Thursday, May 17, 2018

Did Asadullah Plagiarized from me? Fact checking TMA accusations to Asadullah.

So TMA decided to make his response to asadullah response to his response to his video, eventhough I stated I’m finished responding to TMA, and will only do a request he asked me to do, he did something horrendous, and accused asadullah of using my sources such as the issue of the word Nathir which I provided for him, apperantly, and never credit me for it, here I will provide a series of screenshots to give context to this and show that asaduallah did indeed ask for my permission, I’m not sure what parts he accused him of plagiarizing me, but I will assume it’s regarding the issue of the word Nathir نظر  , asadullah only made two responses to TMA with only using TMA’s own sources against him, on @11:06 of his video is where he makes the following statmnets “the fact that he shamlessly plagiarizing a blogger who made most of those arguments, way before asadullah” ibn kathir was the primary tafsir used by asadullah in his sources to the masked arab, and I never used it in any of my footnotes apart from breaf mentions
that is the dark secret he was hiding and planning to show asadullah as a bad individual? Now I know TMA would want me to agree with him that asaduallah plagiarized my works, but I’m not going to do it, not because asadullah is a friend, not because he is my brother in islam, there are many muslim apologists that I would like to distiance myself from such as zakir naik and several other names I don’t want to cite, if will just defend him for purely because he is a muslim then by that logic I should agree with virtually every muslim apologist out there, asadullah have access to wide range of academic sources that I could only dream of having while I do have almost all classical Islamic book stored in my harddrive with every conceivable classical book imagined regarding a topic in islam I still lack his ability to access academic sources , in that case I served merely as a translator to some of the issues he had because he doesn’t speak Arabic, the only source he asked me (as I will present) is in regards to the word Nathir and how it actually means doubt and falsehood rather than opinion as TMA claimed, a source asadullah with my permission took and used it in his response, other than that I’m not aware of any source he used from me without asking me about it, so why would he need me to refute TMA when he studied a topic and have a masters degree in it that helps him deconstruct people’s argument (philosophy) , it makes no sense, even with that he already decided and stated to give me credit as shootout but because he was accused falsly of plagiarism, when the arguments never fit, a piece of advice TMA, if you goanna accuse someone of plagiarism you better provide evidence for it.

The list of all my sources are in the footnotes at the bottom of the article, feel free to check them and compare them to asadullah own sources, I myself when I watched asadullah video I felt he took a different approach than me, I took the approach of not just deconstructing TMA arguments, but also present my own opposing sources, asadullah took the approach of criticizing TMA using his sources against him, a method I myself done it before (case in point alexander the great video from TMA) but never did in the article above, so even by methodology asaduallah didn’t’ plagiarize from me but as I said, the article is above, open it go check it sources and footnotes and compare them to asadullah sources in his original video and see

If asadullah did plagiarize me I have every right to rebuke him, but from how I watched his two videos and how he asked for my assist and permission he is innocent of this charge
The following are screenshots where he asked for my permission to use my sources in return he will give me a shootout
if the statment "who made most of those arguments, way before asadullah" means he thought i used his own sources against him (asadullah method) then that proves TMA never read my blog and still accused me of strawmanning him in some of his reddit posts regarding my blog.
but as I said, I'm not aware of any plagiarism Asadullah did to me, and if he did, then it's TMA duty as the burden of proof is on him to prove it.










Now as you can see we were discussing Imam Tusi (it was a misspelled error as the real name is Imam Al-Tufi)
in conclusion, TMA accusation not only lack evidence but also doesn't stand on it's merit in face of concivable evidence.

99 comments:

  1. Why do you dislike zakir naik

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He is outdated
      And still reliy on old bad apologetics tactics

      Delete
  2. Questions

    Why did the prophet revelation stop exactly when waraqa bin nawfal died. Many people already accuse muhammad saws of being taught by waraqa and they say he may have learned from the book waraqa wrote etc. But it is quite weird that exactly when waraqa dies the prophet saws revelation stops

