Introduction:
My most senier apology for being so late in part-3, been so busy with work and studies, but I’ll try to be more consice since my new job is over 14 hours 6 days aweak , so my apologies for being so late, on top of that my enginnering studies hold me back, since this is cleared up let’s continue on exposing sharif, as he wasn’t even exposed enough already, infact there is a new fiasco unfolded while I was writing this article, that forced me to reedite it, will explain it later.
I will be making comments on the latest Fiasco regarding Sharif being accused of Isdira aladean (blasphemy of religion) by the courts later on this article, but we need to address the allegations made by him in his video on Quran, hopefully completely debunking the video by end of Part-4 including his allegations on the British library Quranic Manuscript and his insane logic there.
Continuing from Part-2
@15:29 Sharif state “or verse that state {There is not upon the blind [any] constraint nor upon the lame constraint nor upon the ill constraint nor upon yourselves when you eat from your [own] houses}(based on sahih translation 24:61) meaning there is no constraint upon the blind nor ill nor you to eat from your houses, I don’t understand , meaning the one who brought this entire universe , made scenarios and drama and wars so he can reveal at the end a book where he says oh guys there is no problem you eat from your houses, a sentence that makes no need, and on the same verse he says {or [from houses] whose keys you possess or [from the house] of your friend.} Meaning if I stole the keys of someone it’s ok for me to get in and eat? And on the same verse it says {There is no blame upon you whether you eat together or separately.} there is no problem for you to eat alone or together, guys humanity would be scattered without this verse (humanity is doomed because it got ignorant people like you sharif) there is no problem we eat alone or together, is there a third option? Meaning one verse has 20 things that are not logical, and aside from it being illogical, the verse alone is not needed, it has no meaning, so if you removed it from Quran, the Quran alone will not be affected, and those who won’t read it won’t lose a thing”
oh dear lord, where to start, first he makes his video that quran in origin is a Syriac text, now he turn it into (The quran doesn’t make sense)? Make up your mind sharif, Make a formula for your video, let’s forget the fact that he didn’t even bother to show any tafsir, have you noticed that he didn’t even do his usual (fast screenshots) images of the tafsirs he uses on almost every verse he cites? Why he only bothered to make up his own commentary on this? Because he realizes that even if he shows a single tafsir and someone manage to pause the screen and read it, it will just make him look like a fool, and infact there is a story behind this verse if this verse was not revealed people will struggle at that time in relation to that story to how to deal with the issue ahead of them
@15:29 Sharif state “or verse that state {There is not upon the blind [any] constraint nor upon the lame constraint nor upon the ill constraint nor upon yourselves when you eat from your [own] houses}(based on sahih translation 24:61) meaning there is no constraint upon the blind nor ill nor you to eat from your houses, I don’t understand , meaning the one who brought this entire universe , made scenarios and drama and wars so he can reveal at the end a book where he says oh guys there is no problem you eat from your houses, a sentence that makes no need, and on the same verse he says {or [from houses] whose keys you possess or [from the house] of your friend.} Meaning if I stole the keys of someone it’s ok for me to get in and eat? And on the same verse it says {There is no blame upon you whether you eat together or separately.} there is no problem for you to eat alone or together, guys humanity would be scattered without this verse (humanity is doomed because it got ignorant people like you sharif) there is no problem we eat alone or together, is there a third option? Meaning one verse has 20 things that are not logical, and aside from it being illogical, the verse alone is not needed, it has no meaning, so if you removed it from Quran, the Quran alone will not be affected, and those who won’t read it won’t lose a thing”
