This is a bit off the main topics of this blog but i want to update you on the situation in the country where I live and why it's so hard for people like me to work there and continue this work here
I wanted to write this blog to inform everyone of why I'm not active that much, because if you didn't know I live in Iraq, but also I wanted to give my take on the current situation, this is just my rant.
the iraqi goverment and it's own shiat religius parties have been quite helpfull and responsive, and i mean that in a regressive manner, we in iraq starting from mosul to najaf to samawa to karbala and now in baghdad near saha alhuria (The Freedom Yard) starting from hezbullah to badir to islamic dawah partie many of overment pranches have engaged in violent response, first cutting elextricsity (as if it was good from the start), to severly crippling water serveses, and even now for the past 3 days banning internet untill we internet savies uses VPN to go to social media (albeit very unstable and slow) and many of us IT proffesonals tried to provide the best proxy method to allow people to acess internet, but so far VPN is the only solution and still with it the internet is the worst, several political figurs actually blaming current situation on the people, the current PM al'abadi went so far as to call violent protesters (as if they were actuall are) savages and curropted, while acknowldging the rights for the people to protest, the stiuation was so bad several serverses that I mentioned erliar starting from south to middle of iraq went down, apart from district of kurdistan
many of the basic requests of the protesters like providing water supplies, electricity and fixing the sever unemployment on top of the already insanely hot temperature that is above 50 were repeated from 2009 even tell now in 2018, the government keep on saying "we listen" yet does nothing
the government never delivered even on a simple a task as a rich state like Mosul, our country produces only 44.5% participated in the latest election
the protesters continued to storm several goverment affiliated parites that are also inlined with Iran
right now the casualties are over 10 killed in just a few days as police and armed forces opened live bullets on protesters
right now with this horrible internet service, it took me more than an hour and a half to write and post this blog after many failed attempts
my take on this is that any country the US and it's allies (now canada want's a peice of the imperialism cake) touches they turn it to a waste land, ever since US invasion and so called project iraqi freedom we have been going throw termoil, untill the US killed zarqawi and by process created ISIS from that, the boggyman that islamophobes use againse islam is the frankistaine of US and it allies, I can't tell you how much contempt I have for the US, and with every year pass the more I see that self-loathing hate among so called iraqis asking for secular state (as if we didn't have that already during saddam time) to fix the issue, they think religion is the cause of this, not some forign power that destablized the region 15 years ago as any sane indivual would, the moste vial of the peole I meet from time to time is those arabs who hate themselves because of what we got to this point, not blaming this on the acutall forign factor but to a 1400 year old religion that if implemented properly will onle result in fixing this diar situation
we don't need secular nation we had that and a monarchy ever since 1940s none of them worked
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Sunday, July 8, 2018
Hisham the Whataboutist Lies to his gullible audience
The Moroccan infidel is a popular Moroccan atheist channel, the reason why I decided to specifically all the sudden go after him is because of how we as Muslims suffer from imperialism, and to see an ignoramus like him claim that sharia law on its own is imperialist is outlandish, here we will point out his inconsistency and lies when he respond to Dr.Haitham Tal’at, a prominent Egyptian Islamic scholar, where this atheist slander his character and go on and even misquote his own source that we will use against him, even going so far as to call him terrorist and Imam Tabari as Da’ishi (ISIS member) yes this is how insane this atheist is, going so far as to call Imam Tabari a terrorist, I’ve seen worse though, but we shall see if Imam Tabari is indeed advocating for ISIS and any doctrine similar to theirs
He shouldn’t carry the title Moroccan in his name as he doesn’t represent Moroccan people by any stretch of the imagination if he or any of his supporters are reading this, next time try and bring sources that don’t debunk you Hisham
first Dr.Haitham start by criticizing Atheist who read Quran like ISIS does, and criticizes how they force someone to read Quran like ISIS instead the correct salaf interpretation
@00:52 Hisham reply with at first mocking tones then said: ” are you trying to tell us Muhammad was an ISIS member?”
oh wow Hisham, you discovered a tafsir written by Muhammad (PBUH) explaining quranic passages? care to show us that tafsir? oh, that is correct I forgot, that is the same cliche argument “ISIS follow Muhammad” that new atheist so pathetically barrage all the time
oh wow Hisham, you discovered a tafsir written by Muhammad (PBUH) explaining quranic passages? care to show us that tafsir? oh, that is correct I forgot, that is the same cliche argument “ISIS follow Muhammad” that new atheist so pathetically barrage all the time
“that Sahaba are ISIS members?”
now Sahaba have their own tafsir? all thousands of them? Hisham drop your pathetic new atheist rambling (ISIS follows Muhammad) and provide one source for any of the above claims
“that Tabari is an ISIS member?”
now that is insane, we do have tafsir Tabari care to provide one passage from his tafsir where he says the blood of a nonbeliever is halal even if they are not aggressors?
funny that Tabari replied to people who claimed 9:5 of Quran allow for killing nonbelievers even those who are in contract and called that interpretation”corrupted” see Hisham? Tabari the man you called ISIS member calls your interpretation corrupted (we will show with evidence from his tafsir later on)
“that bukhari and muslim ISIS memebers”
Bukhari and Muslim have their own tafsir now? new atheists never sease to amaze me
Bukhari and Muslim have their own tafsir now? new atheists never sease to amaze me
“that Hafith ibn Hajar and nawawi ISIS members”
hafith and nawawi have Quranic tafsir?
nither hafiz nor nawawi have dedicated books for tafsir Quran, Nawawi only have one book for students of Quran hadith and fiqh explaining basic rulings for each branch of Islamic science, no Tafsir book was written by Nawawi, stop pulling nonsense out of your mouth Hisham
so far all rhetoric nonsense no source no citation no footnote no logic, just you and your emotional response because Dr.Haitham called your interpretation of Quran ISIS toned, so you decided to commit red herrings one after another and say “what about Muhammad and his companions what about this and that” great job Hisham, instead of directly addressing Dr.Haitham objections you resort to Whataboutism.