    2. Why did the prophet go all the way to hira in a cave why didnt he meditate at home or somewhere else? The argument brought is that zayd bin amr himself used to go there, also he preached there and his grave is even there. So the prophet went there to be able to listen to his preaching and religion. Because we know that so many things islam came with are similair or the same of that as zayd bin amr. From disassociation from idols like al lat and uzza, infanticide, he even taught the prophet not to eet food given to idols and like the muslims he said dont eat dead meat, or with blood or anything not sacrificed for allah

    Look what zayd said in poetry, doesnt it look like quran that it can indicate influencing

    I am satisfied with thee, O God, as a Lord,
    And will not worship another God beside thee.
    Thou of thy goodness and mercy
    Didst send a messenger to Moses as a herald.
    Thou saidst to him, Go thou and Aaron,
    And summon Pharaoh the tyrant to run to God
    And say to him, ‘Did you spread out this (earth) without support,
    Until it stood fast as it does?’
    Say to him ‘Did you raise this (heaven) without support?
    What a fine builder then you were!’
    Say to him ‘Did you set the moon in the middle thereof
    As a light to guide when night covered it?’
    Say to him, ‘Who sent forth the sun by day
    So that the earth it touched reflected its splendour?’
    Say to him, ‘Who planted seeds in the dust
    That herbage might grow and wax great?
    And brought forth its seeds in the head of the plant?’
    Therein are signs for the understanding.
    Thou in thy kindness did deliver Jonah
    Who spent nights in the belly of the fish.
    Though I glorify thy name, I often repeat
    ‘O Lord of creatures, bestow thy gifts and mercy upon me
    And bless my sons and property.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBwaraqa.html

      Delete
    2. the article doesnt answer the point of the stopped revelation nor zayd bin amr

      jazakallah khair

      Delete
    3. it answers the claim that waraqa bin nawfal was the teacher of the prophet, which is the root of the issue that you talk about, if we address that then dominoes will fall and so will the issue of stopped revelation, your argument is a post hoc ergp propter hoc fallacy

      Delete
    4. http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/waraqa.htm

      Delete
    5. "The problem with this argument is that Muhammad knew Waraqa, through his marriage to Khadija, for approximately 15 years before the beginning of his purported prophetic calling. Since Waraqa was a religious man, it is likely that their conversations over these years often centered around religious issues."
      citation needed

      "So, does this prove that Waraqa taught Muhammad? No, it does not"
      at the very end they admit that they don't have confidant evidence that shows 100% waraqah thought muhammad, so we are left with speculations that you find problematic?

      Delete
  3. 2 questions

    1. If allah is all knowing why did he send the abgel gabriel to muhammad and tell him to read because allah already knows he is illiterate. And if you take the opinion iqra means recite it still doesnt make sense because when the angel said read/recite, muhammad saws said i cant read. And the angel never told him what to recite those 3 times.

    2. Why did the angel never introduce himself but his first action was to hurt the prophet by squeezing him so hard

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1-recite doesn't require for you to have knowledge of reading words, infact if muhammad failed how could he dilver the quran, he asked him to recite and he did and so the verse we have today was transmitted, so i don't get your problem

      2-you don't introduce yourself if you want to intimidate someone, it doesn't make sense

      Delete
    2. why would the angel try to be intimidating in stead of peaceful and merciful to the true messenger of god saws. didnt this make the prophet believe he was even posessed at the beginning of his revelation?

      Delete
    3. Even the bible says that Daniel was afraid of the angel's appearance.
      So what?

      Delete
  4. Coild you refute this video.

    He seeks to prove we arent even in ramadan now, 2. Ramadan was created by pre islamic pagans like the arabs, kemets and sabians

    https://youtu.be/oW5Ew3EVQv8

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so you are asking me to refute a conspiracy? does he cite evidence in links?

      Delete
    2. well i have heard from others that the sabians fasted in ramadan

      Delete
  5. Was TMA's response a valid refutation video? Did he refute his arguments?

    It sounds like he did?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I were to respond I would show you something horrendous he did in the video that is completely inexcusable
      He misquoted tabari when tabari himself refuted his own argument that 65:8 is abrogated only 3 lines under the text he highlighted on the same source
      And proceeded to state 65:8 apply to all non Muslims

      Delete
    2. Ok. How about the rest of his arguments?
      Was his overall video a success or a failure?

      Delete
    3. Ok, but what do you think about his video overall?
      Does it refute Asadullah in general or is it just another desperate attempt to do damage control?