oh dear lord, where to start, first he makes his video that quran in origin is a Syriac text, now he turn it into (The quran doesn’t make sense)? Make up your mind sharif, Make a formula for your video, let’s forget the fact that he didn’t even bother to show any tafsir, have you noticed that he didn’t even do his usual (fast screenshots) images of the tafsirs he uses on almost every verse he cites? Why he only bothered to make up his own commentary on this? Because he realizes that even if he shows a single tafsir and someone manage to pause the screen and read it, it will just make him look like a fool, and infact there is a story behind this verse if this verse was not revealed people will struggle at that time in relation to that story to how to deal with the issue ahead of them
And many ex muslims shared that part of his video to claim the quran is incoherent, but since the freedom of speech warrior Sharif Blocked me I could not access these tweets and show them as evidence, never the less let’s see what is the reason behind this verse
In case if you don’t know, your houses here means your children houses, ill are mentioned because they feared they might infect others with their illness
حدثنا أبو بكر قال حدثنا وكيع عن سفيان عن قيس عن مقسم قال : كانوا يتقون أن يأكلوا مع الأعمى والأعرج والمريض حتى نزلت هذه الآية : ليس على الأعمى حرج ولا على الأعرج حرج ولا على المريض حرج[1]
Translation:
Abu Bakir told us said: Waki’ told us from sufian from Qais from muqasim : they feared to eat with the blind, and with the disabled and the ill until this verse was revealed: There is not upon the blind [any] constraint nor upon the lame constraint nor upon the ill
How useless, how unneeded, if this verse was not revealed people at that time will constraint from eating with the lame (disabled) ill and blind, never the less let’s continue
It's generally accepted by the majority of scholars that what is meant here by “your houses” means your children houses as explained by several scholars such as Imam Alsa’di in his tafsir of the verse
أي: ليس على هؤلاء جناح في ترك الأمور الواجبة التي تتوقف على واحد منها، وذلك كالجهاد ونحوه مما يتوقف على بصر الأعمى أو سلامة الأعرج أو صحة للمريض، ولهذا المعنى العام الذي ذكرناه أطلق الكلام في ذلك ولم يقيد كما قيد قوله: {ولا على أنفسكم} أي: حرج {أن تأكلوا من بيوتكم} أي: بيوت أولادكم[2]
Translation:
Meaning: there is no constraint upon those to leave important daily duties such as Jihad and others which is stopped by any disability, such as being blind or unable to walk, or illness, and for this it’s a general meaning which we mentioned and not limited to those conditions as god said {and upon yourself} meaning constraint {that you eat from your houses} meaning the houses of your children.
So to recap the verse discusses two issues, one people distant from eating with ill and disabled as discussed above by imam ibn Shaiba, that their children distained eating with them duo to fear of infection or them being disabled, so this verse was revealed to explain it’s ok to leave important duties such as jihad since you are disabled and unable to do it, and go and eat at the houses of your children (your houses) and not be constrained since you are not in your actual home eating your own food but rather the food of your siblings, it’s also revealed to refrain siblings from being distained from their parents duo to fear of illness and disability
In short, this verse is revealed to show those with disabilities that they are not forced to engage in jihad and they are allowed to eat at their children houses without constraint and to refrain children from being distant from them
Now let us explore if the majority of scholars agree on this
هذا الذي ذكره الأصحاب حكم مال الأجنبي . أما القريب والصديق فإن تشكك في رضاه بالأكل من ثمره وزرعه وبيته لم يحل الأكل منه بلا خلاف وإن غلب على ظنه رضاه به ، وأنه لا يكره أكله منه جاز أن يأكل القدر الذي يظن رضاه به ويختلف ذلك باختلاف الأشخاص والأزمان والأحوال والأموال ولهذا تظاهرت دلائل الكتاب والسنة وفعل سلف الأمة وخلفها ، قال الله تعالى : { ولا على أنفسكم أن تأكلوا من بيوتكم أو بيوت آبائكم } إلى قوله تعالى : { أو صديقكم }[3]