I’m expecting the same old argument that we will see later “all peacefull verses are meccan verses abrogated by madinan verses” but when you ask them evidence for that, they go silent
now after Dr.Haithm provide hadith from the prophet saying
“The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).”1
@01:50 Hisham reply “it’s nice that brother Haitham brings us examples, but who ever defend the crisis of islam falls into another crisis, the hadith he cited in a cherry picking manner, because he won’t mention the stright forward hadiths and verses as we know in islam chosing what ever you want, like if you wanted a peacefull verse to go back to meccan verses (ah now we are getting that same old argument) and if you want verses of war and fight go to madinan and so on (Hisham proceed to cite the hadith Dr.Haitham cited) and in other sources it’s 70 years and the hadith is found in bukhari chapter : who killed mu’ahid, muslim speaks about the dhimmi as a beautifull thing for islam the opposite is true all that you have to do is read book Ahkam Ahil althima by ibn Qaim al jozi, i pledge that who ever read this book or looked at several chapters, will have his thought changed on islam, an immoral book by far, it shows us the relations between people who are Dhimmi, at tope of inhuman, we retuen to the hadith (dear god all that ramble about how immoral a book is had nothing to do with the hadith? how sad)the question here is, what is the punishment for a muslim if he killed a mu’ahid, what is his punishment if he killed a mu’ahid, is that a religion or mafia”
I have never seen such red herring fired from moon straight to mars, goodness did you actually addressed the hadith Hisham? let me see your response, in short, Dr.Haitham rationally and logically shows that killing a nonmuslim who didn’t fight you don’t grant you paradise, and Hisham respond with What about his punishment? as if that is what this hadith address, infact in the very screen you provided you accidentally (or deceptively) forget about the title of the chapter of the hadith
as you can see it says “chapter the sin of whoever killed a Dhimmi without charge”
this hadith addressed the “sin” nature of whoever kills a Dhimmi without charge of crime, it says it right there in the title of the chapter Hisham, do new atheist suffer weak vision or something? it’s right above the hadith, killing a Dhimmi without charge is a sin
your reply to Dr.Haitham citing this hadith is a Whataboutism? this is my first response to you and I’m greeted with this? plus you said Dr.Haithm Cherry picked this hadith? care to show the context that he omitted? no, of course, you won’t, also Meccan and Madinan verses? how is that related to the hadith?
your excuse is “read this book and see how immoral it’s” is the response to the hadith? are you joking Hisham?
Muslim doesn’t just get away from killing a mu’ahid without any form of punishment
أن يقول الحنفي في قتل المسلم بالذمي: قتل عمد عدوان، فأوجب القصاص
Hanafi says if a Muslim kills a Dhimmi intentionally and out of aggression, then Punishment is required2
What comes later is the most shocking display of ignorance in Hadith science
Dr.Haitham tal’at responding by citing an authentic hadith (which does exist in Sahih Bukhari) but wait until you see the pathetic attempt by Hisham to try and discredit the hadith since it refutes his arguments
Dr.Haitham cites hadith“Narrated A number of Companions of the Prophet:
Safwan reported from a number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Beware, if anyone wrongs a contracting man, or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead for him on the Day of Judgment.”3
Contracting man is the mu’ahid and the Dhimmi, now just watch and see how deceptive Hisham is
@04:30 Hisham state “ this hadith have some issues, it its sanad has some unknowns thirty of sons of messenger companions, Abu sakhir al madini was singular in narrating it, let’s accept the hadith that it’s Sahih, same problem, what is the punishment of a Muslim who wrongs a Dhimmi, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or who take something from him without his consent, what does the Dhimmi benefit from this Hadith, all of these are afterlife warnings and has nothing to do with current life, where is the law that prevent diminishing rights of another human, of course you won’t find it in a law that kills someone for merely leaving the faith, one thing I forget in this hadith, is that you take something without consent, and what about jizyah that Dhimmi gives while he is humiliated he gives it with consent?”
the same nonsense as above (whataboutism) maybe I should call you Hisham the whataboutist, the punishment for wronging the Dhimmi is mentioned above
but for the sake of argument let’s assume that the hadith doesn’t explicitly cite that there is a punishment for harming Dhimmis (let alone kill them) does that mean there is no punishment at all? as we saw that is not correct, now it’s correct that generally, Islamic scholars agree that a Muslim must not be killed for killing a Dhimmi as majority of scholars agree, this is similar to the death penalty that many protesters in western countries try to rebuke, but a Muslim will receive lashes and will be locked in jail for years for his crime, basically a Muslim doesn’t get away from this crime, if he does why even invoke it as a sin, why even state time and time again that a Muslim is not allowed to kill or treat a Dhimmi unjustly? as noted by the scholars of Islamweb the most authentic source of Islam in the web
“فمن كان من أهل الكفر بينه وبين المسلمين عهد أو أمان أو ذمة فإنه لا يجوز قتله، بل ولا يجوز الاعتداء على ماله ولا على عرضه، ولا فرق في ذلك بين المسيحي واليهودي وغيرهما”4
Translation:
and among those of infidels who had the treaty of safety or Dhimmi between him and Muslim he is not permitted to be killed, even so, it’s not permitted to assault him and his money or his honor, and there is no difference in that between Christian or jew or others
they proceed to later cite the same hadith cited by Dr.Haitham that a Muslim won’t enter heaven for unjustly killing Dhimmi
“فإن قتل النفس التي حرم الله إلا بالحق كبيرة من أكبر الكبائر وجريمة من أعظم الجرائم، فقد قال الله تعالى: وَلَا تَقْتُلُوا النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ {الإسراء:33}.”5
Translation:
whoever kills a soul that God forbade unless it’s for just reason is one if not the biggest catastrophe and among the biggest crimes, god said {And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden, except by right.}17:33
let’s go back to his accusations that the hadith is weak because there are “unknown” narrators, the unknown narrators he alleged are “number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other” it’s basically narrations from the sons of prophet companions, Now how is that unknown, we know who they are, they are the sons of the companions of the prophet that their fathers narrated from them, so no Abu sakhir al madini was not the singular narrator, it was him and the sons of the companions of the prophet
Dr.Haitham tal’at later cites verse 8:61 {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.}6
and state it was the last phase of what is revealed (madinan) of course as you guessed it Hisham disagrees, but more astonishingly claim it’s abrogated, which it’s not and we will see that from Imam Tabari who he called ISIS member
@06:03 Hisham state “no darling sura alanfal was not the last of what is revealed of quran, surah anfal was revealed after battle of badir meaning at the start of the madinan phase, and i corrected these errors for you in the chronological order of verses but you insist to add other errors the verse says {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah . Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing} did Haitham look if he looked and said that then he is deceptive and if he didn’t then he better look it up before he put himself in bad spots, Muhammad ibn abdul a’la told us : muhammad ibn thaor , from mu’amar from qutada : {And if they incline to peace} said : to peace said it was abrogated by {and fight the disblivers where ever you find them } 9:5 (what makes this so funny is that Hisham is using Tabari, the Very man he called ISIS memeber, but let we will see that Tabari his own source slap his claim) and even of those who say that it’s not abrogated then it’s no better and what god said in Barah (the other name of chapter 9) {kill the polytheists where ever you find them} is not contradictory to {And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also]} because what god says {And if they incline to peace} is meant by bany qurayza, and they were the jews of the people of the book, and god permitted for muslims to make contract of treaty with people of the book and not fight them by taking jizya and as for {fight the disbelivers where ever you find them} it meant the polytheists of those who worship idols, those who should not be taken jizya from them, no jizya is taken from them, so what is taken from them? islam or be killed, then a Muslim will claim Islam is neither religion of murder or blood”