      Delete
    4. i didn't watch the rest of his video, what he did to Tabari was utterly disgusting and repulsive in it nature which is why i never finished watching the rest, i did watch some snippets there and there for example how he uses ibn kathir and claim it further reinforce his claims, but when reading the full original arabic text ibn kathir actually confirm Asadullah

      Delete
    5. Expose that man. Please. I get shivers at the thought of a westerner humiliating a muslim because they thought that murtadeen know anything about the religion and are thus correct.

      Delete
    6. i already did many many times, read my blog articles

      Delete
  6. Is purchasing slave girls for sexual purposes permissible in islam? I found this quote from ghazali ""For if a man purchases a slave girl, the purchase contract includes his right to have sex with her."[80] "This contract is primarily to own her and secondarily to enjoy her sexually."[81]"
    Then ghazali explains the reason and says Umars son used to break his fast by having sex with his slaves,then a quote from Razi is there
    http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Newton/women.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i have already addressed that issue many many many times, you can't have sexual intercourse unless you marry them first

      Delete
    2. Ok but what about ghazalis words here? He doesnt mention marriage

      Delete
    3. first and for most that quote is not from Ghazali
      but since i have access to it i was utterly disgusted by how Answering islam use their sources, so the sources they have from
      80. Abd ar-Rahman al-Gaziri, al-Fiqh 'ala al-Mazahib al-Arba'a, Dar al-Kutub al-'Elmeyah, 1990, vol. 4, p. 89.
      81. Ibid.
      however checking the sources directly and since i have them with the same edition the sources says the opposite
      "hairing a woman for zina:
      hanafia stated: if a man haired a woman for zina and she consent then he is not to be punished"
      Source : same as footnote 80 page 88 of the book

      so they took that portion out and it's the start of the chapter and expect no one to fact check them? first this is the opinion of only the hanafi school or thought, second Notice how they say if she consented, of course if she didn't then it's rape and it's not allowed
      it get worse as the rest of the school of though on page 89 of the same book states the following
      "almalikia al shafia and from a narration from hanabila . they said : the judgment of zina is applied on them, and there shouldn't be hired for an allegation or apparent limit, because of course the apparent limit of hiring someone is sex and it's not allowed by sharia...and it's appeared as he haired her for work like cooking and so forth but had sex with her then punishment must apply on him"

      my goodness these guys just took what that source said and spined it 180 degrees

      Delete
    4. So these sentences "For if a man purchases.." do not appear at all on that book? Seriously did the guys just make it up all???

      Delete
    5. the correct word is hiring, not purchasing , yes they did make this up

      Delete
    6. infact they reinforced islamic postion on compulsory sex by hanafi school of thought "hairing a woman for zina:
      hanafia stated: if a man haired a woman for zina and she consent then he is not to be punished" they literally provided a source that destroyed virtually every argument of rape in islam

      Delete
  7. Can you give your opinion on the following:
    Ibn Qudaamah said al-Sharh al Kabeer, 7/386:
    ...
    Ibn al-mundhir: All of those scholars from whom we acquired knowledge agreed that it is permissible for a father to give his minor daughter in marriage if he arranges her to someone who is compatible, and it is permissible for him to do that even if she is reluctant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bro There is a sahih hadith saying the prophet cancelled the forced marriage of a girl.any view contrary to thid should be be dismissed i think

      Delete
    2. i have already addressed issue of young age marriage in my response to TMA in issue of pedophilia
      https://azblogtalk.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-masked-arab-is-masked-falsehood.html

      Delete
    3. Ok but if I am not mistaken Ibn al-mundhir's quote can't be found in that article.
      So Ibn al-mundhir was wrong? I mean the daughter after reaching puberty can say no and the marriage is off so I don't have a problem with that particular but I just wanted to know your opinion.

      Delete
    4. it's not about abu mundhir, in the article i show opinion of majority of scholars regarding young age marriage, and it's only allowed when it's absolutely necessary, but in general they held the view that anything that is physical and mentally harmful for the child should not be allowed, any disagreement is not part of the majority of scholars and generally considered an abnormality

      Delete
  8. What do you think about the christian philosopher William lane craig?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. he is good on his associated topic, not so good as christian missionary

      Delete
    2. Which Christian missionary do you think is good

      Delete
  9. Would you consider doing a rebuttal to his video.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. unfortunately no, i announced like asadullah that I'm done with TMA and will only do a requested article from TMA about him, and even if TMA respond to it i might not respon

      Delete
    2. That is unfortunate! I would have loved to see him get crushed!