Translation:
That of which the Sahaba mentioned regarding the money of the foreigner, either a closely related or friend, if you doubt his agreement regarding eating from his fruit from his planting, and from his house, eating from it is not halal without any disagreement among scholars even if he thought he agreed, and it’s not forbidden for him to eat so long as it’s on the permitted level, and that is different in relation to how people allow it in different places and different times, and depending on money spend, and for that many evidence shown in Quran and Sunnah and based on the acts of the precursors of ummah (salaf), and what succeeded it, god said { or verse that state {There is not upon the blind [any] constraint nor upon the lame constraint nor upon the ill constraint nor upon yourselves when you eat from your [own] houses or houses of your fathers} to his words {or your friend}
Even Ibn Taymia agrees
{ ولا على أنفسكم أن تأكلوا من بيوتكم أو بيوت آبائكم } أن بيت الولد مندرج في بيوتكم[4]
Translation:
{There is not upon the blind [any] constraint nor upon the lame constraint nor upon the ill constraint nor upon yourselves when you eat from your [own] houses or your parent's houses} the house of a son is among {your houses}
Even ibn Qudama agreed
ثم ذكر بيوت سائر القرابات إلا الأولاد لم يذكرهم ; لأنهم دخلوا في قوله : { بيوتكم } . فلما كانت بيوت أولادهم كبيوتهم[5]
Translation:
Then he mentioned the houses of the rest of the relatives, except for children; because they are in the meaning of the word {your houses} because the houses of their children are your houses
And that is not even a controversial meaning among scholars at that time, there are even people who used this verse, scholars like the grand Imam ibn Hazim noted in his book Almuhala bil Athar that people used this verse
ثم نظرنا في قول من احتج به من رأى إسقاط القطع عن الابن إذا سرق من مال أبويه ، وعن كل ذي رحم محرمة ؟ فوجدناهم يحتجون بقول الله تعالى { ولا على أنفسكم أن تأكلوا من بيوتكم أو بيوت آبائكم أو بيوت أمهاتكم } الآية إلى قوله تعالى : { أو صديقكم } . قال : فإباحة الله تعالى الأكل من بيوت هؤلاء يقتضي إباحة دخول منازلهم بغير إذنهم ، فإذا جاز لهم دخول منازلهم بغير إذنهم لم يكن مالهم محرزا عنهم ، ولا يجب القطع في السرقة من غير حرز .
Translation:
Then we looked on those who make the allegation based on claims if a son should not face the Hukum of a thief if he stole from his father money, and is everything from relatives to own are haram? We found them making these allegations using the verse {There is not upon the blind [any] constraint nor upon the lame constraint nor upon the ill constraint nor upon yourselves when you eat from your [own] houses} to {or your friend}, he (reffering to the ones making the allegations) said: allah allowing to eat from those houses nessitate allowance to enter their houses without permission, so if entering their houses without permission their money should not be off limit, and the one who steals with these limits should not receive theft penalty
Have you noticed something? Not only this shows how people thought of this verse but it also contains an allegation similar to what sharif stated, that you can go and steal from them so long as you got the key
Now on the same page, Ibn Hazim educate dimwits like sharif
فأما الآية فحق ، ولا دليل فيها على ما ذكروا ، بل هي حجة عليهم ، وقد كذبوا فيها أيضا : أما كونها لا دليل فيها على ما ادعوه ، فإنه ليس فيها إسقاط القطع على من سرق من هؤلاء - لا بنص ولا بدليل - وإنما فيها إباحة الأكل لا إباحة الأخذ بلا خلاف من أحد من الأمة ؟ فإذا قالوا : قسنا الأخذ على الأكل ؟ قلنا لهم : القياس كله باطل ، ثم لو كان حقا لكان هذا منه عين الباطل ; لأن القياس عند القائلين به قياس الشيء على نظيره في العلة أو في شبه بوجه ما ، ولا يجوز عند أحد من الأمة - لا مجيز قياس ولا مانع - قياس الضد على ضده ، ولا مضادة أكثر ومن التحريم والتحليل ، وأنتم مجمعون - معنا ومع الناس - على أن الأخذ لعروض الأخ ، والأخت ، والعم ، والعمة ، والخال ، والخالة ، والأب ، والأم ، والصديق ، من بيوتهم ، ونقل ما فيها حرام ، وأن الأكل حلال ، فكيف استحللتم قياس حكم الحرام الممنوع على حكم الحلال المباح ؟ وأما قولهم في الآية ، وكذبهم فيها ، قول هذا الجاهل المقدم " إن إباحة الله تعالى الأكل من بيوت هؤلاء يقتضي إباحة دخول منازلهم بغير إذنهم " . فليت شعري أين وجدوا هذا في هذه الآية أو في غيرها ؟ فيدخل الصديق منزل صديقه بغير إذنه ؟ هذا عجب من العجب ، أما سمعوا قول الله تعالى { يا أيها الذين آمنوا ليستأذنكم الذين ملكت أيمانكم والذين لم يبلغوا الحلم } إلى قوله تعالى { فليستأذنوا كما استأذن الذين من قبلهم } .[6]
