Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Absolute truth

IF Guardian
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Absolute truth

  1. Atheists Are Hypocrites

    Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm” Dawkins highlights a weakness in Atheist philosophy. Namely, its inability to define morality outside of whatever is popular in the status quo’ By KATIE MCDONOUGH (reported in Salon) The biologist and author described the sexual abuse that occurred among his former classmates as “mild touching up” In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.” Dawkins went on to say that one of his former school masters “pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts,” and that to condemn this “mild touching up” as sexual abuse today would somehow be unfair. “I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today,” he said. Plus, he added, though his other classmates also experienced abuse at the hands of this teacher, “I don’t think he did any of us lasting harm.” Child welfare experts responded to Dawkins’ remarks with outrage — and concern over their effect on survivors of abuse. As noted by the Religion News Service, Peter Watt, director of child protection at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, called Dawkins’ defense of sexual assault “a terrible slight” to victims of such abuse. “Mr. Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way,” Watt continued. “But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.” http://thedebateinitiative.com/2014/06/04/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-says-it-does-not-cause-lasting-harm/
  2. Boko Haram In Africa

    “Boko Haram” and the Culture of Coercive Disapproval By Asadullah Ali “Boko Haram” is some group somewhere in Africa doing something wrong while claiming to be Islamic. That’s about as much I knew or cared to know when I heard the news of some school girls being kidnapped. Not that I’m unsympathetic, but I didn’t much think it had anything to do with me or what I believed — naturally then, my interests would go no further than thinking this a horribly immoral act and hoping justice would be delivered by the proper authorities in the region. However, much to my dismay, I and the rest of the Muslim world are routinely called upon to denounce acts of violence in the name of Islam, for no other reason than the fact that we are somehow responsible. And this is why I refuse to speak out; I should not be held responsible in any way for the actions and beliefs of others simply because we share the same label. By proxy, I refuse to give in to a narrative perpetuated by a culture of coercive disapproval, which threatens to place me in the same camp as extremists simply because they do not happen to hear my voice of opposition every time the media decides to highlight another act of violence in the middle east or elsewhere. Every time I stand up and say “that’s not me”, I am implicitly giving in to the idea that I am never free to define myself; I am never free of guilt. Always having to defend myself is not indicative of a free identity, but of a person on trial, whose jury doesn’t operate on the principle of “innocent until proven otherwise.” The fact is, that while there are certainly many acts being perpetuated in the name of Islam, Islam has little to nothing to do with much of anything in this day and age: whether positive or negative. The truth is out there for all to see. The Islamophobes and the critics will continuously point to the “Islamic countries” and their problems, claiming that “Sharia” is what rules over those populations, but anyone with a bit of common sense and Google will see otherwise: Sharia rules over nothing. All “Islamic countries” are governed by civil law; even the supposedly strictest nations, Saudi Arabia, a juristic monarchy, and Iran, a Platonist styled philosopher king republic, are concepts unheard of in the history of a traditional Islamic polity. “One-law-for-all” was never a concept that the Sharia applied, nor was voting ever something implemented on a mass scale. The Sharia was also always tied to a specific madhab (school of thought), whereas in Saudi Arabia, jurists bypass many rulings in favor of corporate-cratic kings who prefer holding hands with Western power elites in exchange for petro-dollars. This fact also exposes another truth that Islamophobes and liberalist fascists might find shockingly embarrassing: for the most part, secular principles rule this world. Calls to “police” or otherwise control our own fellow Muslims are calls to vigilantism; the very thing these “vanguards of freedom” often chastise terrorists and insurgents for. Most Muslims are civilians under a secular state; the only people who need to do policing are the police. Apparently, this logic isn’t enough for the phobes and fascists to understand, because it’s unworthy of justifying scapegoating people for their own problems– faltering economies and over-inflated military industrial complexes hell-bent on importing democracy to the rest of the world at the expense of thousands of lives and domestic grievances. Perhaps it would be overkill to mention that these same polities, considered as beacons of civilization, are the ones funding the very countries that produced the cave-dwelling terrorists to begin with; black gold and the Sauds luxuries are apparently worth more than the 3000+ lives taken on September 11, 2001. In the end, the people who should be speaking out and running checks on their own societies, are those that believe in “a government by the people, for the people”. Boko Haram is not my government, nor is it part of my government, but I can think of many governments and its people that make Boko Haram look far more appealing.
  3. Boko Haram In Africa

    They are misguided.
  4. Any Source To Reply To Atheist ?

    salam alaikum on..
  5. Tour With The Darwinists !