      Delete
  10. Christians claim that our Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.s.) permitted his followers to commit adultery with MARRIED SLAVES that they captured.
    They cite as a prove Surah 4:24. They say that the verse allows muslims to have sexual intercourse with married women because the verse states all married women are forbidden to us EXCEPT those whom your right hand posses, this includes also MARRIED slaves. So they can’t have intercourse with married women but with married slave women they can.

    How would you respond to this? Jazakallhu khairan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "How would you respond to this?"
      by asking them for evidence for their claim.

      Delete
    2. They cite Surah 4:24 where it states that married women are forbidden but married slave women aren't. They conclude that that this verse makes adultery permissible.

      Delete
    3. i can cite 4:19 24:33 which refute just about every argument of rape out there, and as i established before you can't have sex with slaves without marrying them first,
      "They conclude that that this verse makes adultery permissible."
      non sequitur fallacy

      Delete
    4. those slaves marriage contract are void by default when they are captured.

      Delete
  11. I have difficulty understanding the concept of jahannam. Why does God burn people eternally for following the wrong belief?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it's the wrong belief?

      Delete
    2. "Why does God burn people eternally for following the wrong belief?"
      you pretty much answered your own question.

      Delete
  12. Which topics will you address in near future? When will you release new articles or youtube videos?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. don't know what the future hold, but I'm trying to migrate to the channel as my main source
      i have a 14 hours long job now, along with several courses i take and training sessions, so you now know why i can't answer comments always, like i used to be.

      Delete
  13. Hi, i wanted to ask whether Aisha was pre-adolescent when married to Muhammad and whether the marriage happend with her consent or her fathers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. we don't specifically know her biological growth , but we do know from islamic exegesis, that science determine when to have sexual intercourse and i explained it in my refutation to TMA regarding pedophilia how marriage with minor is conducted

      Delete
  14. This hadith is quoted to claim the prophet allowed his men to rape female captives. I have a hard time understanding it too

    http://quranx.com/Hadith/Bukhari/USC-MSA/Volume-5/Book-59/Hadith-459/

    They captured women,wanted to have intercourse and He didnt forbid it. So the question is how women can consent to have sex with their enemies after they are being captured, so its basically rape, they claim.


    Can you answer this allegation

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. first i would rather not use Quranx website
      second of all this is not controversial, as i pointed out many times, consent matter, and scholars like Imam Shawkani shows the general consensus regarding sex in islam not just in 'azil
      وقد اختلف السلف في حكم العزل ، فحكي في الفتح عن ابن عبد البر أنه قال : لا خلاف بين العلماء أنه لا يعزل عن الزوجة الحرة إلا بإذنها ; لأن الجماع من حقها ولها المطالبة به وليس الجماع المعروف إلا ما لا يلحقه عزل . قال الحافظ : ووافقه في نقل هذا الإجماع ابن هبيرة . قال : وتعقب بأن المعروف عند الشافعية أنه لا حق للمرأة [ ص: 235 ] في الجماع ، وهو أيضا مذهب الهادوية فيجوز عندهم العزل عن الحرة بغير إذنها على مقتضى قولهم : إنه لا حق لها في الوطء ، ولكنه وقع التصريح في كتب الهادوية بأنه لا يجوز العزل عن الحرة إلا برضاها ، ويدل على اعتبار الإذن من الحرة حديث عمرو المذكور ولكن فيه ما سلف .
      Translation:
      and the old tradition differ regarding the judgment of 'azil, it was narrated in fatih from ibn abdul bir that he said: there is no differ between scholars (see? general consensus all scholars agree on this) that a man should only perfom 'azil on his free wife only with her permission, because sex is her right and her right to demand for it, and there is no sex with consent with confined 'azil, alhafiz stated: and it was agreed upon in transmitting this ijma' (general consensus among all scholars) ibn huraira, he said: and it was doubtful to granting kind relationship among shafia that a wife has no right in sex, and it's also the opinion of hadawia schools of thought, for them it's ok to perfom 'azil with free without her permission according to their words: she has no right in sex, but that was contradicted from books of hadawia that 'azil should not be performed without her consent, and the evidence of her consent is from hadith of umro but there are older sources
      source:
      Nail Alawtal by Imam Shawkani Kitab alwalyma wa albina