the more I dive into your video the more dishonest you appear and this is my first reply to you
the more I dive into your video the more dishonest you appear and this is my first reply to you
let’s disect this, so you try and respond to Tabari who says that your claim of abrogation is nonsense by saying it’s worse and you go and say that 9:5 allows for either convert or die (we will address that from Tabari himself later) this won’t be the first time Hisham misquote his source, we will see later how he took a Ph.D. Thesis book about sharia law and misquoted it to make Islam look imperialist
first let’s address it, what Dr.Haitham meant by “last revealed” is that it’s in the last phase, not the final surah, nowhere did he say this is the final surah, he was referring to its nature as madinan verse, there is another example verse 60:8-9 which neither any commentator no Tabari state it’s abrogated, and it’s a madinan verse
anyways
فإن ظنّ ظانٌّ أن قول الله تعالى ذكره: فَإِذَا انْسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الْحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا الْمُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدْتُمُوهُمْ ، [سورة التوبة: 5]، يدلُّ على خلاف ما قلنا في ذلك, إذ كان ذلك ينبئ على أن الفرض على المؤمنين كان بعد انقضاء الأشهر الحرم، قتْلَ كل مشرك, فإن الأمر في ذلك بخلاف ما ظن, وذلك أن الآية التي تتلو ذلك تبين عن صحة ما قلنا، وفسادِ ما ظنه من ظنّ أن انسلاخ الأشهر الحرم كان يبيح قتل كل مشرك، كان له عهد من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، أو لم يكن له منه عهد, وذلك قوله: كَيْفَ يَكُونُ لِلْمُشْرِكِينَ عَهْدٌ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ وَعِنْدَ رَسُولِهِ إِلا الَّذِينَ عَاهَدْتُمْ عِنْدَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ فَمَا اسْتَقَامُوا لَكُمْ فَاسْتَقِيمُوا لَهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُتَّقِينَ ، [سورة التوبة: 7]، فهؤلاء مشركون, وقد أمر الله نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم والمؤمنين بالاستقامة لهم في عهدهم، ما استقاموا لهم بترك نقض صلحهم، وترك مظاهرة عدوهم عليهم.
Translation:
For those who think {And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them} meaning proves in differ to what we mention, that this implies that permission to the believers after the passing of the months to kill polytheist, then this is in contradiction to what we said, and that this verse that is mentioned shows the authenticity of what is we said , and it’s wrong and corrupted for those who think that the passing of the holy Months, that it’s permissible to just kill every single polytheist, even those who had treaty with the prophet ﷺ or even those who didn’t in accordance to { How can there be for the polytheists a treaty in the sight of Allah and with His Messenger, except for those with whom you made a treaty at al-Masjid al-Haram? So as long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].} (9:7) those are polytheist, and god ordered his prophet and the believers to be loyal to them in treaty, so long as their loyal (in reference to polytheist aswelll) by not breaking the treaty, and leaving their proclamation of animosity and hate to the believers
Oh, Tabari now sounds so much like ISIS now does he Hisham? that is the most violent verse in the Quran? the so-called verse of the sword Hisham? take a look at the text above, see how Tabari just slammed over 50 years of Islamophobia propaganda in just 7 lines, so much for “religion of murder or blood”
Dr.Haitham later state that preemptive jihad is for those who fight us when we spread the religion of god he states that there are 42 verses on jihad 40 defensive and 2 offensive
but later Hisham will do one more irrational thing, he will cite a Ph.D. thesis of a scholar on Jihad and political violence to make Islam look imperialist, but we shall see how he misquote this author on the same work
@10:04 Hisham state “there are more than 2 offensive verses on jihad, but that is all right, there is defensive jihad, and there is offensive jihad in Quran, Beautiful, what did sheikh of Islam said? brother Haitham doesn’t cite sources, doesn’t cite tafsirs nor does he cite explanation (accusing him of something you did yourself Hisham?) this is mentioned in book Majmu’ fatwa vol.28 page.354 and if the bases of jihad is fighting and based on that religion is for god, and god word is the highest , so whoever not commit to such duty is fought as agreed by all Muslims, those who are not among the groups that should not be killed like women and children and monks and elderly, and blind and sick and others like them are not killed by general consensus of scholars, except if he fight by words or actions , and some interpreted it even if some allowed killing of everyone just for disbelieving except women and children for them being money like property for Muslims, but the first interpretation is correct, because fighting is only for those who fight us if we wish to bring the religion of God as god said {Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.}2:190 and in sunnah so the context is not like how Haitham want us to know, that who doesn’t fight you you don’t fight, that is defensive jihad, this is defensive jihad, someone fight you you defend yourself , here it’s about offensive jihad, and offensive jihad is mentioned here (highlight portion of the book) meaning when you try and bring religion, but i won’t explain Ibn taymiya, so one one say i explain as i want, explain as i wish, i leave for you the words of Dr.Muhammad Khair Haikal in his book Jihad and fighting in sharia politics, the book is a PhD thesis page 1262 we read, and he mentions what Ibn Taymia mentions, and he says that in page 1261, and here in page 1262 he says “this is what ibn taymiah said as it’s made clear that Jihad is obligated to spread the rligion of god against all those who prevent it from spreading, and it’s obvius that we realize the idea that spreading the religion of god spread to other countreis , is the application of the system that god religion was built upon on these countries , and ruling will be by the hands of muslims on these countries to make that religion, and after that who remained in desbelive among the disbeleivers from countries of the infidels , and their hands was removed from goverment, no harm comes from his disbeleife , no in muslims and no in the counrty in that matter, but the harm of his disbelife comes back to him alone , and that is opposite of what will happen if the ruling remained in the hands of the infidels in infidel country, they apply the systems of disbelife , there is no space in saying here that muslims will apply the religion of god there and they see the religion of god is being ruled , and the religion of disbelife or it’s goverment is the ruller and in that case, if the men on goverment never handed over the goverment to muslims , by means of peace to apply the religion of god , then jihad is obligated on all those who prevented it from Kufar even if they didn’t start by attacking muslims that is the offensive Jihad , you ask the other countries to hand over the goverment so you rule by god sharia
well that seems damning isn’t it, in case you missed it the author gives us a hint that Hisham the Whataboutist walked over because he knew his audience are too stone headed to see it, infact the basic thing is to go the the dedicated chapter in that book regarding invasion of other countries where the author gives us the reasons to why Muslims should fight, read the following
“no harm comes from his disbelief , no in Muslims and no in the country in that matter, but the harm of his disbelief comes back to him alone, and that is opposite of what will happen if the ruling remained in the hands of the infidels in infidel country”let’s read carefully, the first sentence speaks about the harm of individual belief, where it states no harm to the belief of the disbeliever will come when he live in Muslim lands, but the opposite is true, that if a Muslim lives in nonmuslim land his life will be harmed directly
this gives us a hint at the chapter of vol.1 that Hisham glassed over
in Vol.1 Chapter 3
the author gives us on page 130 3 conditions where rebellion or overthrowing a regime based on disbelief is required or not where he details rogue rulers that also applies to Muslim ruler.