Translation:
As regards to the verse it’s true, but there is no evidence to what they say, infact it’s an evidence against them, and they lied about it, in regards to that there is no evidence in it for what they claim, it has no prohipiting of cutting hand of theaf, with no text and with no evidence, infact it allow eating not allow taking, not allow taking from someone without their permission in ummah, If they said we messured taking based on eating, we say that the messurment are all false, and if it was true from this it will not be allowed, because messurement based on those who said it (reffering to those making allegation) deep in it has a flawed method , it’s based on a claim or something similar to eating on some form, and no one is allowed among ummah, not from any messured not from any exempt, measuring something against it, and no prohiption more and taking from prohiption something halal, and you and us among people agree already that it’s haram to take the belongs of a brother, sister uncle, the aunt, father and mother or friend taking from their houses are haram, and eating from it that is halal, so how did you made the haram into halal? As for their allegation based on the verse, this only steam out of pure ignorance( like sharif) that “since it’s hala to eat from these people houses then it’s halal to take from them without their permission” oh my white hair where did they came up with this from this verse? So a friend will enter his friend house without his permission? This is wonder of wanders I wish they would just listen to what God said { O you who have believed, let those whom your right hands possess and those who have not [yet] reached puberty among you ask permission of you [before entering]}(24:58) until {And when the children among you reach puberty, let them ask permission [at all times] as those before them have done.}(24:59)
Ibn Hazim already as it seems was dealing with people as stupid as sharif, even their statements (statements similar to what sharif said) made him wonder as to where they got it from.
Quran means Christian scripture in Syriac? Sharif losing his mind.
@16:33-18:50 sharif state “there is a verse in Quran that says {And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them} but this verse was contradicting what happned, muhammad himself didn’t know the meaning of many words in Quran that it suppose to be Arabic and in the language of his people, and his mission is to show them and explain to them it’s meaning , Tabari onse said “from Aisha she onse said: the prophet never explained any verses in Quran except for few numbers tafsir tabari page 84” that Muhammad had a habit that he won’t explain verses in quran except for few small ones that are alreadly logicly obvius and didn’t need explaination , and that is expected even if this was a lie , because if Muhammad indeed explained quran and showed it to his people, we won’t find 10’s of thousands of tafsirs that is increased every year with every new shaikh appear, in simple the Quran we have today a simple book for all people and even if it had a tafsir, it will need a single tafsir, and it’s tafsir of Muhammad, because this is the essential mission that he was brought to, how could you say that quran was revealed in the tongue of it’s people and it’s people didn’t even understand it, and it has words that are nither Arabic nor understood, and if you are gonna bring a book with words that are not understood, no one will receive a revelation will say he understands it, and will not direct the words to them and they understand it, and no one on span of 1400 years understand it’s meaning, and have thousands of tafsirs and difference in meaning, then why did you reveal it? That is the reason why translating Quran to any language is near impossible task, not because quran was not