      so only the Hadawia contradicted the general consensus of scholars, but then later contradicted themselves, but as Imam Shawkani says, her consent is required

      then proceeded to state it was doubtful that shafia state this, so in conclusion no sex without consent according to majority of scholars.

      Delete
    2. "that a man should only perfom 'azil on his free wife only with her permission" but that's only on free wife , nothing about slaves.

      Delete
    3. slaves are not subject of sex in the first place
      " أن من حرم نكاح حرائرهم من المجوسيات وسائر الكوافر سوى أهل الكتاب لا يباح وطء الإماء منهن بملك اليمين في قول أكثر أهل العلم"
      it's forbidden to marry the polytheists and the rest of the infidels except the people of the book, and it's forbidden to have sexual intercourse with the slave girls of right hand possess as that is the opinion of majority of scholars
      "على هذا جماعة فقهاء الأمصار وجمهور العلماء وما خالفه فشذوذ."
      on that is the general consensus of the fiquh scholars and the community of scholars and who ever disagree are mere abnormality
      " ومن قال بقوله من العلماء أن المسبية من عبدة الأوثان وغيرهم من الكفار الذين لا كتاب لهم لا يحل وطؤها بملك اليمين حتى تسلم، فما دامت على دينها فهي محرمة، وهؤلاء المسبيات كن من مشركي العرب عبدة الأوثان، فيؤول هذا الحديث وشبهه على أنهن أسلمن، وهذا التأويل لا بد منه."
      and among the scholars who said that the captive of the polytheists and others of infidels those who are not of people of the book are not to have sexual intercourse with as right hand possess, untill they convert, so long as she is on her polytheist religion she is forbidden, and those captives of the infidels who worship idols, then this hadith and others like it that they became muslims and that is a must interpertation
      source:
      https://fatwa.islamweb.net/Fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=50902

      Delete
    4. Plus the sentence is clear "that a man should only perfom 'azil on his free wife only with her permission"
      "should only perfom 'azil on his free wife"
      meaning only the wife is granted to perform azil on, so even if you grant the right to have sex with slaves, azil is not allowed on them

      Delete
  15. is this hadith starting with "Allah the Al-mighty sent Gabriel on to the earth to collect some sand to him, .." Authentic?

    From;
    https://mobile.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/religion/Adam-First-Man-Father-of-Mankind-How-Allah-Made-Him-323404

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there is no chain of narration to authenticate this hadith.

      Delete
    2. Yeah,no chain here but i thought you could find the hadith in your book archive and investigate its reliability

      Delete
    3. Liston, if there is No chain in a hadith it's automatically rejected, how do you accept a hadith without chain of narration?

      Delete
  16. https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/8ebvig/hotd_263_muhammad_reveals_the_exact_lyrics_to_be/

    Are these hadiths authentic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. seams HOTD have a problem with just about every hadith out there, so if the houris singed what is the problem? what kind of a pathetic double standards this guy have?
      second of all where did he find this hadith? it's not verified or existed in any source i find, did he pull it out of his silly imagination?

      Delete
    2. "Al-Tabarani, Al-Mujam al-Awsat 4917, 6497. Both classed sahih by al-Albani"

      He gives the sources with links in his post? I dont understand arabic tough

      Delete
    3. yes, the first one doesn't exist and the second one is not classified as sahih, infact al albani never classified, it, and if we assume it to be authentic, what the hell is the problem with them singing? what is the deal about it?

      Delete
    4. plus muhammad bin 'isa the narrator of the second one is regarded as unknown
      https://library.islamweb.net/hadith/RawyDetails.php?RawyID=45602
      which already throw it away

      Delete
    5. Sorry for being a nuisance but can you read this as well please.
      https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/83mncs/hotd_296_muhammad_says_you_can_literally_see_the/


      Is it authentic?
      I now see I shouldnt believe everything

      Delete
    6. Okay upon further research I saw it also appears in bukhari multiple times so its sahih.