1-if the ruler himself announce disbelief
2-disbelief based on individuals of Muslim community like apostasy
3-the disbelief that is based on ruling system (this is our target here let’s explore what the author say)
on page 131
3-و أما دلالة الحديث عن المنازعة حالة قيام النظام على عقيدة الكفر فذلك لان النص الشرعي لم يحصر المنازعة لأصحاب السلطة في الكفر فقط بل قال : (.. الا ان تروا كفرا بواحا) رؤية الكفر تصدق على الكفر الذي يرى من الحاكم و تصدق على الكفر الذي يرى من غير الحاكم كما تصدق على الكفر الذي يرى في نضام الحاكم عندما يقوم على عقيدة الكفر و يجري فرضه على الناس
Translation:
3-for the evidence of hadith regarding the overthrow of a government based on disbelief, that because the sharia never made it exclusive for government in disbelief in what it said : (.. when you see public disbelife} seeing disbelief and witnessing disbelief from a ruler, and witnessing disbelief on others beside the ruler , as witnessing disbelief in governing system of the ruler and when it’s based on the ‘aqida of disbelief, and when it’s forced upon people
ah forced? sounds now like defensive jihad to me
let’s read more
بناء على هذا فبمجرد أمر الحاكم للناس بمعصية
based on that even when the ruler force people to commit sin
all these on the very chapter that address the issue of overthrowing governments and you Hisham glossed over all these statements that clearly state if the ruler forces people to commit sin (people here including Muslims) then he is to be overthrown, imagine if a country like Myanmar that is now oppressing the Rohingya Muslims and committing genocides and mass murder, if a Muslim country with power see this, based on the above statements they are obligated to intervene to save the oppressed Muslims
the same applies when a government forces Muslims to commit sins outside their religion they are then faced with jihad
not if a country or a ruler never prevent Muslims for doing their daily obligations as Muslims, on that case no need for jihad, if that was the case the world will be set on fire and Muslims from 50 countries will wage war
infact the above 3 line is enough to shut that insane rhetoric up
on the same chapter again on Issue six المبحث السادس القتال ضد انحراف الحاكم regarding fighting a roge ruller which also applies on page 117
و من انحرافات الحاكم : ان يسطو على افراد الأمة بالأيذاء من الضرب و تعذيب و مصادرة الأموال
Translation:
and among the deviation of a ruler: that he robs the members of the ummah, by harm or hitting or torture or confiscating money
that sounds a lot like Myanmar
on page 118 the author state that these deviations could also be applied to a Muslim ruler
in chapter 5 the author titled: the reasons for Jihad in Islam, the author get more specific as he differentiate between Dar al Islam and Dar al kufor page 682
Translation:
as for when it reaches harm on Muslims living in nonmuslim lands of nonmuslim countries, then this oppression might come from the government that these Muslims belong to.
and might come from the people of these countries they live in, and might be legislated from a foreign country.. and on all these, if the oppression is on Muslims then rescuing them is required
Jihad sounds that awful to you? why you didn’t read this Hisham? why do you misquote this author to make Islam look bad? how desperate you need to be?
in conclusion:
Hisham took a hadith out of context and strawmanned it, resorted to whataboutism, claimed that there is no punishment for killing a Dhimmi while not providing any evidence for this, proceeded to claim a hadith is weak when it's not while displaying incredible ignorance in hadith science, proceeding to ignoring ibn Taymiah debunking him and used a PhD thesis that if read in context shred his argument, proceeded to call tabari an ISIS member but if we see his opinion on 9:5 he debunks the last decades in Islamophobia in just 7 lines
Hisham took a hadith out of context and strawmanned it, resorted to whataboutism, claimed that there is no punishment for killing a Dhimmi while not providing any evidence for this, proceeded to claim a hadith is weak when it's not while displaying incredible ignorance in hadith science, proceeding to ignoring ibn Taymiah debunking him and used a PhD thesis that if read in context shred his argument, proceeded to call tabari an ISIS member but if we see his opinion on 9:5 he debunks the last decades in Islamophobia in just 7 lines
one of the worse atheists I have ever dealt with, incredibly condescending no sign of humbleness no accepting of defeat in any way shape or form, resorting to strawman after strawman red herring after red herring and quoting sources out of context
I usually never go emotional in my response, but if you have an argument try not to start your video by called muhammad an ISIS members without knowing how close he is to 1.7 billion people let alone not provide evidence for that statement, if you wish for a civilized discussion don't start with a pathetic insult to a prophetic figure
2 Shariah Mukhtasar alrawtha fi Usol alfiguh page.581
Monday, July 2, 2018
Shari Gaber What you don’t know about Quran, Much ado about nothing part-4
Note:
My apologies for the delay, important family issues, I decided to post Part-4 early due to inactivity in the blog, inshallah part-6 is possible depending on the amount of sources I'm dealing with.