supposed to be written except in Arabic, or that Arabic is a language none are like it, or that Arabic is the language of the god, no but because there are words in it that were not understood, nither it’s understood in Arabic nor in any language, it’s not supposed to be translated (shows a scholar responding to question” is it allowed to translate Quran to English” scholar respond with “no it should not” we will address this video later) and even you won’t be able to translate the word Quran itself, a question for you (this will be our topic, addressing the claim of Quran meaning in Syriac) do you know what Quran means? The book you are ready to die for you don’t know what it means, and if you go and look you will find hounded of tafsirs , the word Quran is not an Arabic word, it’s a Syriac word, it’s origin is the word Quryan, and it’s meaning in Syriac? the book of Christian ritual (showing screenshots of Luxenburg failed book)
Based on the following screenshots
So let us now reform the words given above and we shall see where this silly origin word come from and we shall address
The word is roughly read as follows ܩܪܝܢܐ
Qryna Not Qeryana
As constructed
ܐ spells ā
ܢ spells nun
ܝ spells y
ܪ spells Ra
ܩ spells qa
So putting it together spells Qryna[7]
Not only luxenburg twisted the word to fit his agenda, but sharif followed the example
In Arabic, it will be spelled قرينا or قرين in contrast to Quran قران
But the issue here is not on spelling, we will see later where they got this allegation from it’s an issue of understanding dictionaries
To search for word meaning it must be reduced to its root using the following website
there are only two results that yelled ܩܪܝܢܐ
the first one [8]
shows the following meanings
English: 1) agent of ܩܵܪܹܐ: a student ; 2) Oraham : a reader , one authorized to read the lessons in a place of worship , a caller ;
English: 1) agent of ܩܵܪܹܐ: a student ; 2) Oraham : a reader , one authorized to read the lessons in a place of worship , a caller ;
the second one [9]
shows the following meanings
English :1) a lesson , a reading assigned to a pupil to be studied ; 2) a lection , a reading of the Holy Scriptures, a portion of Scriptures read during a divine service ; 3) Oraham : a reader ; 4) NENA : = ܩܪܵܝܬܵܐ : reading ; 5) Rhétoré ; = ܩܵܪܝܵܢܘܼܬ݂ܵܐ : education / schooling ; Rhétoré ; ܕܗܲܡ ܐܵܢܵܐ ܐܝܼܬ ܠܝܼ ܚܲܟܡܵܐ ܩܸܪܝܵܢܵܐ : I myself have some education / schooling ; ܩܸܪܝܵܢܵܐ ܦܪܝܼܫܵܐ : a tutorial , a private lesson ;
Lection in case if you don’t know meaning a reading of a particular copy or edition
This common claim seems to come from J. Payne Smith's (Mrs. Margoliouth) A Compendious Syriac Dictionary
So apparently this is the source of the allegation that luxenburg and sharif relied upon, the confusion seems to come from the example given under of the invocation of the holy trinity at baptism, however, this is an example, the proper meaning is invocation or calling by the separating doted marker later, as commonly shown in every dictionary
For example in lisan al arab
Translation:
10.Harz
Hariz something, meaning keep it safe:- the police kept a body from the crime scene and its evidence
So apparently if we follow sharif logic, the example is the actual meaning not the provided meaning by the lexicon
Same follow from the screenshot shown above from sharif source (Payne Smith)
The same applies to the two links provided from the website
Now that is just pathetic at best, taking the provided example as the real meaning rather than the initial word itself
When I first saw this I was at lose for words as to how deceptive sharif and lexnburg are
Infact the very man cited by sharif gaber in his video, Theodore noldeke makes his comments on the issue (cited by sharif on his own screenshots)[10]
While Noldeke does argue for the claim of Syriac influence in Quran even on that initial page, at no place does he argue that Quryana means Christian Ritual
At page 209 in footnotes states the following[11]
So to add this up, the word Qyrana simply means lector, or lesson, rather than what sharif and Luxenberg stated that it means the book of Christian Ritual
a word adopted from a foreign language with little or no modification.
