْمِ is incorrect and rather it should be بأسم

    2. Could you help me understand the hadith on adam being sixty cubits and thereafter people kept getting shorter.
    Is there any proof of such a thing, why are we not getting shorter anymore, whats the correct interpretation of the hadith

    And finally some have claimed that him being so tall would be impossible

    And bring the following as evidence:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square–cube_law#Biomechanics

    http://dinosaurtheory.com/scaling.html

    Thanks a lot
    Jazakallah khair

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "They claim it shouldnt be بِسْمِ but rather it should be بأسم

      Also if the first is correct, the quran also uses the second one.

      Next up whenever i translate the words: "in the name of" the result i get is بأسم and not بِسْمِ which is the quran.
      "

      then that just displays their great ignorance in Arabic grammar, we learned this thing in Iraq on primary school and adults like these make such pathetic claim?

      ok the basmalah here بسم the reason for the missing أ is because it's a form of a deleted aliph Dr.Abdul rahim alnablusi a scholar in figuh and arabic grammar states the following
      "in regards to the issue of Aliph being removed from Basmalah (Bism) we say in grammar this aliph was removed duo to it's consistent rotation around quran"
      he also said
      "we can also say based on the fact it's followed by a nonmushakila silant sean (س) then by defualt it's deleted"

      notice the difference between بسم and بأسم
      the first one when you spell س it's silent the other has a kasra under it that is why they are different

      Source:
      https://vb.tafsir.net/tafsir37010/#.WsunGohubIU


      as for
      "Could you help me understand the hadith on adam being sixty cubits and thereafter people kept getting shorter.
      Is there any proof of such a thing, why are we not getting shorter anymore, whats the correct interpretation of the hadith"
      let's read the hadith in correct form
      but let us see the claim first, compare adam to modern day homo sapians, adam was there since the creation of the heavens before he went to earth, so a question rises was he that tall when he was in heaven? or was he different when he desended to earth?

      interestingly Imam Aljuzi in his book al muntatham fi tarikh almiluk wa al umam vol.1 page.202
      states the following

      "abu al hasan said: this tradition came from Syriac text to our books"

      ibn kathir stated in in Qisas Alanbia that Ahmed was the sole and only narrator of this hadith

      now we finally have definitive answer to this, and it turned out that this was when adam was in heaven not earth
      'umda al Qari by Imam Badir aldeen al'aini vol.15 page.287
      "Qurtubi stated that when god brings humans back to heaven he will bring them back to their original size which was the size of adam being 60 cubit length based on his shape and size when he was created in heaven"

      so in conclusion, this is the shape of adam when he was in heaven.

      Delete
  12. Can you tell me if this hadith about homosexuality is authentic or not
    “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”

    Also this report: Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas said: The highest point in the town should be found and the homosexual should be thrown head first from it, then stones should be thrown at him

    https://islamqa.info/en/38622

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Grade is Hasan, not sahih, but it's authentic

      can you point out your issue with it?

      Delete
    2. It is claimed to be homophobic, well I too have problem with that.Why are people to be killed for being gay?


      The quran doesnt mention a punishment for homosexuality. On "homosexuality and islam" wikipedia page it says some early scholars say that every hadith on punishing homosexuality is weak --as all the chains contain weak narrators-- and those deeming them authentic are wrong(there are sources&ref. on wp) .Also not all scholars agree on executing them,some just prescribe tazeer punishment. If there were authentic hadiths from the prophet ordering to kill, they'd not differ on the issue? So I think that hadith is NOT authentic,neither is the one from ibn abbaas for the same reason. Or it'd be better if you be specific about the grade of that one about falling them off?


      Delete
    3. Well..,I'd be more glad if you addressed my concerns about the authenticity of the hadiths in question ��

      Delete
    4. as stated the hadith is graded Hasan authentic, but i see no problem in it.

      Delete
  13. Hey

    I know you havr responded to the claim of the sun setting in murky water by maskedarab

    But have you ever responded to this lenghty article: https://quranspotlight.wordpress.com/articles/dhul-qarnayn-sunset-sunrise/

    Also could you respond to those who say the story of gog and magog doesnt make sense, abdullah sameer makes this argument quite often

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the blogger all what he does is cite every tafsir conceivable that mentions the sun setting in muddy water, in the future i might
      "Also could you respond to those who say the story of gog and magog doesnt make sense"
      why it doesn't make sense?
      "abdullah sameer makes this argument quite often"
      what does he base it on

      Delete
  14. Also could you at some time make a response with regards flat earth/ geocentrism about which lenghty articles are written on wikiislam

    Also with regards embryology have you seen this: https://embryologyinthequran.blogspot.nl/?m=1

    Jzk khair

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. all of that is being planned for when i get the time.

      Delete
  15. I think such obsessive discussions on verses and error claims is a waste of time both for the critic and the apologist side. It is completely pointless

    ReplyDelete
  16. Salamu alaikum

    Could you help explain to me quran 65:4 where it is speaking on divorcing those who dont menstruate.

    The verse and the tafasir make it sound like prepubescent children are the ones spoken of in this verse. So could you explain the verse to me snd foes it really mean you can marry pre pubescent children who have not yet menstruated.

    Jszakallah khair

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Already addressed in my article responding to TMA on pedophilia
      https://azblogtalk.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-masked-arab-is-masked-falsehood.html

      Delete
  17. My apology I'll get back to you when I get the time.

    ReplyDelete
  18. to put it in context this does talk about blood of Dhaimmi, meaning a muslim won't be killed if the Dahimi was accused of murder, however the blood of Dahimi who is killed for no reason is not allowed in islam

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.