Introduction:
We continue our discussion from part 3, where Sharif was so idiotic making the argument that since there is a Christian figure in the back of a coin and on the other side of it there are Islamic inscriptions, therefore that figure is the prophet, Muhammad, we continue our discussion here and show a simple example of a Byzantine coin that was later edited by Muslims to add their presence
Take a look at how the following coins changed
As you can see several inscriptions were later revamped and changed by adding Islamic inscriptions to it, it’s a way for Muslims to provide evidence of their presence, for more information please see the link cited above
@21:33 Sharif state “all that I want to tell you is that the history you were brought up with and thinking it’s Islamic history, that is not the real history, the real history is very vague”
wait for a second, so you first state the real history is not what we thought but later state it’s vague? make up your mind
wait for a second, so you first state the real history is not what we thought but later state it’s vague? make up your mind
Origins of Sharif Fairytales
@22:07sharif state “let’s take for example the story of Adam and Eve, when God created Adam and asked angles to prostrate to him after that Satan refused and said he is created from fire and Adam is created from clay I can’t prostrate to someone who is not the only level, after that the god was upset and exiled him from heaven, these events are not found chronologically in the bible so we can say Quran took it from him (oh goodness as if you will be right either way?) but it’s found the rabbinic literature (citing Louis Ginsberg book of Adam the Jewish encyclopedia a book mentioned by Robert Spencer) this rabbinic literature is not Torah so we can say god might have taken from his own old book, no, it’s a number of man-made legends made by men written before Islam by 300 years, meaning Quran literally took the stories of Adam and even from man-made stories”
So much nonsense with little to no proof, now the first problem we have is his assumption that any Jewish writing outside the bible is man made legends that never happened and the only correct events exist in the bible, if that is true then by the same logic hadith books which describe events outside Quran are also legends that never happened, and now by your logic you just dismissed 90% of all Islamic criticism that originally comes from hadith by logic of “anything outside the holy book is a legend that never happened”
Now it’s true there are legends written in Jewish literature but need to be differentiated from preserved sayings
His source state the following
“ADAM, BOOK OF:
The Talmud says nothing about the existence of a Book of Adam, and Zunz's widely accepted assertion to the contrary ("G. V." 2d ed., p. 136) is erroneous, as appears upon an inspection of the passage in 'Ab. Zarah, 5a, and Gen. R. xxiv. 2. There can be no doubt, however, that there existed at an early date, perhaps even before the destruction of the Second Temple, a collection of legends of Adam and Eve which have been partially preserved, not in their original language, but somewhat changed. It is possible to prove that the apocryphas, ApocalypsisMosis— as Tischendorf, following a copyist's erroneous inscription, called the book—and Vita Adæ et Evæ, and to a certain degree even their Slavonic, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Arabic offshoots are of identical Jewish origin. According to these apocryphal works and to the Eastern and Western forms of the Apocalypsis, the Jewish portion of the Book of Adam must have read somewhat as follows (the parallels in apocryphal and rabbinical literature are placed in parentheses):”
The story Sharif attribute to Quran is the following
“Satan thought the time opportune to carry out his evil designs against Adam. Satan hated Adam, for he regarded him as the cause of his fall. After God had created man, He ordered all the angels to prostrate themselves before Adam, but Satan rebelled against God's command, despite the direct bidding of Michael "to worship the image of YHW" (), and answered proudly: "If God be angry with me, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God" (compare Isa. xiv. 13). Whereupon God "cast him out from heaven with all his host of rebellious angels"
I have looked everywhere specifically for that literature couldn’t find one outside of Louis Ginsberg
But I did come close to finding the possible point of origin where the narration of angles asked to prostrate to Adam come from Pirke De-Rabbi Eliezer which is an aggadic-Midrashic work on the Torah, it has been passed preserved through generations
AGGADAH or HAGGADAH (Heb. הַגָּדָה, אַגָּדָה; "narrative"), one of the two primary components of rabbinic tradition, the other being Halakhah, usually translated as "Jewish Law" (see: Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind, 59f.).[1]
The story of Adam in the garden of Eden (the origin of the story of angles prostrating to him) is found there, and it’s one of the most important Jewish tradition as noted above
But forget about the origin of the story, Louis Ginzberg the source of sharif gabir himself composed4 volume books containing all Jewish legends, and do we find the story of angles prostrating to Adam there?
The following link is directed toward his 4 volume books
there we can trace the legend and find it
the closest we have is the following on chapter “the fall of Satan”
“in spite of the urgent representations of Michael, who was the first to prostrate himself before Adam in order to show a good example to the other angels”
“in spite of the urgent representations of Michael, who was the first to prostrate himself before Adam in order to show a good example to the other angels”
That is His Own source again refuting him, his own author, and nowhere is the story of angles prostrating themselves to Adam and Satan as result is exiled from heaven is found on these 4 massive volumes, how could anyone miss that
Dr.sami ‘Amiri in his book “does Quran borrow from Jewish and Christian texts?”
“Evidence from the old testament of the existence of lost religious texts:
Numbers 21:14 “Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the Lord what He did in the Red Sea and in the brooks of Arnon”
Joshua 10:13 “And the sun stood still and the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the Book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down for about a whole day.”[2]
An even Christian evangelist who is responding to the accusations that these are missing books from the bible state the following
هذا كان غالبًا سفرًا شعريًا يمتدح أعمال الله في عنايته بشعبه في البرية. وفي قيادتهم سالمين إلى كنعان، ولا يعرف عنه شيء غير الإشارة المذكورة هنا، وربما كتبه موسى نفسه
“and this is most likely a chapter regarding genesis in regards to how god prises his care to his people, and their leadership from salmin to clean, and nothing is known about it apart from this statement, and maybe Moses wrote it”[3]
Maybe Moses wrote it?
Well that is probably why the bible isn’t perfectly preserved and despite the fact that they admitted that they know nothing about it
Anyways I drifted away from the topic a bit, but what I’m trying to make access is that there are inscriptions that didn’t make it way to the bible, dr.sami ‘Amiri in that chapter dedicate his work to them and cites so many more examples from bible mouth
Now, in conclusion, Sharif and Robert Spence cited Louis Ginzberg as their source for the allegation of Quran borrowing from the Jewish legends, but when absorbed from him directly there is no mention of that story among his 4 volume dedicated books for Jewish legends, leading us to conclude that their source dismiss them
@22:50 Sharif cite the story of people of Sabbath in 2:65 {And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath, and We said to them, "Be apes, despised."} state the following: “the story of the people of sabbath that belong to the jews, the famous story, this story is found in Torah before Quran comes in before Quran comes in in thousands of years (shows a screenshot of the verses in the old testament) in Exodus chapter 16”
ok let’s see, he states that verse 2:65 of Quran copies Exodus 16, the following Bible verses are provided
“26 Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any.”
27 Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. 28 Then the Lord said to Moses, “How long will you[c] refuse to keep my commands and my instructions? 29 Bear in mind that the Lord has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where they are on the seventh day; no one is to go out.” 30 So the people rested on the seventh day.”
So comparing 2:65 of Quran, how does it copies exodus 16: 26-30?
Exudos 16:26-30 talks about the order of the Sabbath? The story in the bible talks about how Moses people broke their Sabbath on the seventh day and gathered bread breaking the Sabbath, Quran 2:65 talks about the inhabitants of Eilat, who broke the Sabbath and gone fishing, how is 2:65 borrowing from Exodus 16:26-30 is beyond me
How stupid you think your audience is sharif to pull such cheap tactic to deceive them?