So again to correct it, Qyriana doesn’t mean “Christian scripture” or “Christian Ritual” rather it means a lecture or a lesson which can mean just about anything
Infact Ritual doesn’t even come close to the meaning of lecture or lesson
Even if we take Theodore noldeke (sharif primary source) which doesn’t say in the slightest that Quryana means Christian Ritual it won’t make sense simply because sharif and lexuburg rely on the examples rather than the initial meaning
So all this confusion came from using the example provided Payne Smith dictionary as the proper meaning? Is this kid serius? All of that if we accept that Quryana means lecture based on smith’s dictionary, but as we saw from Sharif primary source (Theodore noldeke) and from the two links provided, Quryana at no point means “Christian Ritual” even if we assume the word Quran have any link to it
Quran is a Christian text, based on words of a fool
@18:55 Sharif state “have you ever asked yourself why Quran mentioned the name of Christ and Isa 36 times and mentioned Muhammad name 4 times only? 36 times Quran speaks about jesus and his life and only 4 time mentions Muhammad it’s like the book was originally made for jesus (remember this point) and even those 4 times that Muhammad name was mentioned in it, the name could apply to jesus if you take the word Muhammad as meaning, not someone name , and the evidence is that in only time mentions a name of a prophet he never mentioned Muhammad, he said his name is ahmed, of course, shikhs will tell you the same thing, the name ahmed is also Muhammad , but if that is the case he won’t say his name is ahmed, he would say someone ahmed (a disctiobtion, look how much of a mistake that is by sharif), someone great, but said his name is ahmed, meaning described him with the name called him with the name, the quran is clear on everything but here not so clear , and another time he says {Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men} and that is applied on Jesus (pay attention to this mistake aswell) jesus never married nor had children, but Muhammad had children and married 12 times (showing a clip of game of thrones character to insult Muhammad which is the reason why I decided to take aggressive tone against this kid) and there is another verse that states {Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him.} the problem is that there is another verse {The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him.} the verse is the same verse is the same verse, only Muhammad name was replaced by messiah son of mary, not convinced? Ok there is an old coin found in Palestine dates back to 647 to 658 , meaning after muslim governors entered Palestine after 10 years at least, the coin has Muhammad written on it, but on the back has an image of someone carrying a cross, I want you to think calmly (try not to hurt yourself while doing it sharif) how a country that is supposed to be Islamic, has the name Muhammad, and someone carrying a cross? the cross that Islam reject, because it says Jesus was never crucified and all of that was lies is the official coin of the country, how? You might say this is a sign of coexistence and peace by arab rullers, the rullers who when entered prevented any churches to be built , and prevented any cross to show up, not on a neckless and not on a church (oh mine was a contradiction) the same story is found on a Syrian coin dates back to 686 to 687 the coin has the name Muhammad and next to it someone carrying a cross , I’m not here to explain to you what happened because literally, no one knew how it happened, all of that are attempts to imagin this period , all that I was trying to tell you is that the history you grew up learning and thinking this is the history of islam that is not the real history, the real history is very vauge , all that I was trying to tell you is that all evidence shows that this quran, most of it are attempt to translate Chrisitan syriac texts, and not just in words or sentence or even the book name, but even the stories in it are majority stories found in other legends”
oh, mine that was painful to type in, so much nonsense so much lies one can’t fathom where he got that from? He actually provides the source, a book titled The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research Into Its Early History by Karl-Heinz Ohlig (Editor), Gerd-R Puin (Editor)
oh, mine that was painful to type in, so much nonsense so much lies one can’t fathom where he got that from? He actually provides the source, a book titled The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research Into Its Early History by Karl-Heinz Ohlig (Editor), Gerd-R Puin (Editor)
It’s not an actual book but collection of articles and essays, but from what I just saw from sharif, this seems pathetic at best
But let us deconstruct his arguments
So his logic is Jesus mentioned 36 times, therefore, the book was made for Jesus?
That is a non sequitur fallacy
How is that even related, Moses is mentioned 136 times in quran does that make it a book for Moses now? Where is the logic here?