      No need to answer me

      Delete
    7. where is he coming up with this "classified as sahih by albani"?
      first this is not houris
      يرى مخ سوقهما من وراء اللحم، وقد نص النووي وغيره على أن هاتين الزوجتين من الإنس وليستا من الحور
      https://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=55986
      her bones can be seen through her flesh, and nawawi stated as others that these two are the wives of humans and not among houris

      so these are qualification that exist only among your own wives, and not the virgins of paradise, in other words HOTD twisted what the hadith says (which is already not problematic) to fit his silly propaganda that this is about virgins

      Delete
    8. it does appear, but no where does bukhari state these women are the virgins , nawawi as stated above correct this and state this is referring to wives not virgins

      Delete
    9. https://sunnah.com/bukhari/59/64
      This one says houris

      Delete
  17. Could you help with the verse in the quran which says that sperm comes from between the ribs and the backbone when we now this is false in surah at tariq

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. except it doesn't say that, the backbone is (if my memory serves me) was referring to male backbones, and rips of female, so it's not all exclusively to male

      Delete
    2. Please read this
      http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_on_semen_production_in_the_noble_quran__by_dr__munir_munshey

      Delete
  18. Whats the justification for the execution of 400 jewish men of quraiza? I saw on islamqa that the number 400 was confirmed by albani and tirmidhi.
    Also is it true that women&children were sold into slavery? As told in seerah books
    --Others were ransomed to individuals from fellow Jewish tribes of outlying areas, such as Khaybar and Tayma. Still others were purchased by polytheist tribes in the Najd (who later became Muslims), in exchange for weapons and equipment http://seekershub.org/ans-blog/2012/07/03/a-balanced-explanation-of-the-banu-qurayza-controversy/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. they betrayed, and attempted to assassinate the prophet, took advantage of his battle of khaybar and attacked muslim women, plotted to kill him and broke the contract, and on top of all that the prophet was not the one who executed the order, it was a former jew according to their Torah, and killed (ONLY) the fighters, so those 400 where fighters alone

      Delete
    2. Hadith says everyone having pubic hair was killed, do we have evidence these were all fighters?

      Delete
    3. The people of (Banu) Quraiza agreed to accept the verdict of Sa`d bin Mu`adh. So the Prophet sent for Sa`d, and the latter came (riding) a donkey and when he approached the Mosque, the Prophet said to the Ansar, “Get up for your chief or for the best among you.” Then the Prophet said (to Sa`d).” These (i.e. Banu Quraiza) have agreed to accept your verdict.” Sa`d said, “KILL THEIR WARRIORS and take their offspring as captives, “On that the Prophet said, “You have judged according to Allah’s Judgment,” or said, “according to the King’s judgement.”(Sahih al-Bukhari volume 5, Book 59, Hadith 447)

      Not all were killed.
      “Narrated Ibn `Umar: Bani An-Nadir and Bani Quraiza fought (against the Prophet violating their peace treaty), so the Prophet exiled Bani An-Nadir and allowed Bani Quraiza to remain at their places (in Medina) taking nothing from them till they fought against the Prophet again. He then killed their men and distributed their women, children and property among the Muslims, BUT SOME OF THEM CAME TO THE PROPHET AND HE GRANTED THEM SAFETY, and they embraced Islam. He exiled all the Jews from Medina. They were the Jews of Bani Qainuqa’, the tribe of `Abdullah bin Salam and the Jews of Bani Haritha and all the other Jews of Medina.” (Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Hadith 362)
      AND
      Ibn ‘Umar said “The Jews Al Nadir and Quraizah fought with the Apostle of God, so the Apostle of God expelled Banu Al Nadir and allowed the Quraizah to stay and favored them. The Quraizah thereafter fought (with the Prophet).” So he killed their men and divided their women, property and children among Muslims EXCEPT SOME OF THEM WHO ASSOCIATED WITH THE APOSTLE OF GOD. HE GAVE THEM PROTECTION AND LATER ON THEY EMBRACED ISLAM. The Apostle of God expelled all the Jews of Madinah, Banu Qainuqa, they were the people of ‘Abd Allaah bin Salam, the Jews of Banu Harith and any of Jews who resided in Madeenah.” (Sunan Abi Dawud Book 19, Hadith 2999)

      Some were excused like Al-Zabir who spared the life of Thabit b. Qays b. al-Shammas and he was offered his entire family back. He still preferred death because his friends were killed.