@23:00 sharif state “or the story of the yellow caw that exists in chapter cow, this is found in the legends of the jews before Islam by hundreds of years”
goodness gracious, it says red heifer not yellow heifer and this is found in numbers in old testament Not Jewish legends?
goodness gracious, it says red heifer not yellow heifer and this is found in numbers in old testament Not Jewish legends?
“Numbers 19 New International Version (NIV) The Water of Cleansing 19 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: 2 “This is a requirement of the law that the Lord has commanded: Tell the Israelites to bring you a red heifer without defect or blemish and that has never been under a yoke “[4] (from your own screenshot)
how did you even confuse red cow with yellow cow sharif?
Never mind let’s take a look at your early source
Of all of the 4 volumes of The Legends of the Jews By Louis Ginzberg Literally, no chapter nowhere is yellow heifer or a yellow cow
First, you deceive your audience by citing a nonexistent correlation between 2:65 and excludes 16 now you switched red heifer with yellow and claimed numbers a book from the bible contain legends not ordained or inspired by God?
I take that back you are much more insane than I thought the more I dive into your video the more deceptive you appear, especially when you made up a hadith by Sahih Bukhari that doesn’t exist in Sahih Bukhari which we will address in the future when I finish your “video”
@23:10 Sharif state “or the story of Gog and Magog which people think it only exists in Islam only (what people?) this story is mentioned in the old testament and found in Syriac legends books apart from Jewish legends”
Wait, what? It exists in the bible but also as a Syriac legend? So either the Quran is borrowing from the bible or borrowing from Syriac legends, make up your mind, you can’t have it both ways
Now going back to “or the story of Gog and Magog which people think it only exists in Islam”
no one claimed ever that going and Magog only exist in Islam, care to point an example for that?
no one claimed ever that going and Magog only exist in Islam, care to point an example for that?
So we have here a claim from sharif where he doesn’t provide any evidence for, that Gog and Magog based on people thought only exist in Islam.
Never mind his source is the following “Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources: Sallam's Quest for Alexander's Wall” it’s found on the page.30 it states the following:
“Very early the vision was rendered into Greek (700-10) and from Greek into Latin (710-20).47 It became one of the most influential apocalyptic texts in Byzantium and in the Mediaeval West, also stimulating many non-apocalyptic writings.48 It is by this widespread transmission of Pseudo-Methodius that the story of Alexander's enclosure of Gog and Magog passed from Syriac into Greek and Latin Occidental literature. In other words: the motif of Alexander's iron gate as found in the Greek and Medieval Western versions of the Alexander Romance was borrowed and inspired by the Greek translation (second recension) of a Syriac text. Thus at the beginning of the 8th century, the Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo-Metlwdius has become the channel by which the motif of Alexander's barrier against Gog and Magog became known in the East as well as in the West. Some of the later Greek versions of the Alexander Romance”[5]
“Very early the vision was rendered into Greek (700-10) and from Greek into Latin (710-20).47 It became one of the most influential apocalyptic texts in Byzantium and in the Mediaeval West, also stimulating many non-apocalyptic writings.48 It is by this widespread transmission of Pseudo-Methodius that the story of Alexander's enclosure of Gog and Magog passed from Syriac into Greek and Latin Occidental literature. In other words: the motif of Alexander's iron gate as found in the Greek and Medieval Western versions of the Alexander Romance was borrowed and inspired by the Greek translation (second recension) of a Syriac text. Thus at the beginning of the 8th century, the Syriac Apocalypse of Pseudo-Metlwdius has become the channel by which the motif of Alexander's barrier against Gog and Magog became known in the East as well as in the West. Some of the later Greek versions of the Alexander Romance”[5]
Ok, now we see, the Wikipedia page (which sharif copied his source from) “The Pseudo-Methodius, written originally in Syriac, is considered the source of Gog and Magog tale incorporated into Western versions of the Alexander Romance”
But if we just read above the story was spread through it’s alteration from Syriac to greek in 710-20 in the 8th century so sharif is telling us Quran is borrowing from a source that was created after Quran was revealed? (I’m getting a TMA Alexander romance Deja vu here, did you Sharif decided to copy TMA and state Quran is borrowing from a source written after it?)
Indeed God and Magog predate Islam and Christianity and exist in the bible but to claim that a source from 8th century as admitted by Sharif own source is the original source for Quran when it was written after Quran? Can anyone take this seriously?
There are two versions of Gog and Magog narrative, one is a legend attributed to Alexander gate which is written (as seen above from Sharif own source) in the 8th century, the normal narrative lacking attribution to Alexander romance legend doesn’t hold the attribute of legend
Don’t take my word for it, take the words of his own source (Wikipedia) which should tell you the integrity of his research
“A legend was attached to Gog and Magog by the time of the Roman period, that the Gates of Alexander were erected by Alexander the Great to repel the tribe. Romanized Jewish historian Josephus knew them as the nation descended from Magog the Japhetite, as in Genesis, and explained them to be the Scythians. In the hands of Early Christian writers, they became apocalyptic hordes, and throughout the Medieval period variously identified as the Huns, Khazars, Mongols, or other nomads, or even the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.