“and the evidence is that in only time mentions a name of a prophet he never mentioned Muhammad, he said his name is ahmed, of course, shikhs will tell you the same thing, the name ahmed is also Muhammad , but if that is the case he won’t say his name is ahmed, he would say someone ahmed (a disctiobtion, look how much of a mistake that is by sharif), someone great, but said his name is ahmed, meaning described him with the name called him with the name,”
so don’t call him Ahmed, give him a description so it fit with Muhammad meaning? How does that make sense? Instead of giving him a name give him a distribution?
“and the evidence is that in only time mentions a name of a prophet he never mentioned Muhammad, he said his name is ahmed, of course, shikhs will tell you the same thing, the name ahmed is also Muhammad , but if that is the case he won’t say his name is ahmed, he would say someone ahmed (a disctiobtion, look how much of a mistake that is by sharif), someone great, but said his name is ahmed, meaning described him with the name called him with the name,”
so don’t call him Ahmed, give him a description so it fit with Muhammad meaning? How does that make sense? Instead of giving him a name give him a distribution?
Ok we actually have sources from Muhammad himself about his names where he acknowledges the name, Ahmed
Narrated Jubair bin Mut`im:
Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "I have five names: I am Muhammad and Ahmad; I am Al-Mahi through whom Allah will eliminate infidelity; I am Al-Hashir who will be the first to be resurrected, the people being resurrected thereafter; and I am also Al-`Aqib (i.e. There will be no prophet after me).[12]
But, Sharif will say even this hadith from Muhammad ﷺ himself should not be count, because….reasons?
I never used a single tafsir here no explanation, I used the words of Muhammad ﷺ himself
In fact, this turn against him, if it was a description it would possibly fit Jesus not Muhammad if Quran said Someone Ahmed (blessed) rather than an actual name, that will insert Jesus to the verse scope, but since Quran narrowed it down to Ahmed literally this puts no room for Jesus interpretation.
“, and another time he says {Muhammad is not the father of [any] one of your men} and that is applied on Jesus Jesus never married nor had children, but Muhammad had children and married 12 times”
I’m at a total loss, even the screenshots provided by sharif just puts this statement to rest
Notice under red line the verse read {but the messenger of God and last prophet}
How does that fit Jesus? Why you didn’t continue to read it? Or perhaps you know your fans have the attention span of toddlers that they will not notice the rest of the verse?
Christians don’t even believe Jesus as the last prophet in fact nowhere in the new testament Jesus ever said he is the last prophet read Acts 13:1 and 1 Corinthians 12:10
“Wherefore He saith, When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men….And He gave some, [the gift of being] apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Ephesians 4: 8,11-13
There is no foundation for the claim that Jesus is the last prophet and apostle of god, many saints and apostles came after him including the founder of Christianity Paul, who is regarded as prophet as well
So that verse when read completely could never refer to Jesus (we will see more of this style from sharif later)
“and there is another verse that states {Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him.} the problem is that there is another verse {The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him.} the verse is the same verse is the same verse, only Muhammad name was replaced by messiah son of mary”
ah another deceptive method of not fully reading the verse
ah another deceptive method of not fully reading the verse
Let’s read the first one
3:144
{Muhammad is not but a messenger. [Other] messengers have passed on before him. So if he was to die or be killed, would you turn back on your heels [to unbelief]? And he who turns back on his heels will never harm Allah at all, but Allah will reward the grateful.}
He dies? How does that fit Jesus again? Muslims don’t believe Jesus died on the cross, yet this verse clearly states that Muhammad died, so basically Islam became now a Christian faith the reject the foundation of Christian belief (death and resurrection on the cross)?