      Some narrations say that the 'MEN' or 'ADULTS' are to be killed but that doesn't contradict the bukhari hadith narration I quoted above. Plus the fact that we know some were granted safety shows that they weren't executed just because they were men or adults but rather because they were fighters.

      Hope this helped!

      Delete
  19. could u please tell me the necessity of (حد الحرابه) , there was this hadith أَخْبَرَنَا عَلِيُّ بْنُ حُجْرٍ، قَالَ أَنْبَأَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ، عَنْ حُمَيْدٍ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ قَدِمَ عَلَى رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أُنَاسٌ مِنْ عُرَيْنَةَ فَقَالَ لَهُمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ "‏ لَوْ خَرَجْتُمْ إِلَى ذَوْدِنَا فَكُنْتُمْ فِيهَا فَشَرِبْتُمْ مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا وَأَبْوَالِهَا ‏"‏ ‏.‏ فَفَعَلُوا فَلَمَّا صَحُّوا قَامُوا إِلَى رَاعِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَقَتَلُوهُ وَرَجَعُوا كُفَّارًا وَاسْتَاقُوا ذَوْدَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَأَرْسَلَ فِي طَلَبِهِمْ فَأُتِيَ بِهِمْ فَقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيَهُمْ وَأَرْجُلَهُمْ وَسَمَلَ أَعْيُنَهُمْ ‏.‏
    which seems quite barbaric.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "which seems quite barbaric"

      "So they did that, and when they recovered, they went to the herdsman of the Messenger of Allah [SAW] and killed him, reverted to being disbelievers, and drove off the camels of the Prophet [SAW]."
      why do you expel them from their crimes, they killed the herdsman of the messenger and you think they are innocent? anyways
      they were guilty of a crime of murder, and the prophet punished them for it

      Delete
    2. Yeah your are right i quite agree, i was just confused for a while.

      Delete
  20. akhi in surat nahl 16:66 it says that bees eat all fruits but w know that they generlly get their nectar from flowers and not fruit nor do they eat all fruits

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. {And indeed, for you in grazing livestock is a lesson. We give you drink from what is in their bellies - between excretion and blood - pure milk, palatable to drinkers.}
      where does it say bees eat all fruits?

      Delete
    2. Sorry akhi. 16:68-69.

      Delete
  21. brother i have been watching this christian prince guy for quite some time now and i feel i am getting doubts of his videos. his channel is arab4christ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i recommend you either stop watching him or learn basic on Hadith Ilm, i have good news i will be posting an article explaining hadith terminology and teaching everyone the terms of hadith science this should help you out
      but CP post 6 hours long videos, i barley get the time from my 14 hours long job to watch any of it, let alone the brain energy to bare his stupidity, can you explain what issue you have doubts with?

      Delete
    2. For example this video.

      Its 15 minutes

      https://youtu.be/-0gDEiiTAyA

      Delete
  22. 2 questions

    what was truly the first revelation? i know it is commonly said to be surah alaqa however some hadith seem to say that muzammil is in stead of alaqa/

    2. why doesnt the quran start with surah alaqa, etc. in chronological order?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. that depends, do you mean the first surah revealed in continuation or all at ones? generally it's either mudathir, fatiha or 'alaq according to sayuti, tabari, and tabarani

      Delete
    2. the quran is orginized from larger suras to smaller ones

      "2. why doesnt the quran start with surah alaqa, etc. in chronological order?"
      it's according to the order prophet muhammad recited to jabrial before the years where he knew he will pass away kinda like a quiz test, the quran we have today is on the chronological order prophet muhammad recited to jabrial in the last years of his prophethood
      وقد ذكر ابن حجر في الفتح: أن جبريل كان يتعاهده كل سنة فيعارضه بما نزل عليه من الوحي من رمضان إلى رمضان وذكر أن زيد بن ثابت حضر العرضة الأخيرة، وقد قام زيد بن ثابت بتكليف من أبي بكر الصديق بجمع القرآن في المصحف، فجمعه رضي الله عنه على الترتيب الذي قرأه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على جبريل
      it was mentioned by ibn hajar in alfatih : jabrial came every year to the prophet and examine him with quran in what wahi brought down upon in ramadan, and zaid bin thabit mentioned on the last trail, and zaid bin thabit collected it based on order from abu bakir in one book, and he collected it based on how the prophet recited it to jabrial

      so it might not be on chronological order but it's based on propbet muhammad recitation