The legend of Gog and Magog and the gates were also interpolated into the Alexander romances. In one version, "Goth and Magoth" are kings of the Unclean Nations, driven beyond a mountain pass by Alexander, and blocked from returning by his new wall. Gog and Magog are said to engage in human cannibalism in the romances and derived literature. They have also been depicted on Medieval cosmological maps or Mappa Mundi, sometimes alongside Alexander's wall.”[6]
@23:22 “or the story of Noah and the ship that, That famous legend was mentioned long before the 3 religions took it, The first mention of this story goes back to the year 1600 BC, More than 2200 years before the Islamic religion appears”
His source (which he doesn’t provide any footnote to) states the following “the oldest version the hero-king ziusudra and this version was inscribed around 1600 BCE in the Sumerian city of Nippur”
His source seems to come from this link
this source later link Wikipedia (again his source is Wikipedia we all saw how that turned out in god and Magog allegation)
“There are nine known versions of the Mesopotamian flood story, each more or less adapted from an earlier version. In the oldest version, inscribed in the Sumerian city of Nippur c.1600 BCE, the hero is King Ziusudra. This is known as the Sumerian Flood Story and probably derives from an earlier version. The Ziusudra version tells how he builds a boat and rescues life when the gods decide to destroy it. This remains the basic plot for several subsequent flood-stories and heroes, including Noah. Ziusudra's Sumerian name means "He of long life". In Babylonian versions his name is Atrahasis, but the meaning is the same. In the Atrahasis version, the flood is a river flood”[7]
“There are nine known versions of the Mesopotamian flood story, each more or less adapted from an earlier version. In the oldest version, inscribed in the Sumerian city of Nippur c.1600 BCE, the hero is King Ziusudra. This is known as the Sumerian Flood Story and probably derives from an earlier version. The Ziusudra version tells how he builds a boat and rescues life when the gods decide to destroy it. This remains the basic plot for several subsequent flood-stories and heroes, including Noah. Ziusudra's Sumerian name means "He of long life". In Babylonian versions his name is Atrahasis, but the meaning is the same. In the Atrahasis version, the flood is a river flood”[7]
now, fortunately, Wikipedia gives us a source (From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible) but with no page number to verify the claim
for a parallel between epic Gilgamesh story and bible is the following link[8]
however, let’s evaluate his argument while this is probably the only part of his video where he at least provides some historical truth
Premises:
· the epic of Gilgamesh speaks of a flood parallel to the story of the flood in the genesis
· the Bible provides a story of the flood that is parallel to the flood on the epic of Gilgamesh
· the Quran provides the same story
Conclusion: therefore, the Quran is not the word of god
This is the fallacy of Non sequitur
Premises are true on its own, but the conclusion doesn’t follow from them due to no proper inferring between premises and conclusion
@ 23:41 “Or the story of Cain and Abel, when Cain killed his brother Abel and killed him, Then the Quran said, "whoever kills a soul unless for a soul it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.. ..and whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely", The verse which many repeat it and take it as a sign for the mercy of Islam, And some upload it as a Facebook cover and beside it some red hearts, Fact is, the Quran isn't the source to neither the story nor the sentence itself, That sentence and the story were mentioned in a Jewish book named "Mishnah Sanhedrin", That book was written 400 years before Islam, a Jewish book that talked about the laws that the Israelis should live by, In chapter four that book talks about murder, And says that the Israelis shouldn't kill, especially an innocent person, Because by killing someone, you kill all the people who can be born because of him, And by forgiving him, you'd be saving all the people who will be born because of him, Then he gave the story of Cain and Abel as an example When Cain killed Abel he killed all the people who could've come from him, The story was taken from this book, And the evidence is that in the story of Cain and Abel in the Quran the "Israelis" were mentioned in the middle, Have you ever thought what's the relationship between the Israelis and Cain and Abel?!, You're talking about the story of creation and Cain and Abel, What does the Israelis have to do with any of this?!, The Israelis were mentioned because they're mentioned in that book, Where the advice was meant for the Israelis?, So those who copied that sentence in the Quran translated it and also advised the Israelis, The irony!”
No sharif I don’t see the irony, the irony is that you first misspelled “Mishnah Sanhedrin” (he spelled it Sanhedrian) the book is actually called not Sanhedrin
This is the source for his claim the following link[9]
If we check it out it turns out that the Quranic verse he is talking about is not even found there? Sharif again citing a source that doesn’t validate your claim? The story of Cain and Abel is found in Genesis 4:9-12
“9 And the Lord said unto Cain, “Where is Abel thy brother?” And he said, “I know not. Am I my brother’s keeper?”
10 And He said, “What hast thou done? The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me from the ground.
11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand.
12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength. A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be on the earth.””
So no sharif based on your saying “That sentence and the story were mentioned in a Jewish book named "Mishnah Sanhedrin"”
It does exist in the bible not originally in that book
Of course, the book does have that quote, it’s just sharif source doesn’t say so
The problem is that this commentary is false, Mishnah doesn’t say "whoever kills a soul unless for a soul it is as if he had slain mankind entirely, and whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely"
In fact the book specifically stated that the soul here is strict to Israel, using sharif own source of chapter 4 verse 5
The entire text is the following
“כֵּיצַד מְאַיְּמִין אֶת הָעֵדִים עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מֵאֹמֶד, וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד וּמִפִּי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שָׁמַעְנוּ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדֹּק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא כְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָדָם נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְקַיִן שֶׁהָרַג אֶת אָחִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ד) דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר דַּם אָחִיךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, שֶׁהָיָה דָמוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ. וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִין אוֹמְרִים, הַרְבֵּה רָשֻׁיּוֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם. וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר, בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ'. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (משלי יא) וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה:”
“כֵּיצַד מְאַיְּמִין אֶת הָעֵדִים עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מֵאֹמֶד, וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד וּמִפִּי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שָׁמַעְנוּ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדֹּק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא כְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָדָם נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְקַיִן שֶׁהָרַג אֶת אָחִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ד) דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר דַּם אָחִיךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, שֶׁהָיָה דָמוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ. וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִין אוֹמְרִים, הַרְבֵּה רָשֻׁיּוֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם. וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר, בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ'. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (משלי יא) וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה:”
Focus on this part
The problem is that the source Sharif provided is a mistranslation if you check verse 5 which where the alleged borrowing exists, the following text in Hebrew מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל translate to “from Israel” but the deceptive translation (probably deceptive) of the website he cited doesn’t say that anywhere, instead, it says
“to teach you that anyone who destroys a life is considered by Scripture to have destroyed an entire world”
Which is the false translation of Abraham Geiger
Abraham Geiger was the first one to come up with this allegation and he mistranslated the Hebrew text to make it align with Quran[10]
While Abraham Geiger was the first he later admitted that this allegation has no longer any importance[11]
So in conclusion, Abraham Geiger falsely translated the text to make it parallel to Quran, and was later published and made popular to social media, but when comparing the original text to English the text doesn’t bear direct resemblance to the verse
End of Part-4
[1]https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/aggadah-or-haggadah-jewish-virtual-library
[2]does Quran borrow from Jewish and Christian texts page.244
[3] The center for Christian printings – bible commentary vol.1 page.389
[4] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+19&version=NIV
[5] Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources: Sallam's Quest for Alexander's Wall page.30
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog_and_Magog
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark
[8] http://public.iastate.edu/~gbetcher/353/gilgfld.htm
[9] https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Sanhedrin.4.5?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
[10] Did Quran borrow from books of Jews and Christians (Arabic book) by doctor Sami ‘amiri page.186
[11] Ibid page.184
Tuesday, June 5, 2018
Upcomming articles in chronological order
Salam alikum here is a list of the articles coming up in chronological order
Sharif Gaber reply part-4
Sharif Gaber reply part-5
TMA request
Introduction to Jarih Wa Alta'dil science of hadith narrator criticism and revision
DTT article updated on Banu Qurayza
in the meantime feel free to ask me questions and I'll do my best to answer
Sharif Gaber reply part-4
Sharif Gaber reply part-5
TMA request
Introduction to Jarih Wa Alta'dil science of hadith narrator criticism and revision
DTT article updated on Banu Qurayza
in the meantime feel free to ask me questions and I'll do my best to answer
Friday, May 25, 2018
Introduction to mustalah Alhadith (the terminology of Hadith)
Today we will tackle the principle and the most basic and simple one of them and for those of you who read Arabic to read regarding hadith terminology which can be accessed via http://waqfeya.com/index.php
Hadith and Athir ألأثر Main division
You probably already know what Hadith is but for the sake of argument, Hadith is whatever narrated words that are attributed to the prophet of words or saying or action, however, Athir literally means trace is whatever narration that was attributed to any of the companions or sahabah rather than the prophet himself
Sanad and matin متن
By this point you probably already know aswell what sanad is, but most of you are probably unaware of what Matin is
Sanad is the chain of narrators connected to Matin
Matin متن is the body text of the hadith
Qawa’id: are the rules in which sanad and matin are based upon, which we will deal with later
Mutawater and Ahad
Hadith is divided in authenticity in two parts, Mutawater متوتر, and Mufrad مفرد
Mutawater : what has been narrated by large quantity of narrators that it’s impossible for them to lie.