The other verse
5:75
{The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.}
this is the only one that could fit Jesus because there is no mention of prophet Muhammad ﷺ mother anywhere and since Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was an orphan as well
{The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.}
this is the only one that could fit Jesus because there is no mention of prophet Muhammad ﷺ mother anywhere and since Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was an orphan as well
It just bothers me how could anyone not fact check him apart from Muslims, the only thing atheists have neglected as an error in his video was the allegation that Arius believed Jesus as a prophet, the rest they find is perfect
for the love of god, you only need to read each verse of 3:144 and 5:75 to see the clear difference between each other, not just cut off the part that is identical between each other, and for the love of god he already provided a screenshot of the verse reading it in full can just make you doubt how he researches his works
for the love of god, you only need to read each verse of 3:144 and 5:75 to see the clear difference between each other, not just cut off the part that is identical between each other, and for the love of god he already provided a screenshot of the verse reading it in full can just make you doubt how he researches his works
“Ok there is an old coin found in Palestine dates back to 647 to 658 , meaning after muslim governors entered Palestine after 10 years atleast, the coin has Muhammad written on it, but on the back has an image of someone carrying a cross, I want you to think calmly (try not to hurt yourself while doing it sharif) how a country that is supposed to be Islamic, has the name Muhammad, and someone carrying a cross? the cross that islam reject, because it says Jesus was never crucified and all of that was lies is the official coin of the country, how? You might say this is a sign of coexistence and peace by arab rulers, the rulers who when entered prevented any churches to be built , and prevented any cross to show up, not on a chain and not on a church (oh mine was a contradiction) the same story is found on a Syrian coin dates back to 686 to 687 the coin has the name Muhammad and next to it someone carrying a cross”
So let me get this straight if a coin has an individual image in it, and a name attached somewhere in it to that individual in back, therefore that image is representative of him?
Let’s see
So since on the left (of this Saudi currency), it says no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger, therefore the figure on the right must be Muhammad (astaghfur Allah)? Really? Is that how the authors of the hidden origin of Islam and sharif think?
“You might say this is a sign of coexistence and peace by Arab rulers, the rulers who when entered prevented any churches to be built, and prevented any cross to show up, not on a neckless and not on a church”
“You might say this is a sign of coexistence and peace by Arab rulers, the rulers who when entered prevented any churches to be built, and prevented any cross to show up, not on a neckless and not on a church”
So the rulers never allow any cross to be shown up on anything like neckless or churches, but allowed it to be on a coin? The central trading item for any country? Sharif, do you even double check your own video script before you contradict yourself? Either the rulers never allowed any depiction of the cross to show up or allowed it, make your mind
I mean the contraction alone is enough to put to rest the claim we haven’t even bothered to check this coin and if it was authentic, Sharif never bothered to prove the authenticity of this coin, he got this from a book by a famous Christian missionary Robert Spencer, a man never even bothered in his book to prove the authenticity of the coin
Now a simple answer to this is that these are byzantine coins, they were already predominant in Palestine, so Muslims when they entered they added something to represent them so it has to be the name of Muhammad ﷺ
Notice the gradual evolution of this particular coin for example
as these coins bare striking similarities to each other, each one depicts a figure on it with different inscriptions on it’s back along with several different representative figures from Neapolis to Cistophorus of Septimius all bare the same theme
the Same logic and example apply to the Syrian coin, you just can’t say if one part of a coin carries Muhammad name and other part got a figure with a cross, therefore, that figure is Muhammad, it’s a non sequitur
This article is already long enough so we will continue on Par-4
[1] Al-musanaf by Imam Abdullah ibn abi Shaiba vol.5 Chapter: eating with the ill
[2] Tafsir Al-Sa’di
[3] Al-majmu’ Sharih almuhathab by grand imam Al-Nawawi vol.9 page.59
[4] Majmu’ Al-Fatawa vol.15 page.46
[5] Al-mughni by ibn Qudama vol.5 page.395
[6] ibid
[7] http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/search.php
[8] http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/sureth/dosearch.php?searchkey=26154&language=id
[9] http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/sureth/dosearch.php?searchkey=13161&language=id
[10] The history of Quran by thedore noldeke page.27
[11] Ibid.209
[12]Sahih al-Bukhari 3532