      Delete
  23. A personal question. You said you turned atheist from islam then reverted back. Im wondering if your apostasy was because of specific concerns within islam or more like philosophical and academic reasons like arguments in the Philosophy of religion and atheism
    Also when you were atheist, did you research christianity and mormonism?

    ReplyDelete
  24. is there any English website where we can investigate a hadith's authenticity?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Did you watch themaskedarabs full video? And what did you think of it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. not all of it because i stated I'm done with him, but what i saw was utterly disgusting misquoting and strawming tabari and qurtubi and ibn kathir

      Delete
    2. What did he misquote from qurtubi

      Delete
    3. presaisly that Quturbi contradict his hypothesis
      first he strawman it to make it sound as it agrees that it was abrogated
      "قال ابن زيد : كان هذا في أول الإسلام عند الموادعة وترك الأمر بالقتال ثم نسخ . قال قتادة : نسختها فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم . وقيل : كان هذا الحكم لعلة وهو الصلح ، فلما زال الصلح بفتح مكة نسخ الحكم وبقي الرسم يتلى"
      Ibn zaid said: that was the first of what revealed in islam, to have peace treaties and leaving fighting, then it was abrogated, Qutada said: it was abrogated by {and fight the deliverers where ever you find them} it was said this ruling was in regards to an issue which is the peace treaty, since it was broken then this verse was abrogated and remained written
      jam'i ahkam alquran vol.18 page.54


      so basically TMA state this verse was abrogated on it's own, but qurtubi state that it was only abrogated as a result of the peace treaty being broken an voided, so muslims are allowed to fight back, if the peace treaty was never broken this verse will never be abrogated (and tabari already agree that this verse was never abrogated)

      second he misquote him because Qutubi doesn't seam to share the view that 60:8 is no longer used
      ، ودليل على جواز صلة المؤمن الكافر وإرشاده ونصيحته ; لقوله : إن لكم رحما سأبلها ببلالها وقوله عز وجل : لا ينهاكم الله عن الذين لم يقاتلوكم في الدين الآية ، .
      and evidence on blood relation between a muslim and an infidel and guide him and giving him advice based on what prophet said : except this that I would sustain relationship with you, and what god said :{Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion }
      vol.13 page.132

      infact he goes so far and state the general consensus of scholars
      قلت : وفي التنزيل ويطعمون الطعام على حبه مسكينا ويتيما وأسيرا والأسير في دار الإسلام لا يكون إلا مشركا . وقال تعالى : لا ينهاكم الله عن الذين لم يقاتلوكم في الدين ولم يخرجوكم من دياركم أن تبروهم وتقسطوا إليهم . فظواهر هذه الآيات تقتضي جواز صرف الصدقات إليهم جملة ، إلا أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم خص منها الزكاة المفروضة ، لقوله عليه السلام لمعاذ : خذ الصدقة من أغنيائهم وردها على فقرائهم واتفق العلماء على ذلك على ما تقدم
      i said: and in revelation {And they give food in spite of love for it to the needy, the orphan, and the captive,} and the captive in dar al islam is always a disbeliever, and god said {Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them.} then the appearance of this verse dictate the allowance of giving zakat to them in general with no exception, untill the prophet specialize from it the obligatory zakat, by the words of him by mu'ath : take the sadaqa from their rich and give it to their poor, and scholars had general consensus regarding this


      so scholars had general consensus that this even applies to captives of war, that you are allowed and incase the prophet obligated to give charity to them (those are the enemies that tried to kill you) and no where does they state it was abrogated, infact earlier qurtubi gives no chain or name to the individual who state it was abrogated, but here he disagrees

      Delete

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