Mutawater : what has been narrated by large quantity of narrators that it’s impossible for them to lie.
As the definition state, it’s nearly impossible for the narrators of mutawater to lie, as it’s the highest form of authenticity among sahih catagories
Mutawater has two types however
Mutawater Laphthi لفضي, and mutawater ma’nawi معنوي
1- Mutawater Laphthi: is what it’s meaning and spelling have been considered mutawater
2- Mutawater ma’nawi: is what had it’s meaning considered mutawater without spelling
Ahad الأحاد
Ahad is divided into two categories Maqbol مقبول (accepted), Mardud (da’if weak) and mushtarak bain maqbul wa mardud (shared between accepted and weak)
And it’s divided based on it's type to three types:
‘aziz precious: it’s narrators are not less than two people
Gharib Strange: it’s the hadith that has one narrator
Mashhor Famous: what has been narrated by more than three but never reach the level of Mutawater Greatness
It’s divided into two subcategories
1. based on its rank
2. based on an act or not based on it
1. based on it’s rank :Sahih, Hasan
Sahih: what had its sanad connected with no abnormality no doubt and it has two types
Sahih for its own
Sahih Based on another: and it’s hasan based on its own merit if it was narrated by another stronger than it
Hasan it’s sahih but with less strength
it has two types aswell
it has two types aswell
Hasan based on it’s own
hasan based on another: it’s the weak hadith based on weakness not on narrators nature to lie and deceive, but was authenticated by another Hadith based on the same matin
hasan based on another: it’s the weak hadith based on weakness not on narrators nature to lie and deceive, but was authenticated by another Hadith based on the same matin
Based on an act or not based on it
and it’s subdivided into three categories:
1. Hadith Muhkam
2. Mukhtalaf alhadith
3. Nasikh and mansukh
Hadith Muhkam accepted: the accepted hadith that is cleared from any flaw
Mukhtalaf alhadith differentiated: accepted hadith but has differentiated opinion about it, but can be gathered together
Nasikh and Mansukh abrogated: what the ruling have been lifted off, the hadith that is revealed earlier is abrogated by the one that is revealed later
Mardod (Da’if weak) is one of the Ahad subcategories and contain many subcategories dedicated to be divided based on either hadith alone or narrator weakness
Da’if: what has lost one of the conditions of acceptance in hadith
And it’s subdivided to two categories
1- What is considered Weak duo to Sanadand it’s subdivided to two:
· Saqat thahir (what is unhidden in it’s weakness)
And it’s subdivided to 4 categories
1- Mu’alaq hanged: what fallen from it’s isnad a narrator or more on parallel
2- Mursal disconnected: what had one of it’s narrators disconnected
3- Mu’thal problematic: what had two of it’s narrators fallen
4- Munqati’ disconnected from the rest: what it’s sanad didn’t connect to the rest
· What has been considered weak due to hidden failure
And it’s divided to 4 subcategories aswell:
AlMudalas deceptive: what appear to be hasan but has a hidden flaw
Almursal Alkhifi hidden disconnected: what narrated from other narrators who he never heard of
Almursal Alkhifi hidden disconnected: what narrated from other narrators who he never heard of
Almuanan by : when a narrator says “we were told by someone that someone”
Almu’anan from: when a narrator says “from this narrator and this narrator”
2- what has been considered weak due to a flaw with the narrator
and it’s has 10 different classifications
Mawtho’ falsely inserted: what has been falsely attributed to the prophet
Matruk lefted: what had one narrator fall to criticism
Munkar denied: what has been narrated by someone considered Da’if , and had a narrator exposed as weak and bad at memorization
Alm’alal: what had been considered flawed but is not apparent to do so
Almudraj: what had part of it’s narration inserted in it without any good
Ma wothif lil sanad almutasil (what has been added to sanad that is connected): an extra narrator in a chain of narration that appears to be valid
Shath abnormal: what has been narrated by someone who is trustworthy in contrast to what the rest of trusted narrators cite
Mushaf inserted to the text: what had words in it changed in contrast to what trustworthy stated either by saying or meaning
Muthtardib unbalanced: what has been narrated by many trusted forms but are different to one another that makes you feel the narrator is not will be coordinated
Maqlub fliped: what had a narrator or matin replaced it by another either forward or backward
mushtarak bain maqbul wa mardud (shared between accepted and weak)
this category basicly makes the claim that some defintions and terms of Ahad can be shared between weak and accepted, merely as catagories and not as difinate scale of authenticity
there are two types for it
· based on what has been narrated to it:
1- Alhadith Alqudsi (the prophetic hadith) : what has ben narrated to us from prophet Muhammad by isnad chain for god
2- Almawquf held: what has been added to a sahabi companion of a saying or act or such
3- Marfu’ attributed to: what has been inserted to the prophet from act or saying or attributes
4- Almaqtu’ disconnected: what has been attributed to a tabi’I follower from act or saying without him saying it
· Other types:
1- Almusnad attributed to the prophet: what had it’s chain of narration attributed to the prophet as connected
2- mutabi’ followed: the hadith that is in agreement to what the follower said
3- Shahid witnessed: a hadith that is in agreement with the singular narrator but with a difference of companion
4- Mutasil connected: what had it chain connected regardless if it was Marfu’ or Mauqof
5- Ziada ila al thiqat extra trust: what it’s trust worth have been increased due to other trusted sources mentioning it
Credit to doctor Abdul Qadir Ja’far for his works have aided me in my studies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)