    This topic is for miscellaneous darwinism-related information in sha Allah.. Don't you understand how microbes turned to humans ???!!!! You need to educate yourself on biology... Wait ! http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world. But it’s a Fact Anyway ?!
  6. Atheists Are Hypocrites

    The megapixel count of the eye is still a rough estimate, it does not take into consideration many other factors such as the focal length, the dynamic range, light sensitivity, stability etc. Which no doubt prove the eye far superior than any other camera. Incomparable. Glory be to Allah the creator.
  7. Tour With The Darwinists !

  8. Why Did Muhammed's Scribe Think He Was A Fraud?

    Abdullah reverted to Islam; Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh: Where Is the Truth? Peace be upon those who follow the guidance: This article is meant to answer the claims put forward by the Christian missionaries. The author of that article claims that Abdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh, one of the scribes of the Prophet Muhammad(P), has contributed to the Qur'ânic text. Let us examine the references used by the author to support his claims and sort out his arguments in the light of famous Islamic resources. The author of the criticism says: Sarh left Islam and lived in Mecca. Some time later, Muhammad and his army moved on Mecca and took it without a fight. Then in the passage quoted from the translation of Sîrat Rasulillah, he went on saying about Ibn Abî Sarh: then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh [Mecca] He also reported from al-Baidawî commenting on the the verse 6:93 that the reason that triggered apostasy of cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh was the revelation of the verse 23:12. The following is the translation of Baidawî's report proposed by the critic: 'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to him" refers to 'Abdullah Ibn Sâd Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached the part that says, "... thereafter We produced him as another creature (23:14), 'Abdullah said, "So blessed be God the fairest of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The Prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed." 'Abdullah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar, what I said is a good as what he said." The above claim can be summed up as follows: cAbdullâh was one of the scribes of the Prophet(P). Upon the revelation of the verse 23:12 and his anticipation on the end of the verse 23:14, he thought that he received the revelation as much as the Prophet(P) and he doubted in the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad(P). Therefore, he apostatized and returned to Quraysh [Mecca] where he sought refuge. Apostacy of Ibn Sarh This article is meant to answer the claims put forward by the Christian missionaries. The author of that article claims that cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh, one of the scribes of the Prophet Muhammad(P), has contributed to the Qur'ânic text. Let us examine the references used by the author to support his claims and sort out his arguments in the light of famous Islamic resources. The author of the criticism says: Sarh left Islam and lived in Mecca. Some time later, Muhammad and his army moved on Mecca and took it without a fight. Then in the passage quoted from the translation of Sîrat Rasulillah, he went on saying about Ibn Abî Sarh: then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh [Mecca] He also reported from al-Baidawî commenting on the the verse 6:93 that the reason that triggered apostasy of cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh was the revelation of the verse 23:12. The following is the translation of Baidawî's report proposed by the critic: 'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to him" refers to 'Abdullah Ibn Sâd Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write for God's messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, "We created man of an extraction of clay" was revealed, and when Muhammad reached the part that says, "... thereafter We produced him as another creature (23:14), 'Abdullah said, "So blessed be God the fairest of creators!" in amazement at the details of man's creation. The Prophet said, "Write it down; for thus it has been revealed." 'Abdullah doubted and said, "If Muhammad is truthful then I receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar, what I said is a good as what he said." The above claim can be summed up as follows: cAbdullâh was one of the scribes of the Prophet(P). Upon the revelation of the verse 23:12 and his anticipation on the end of the verse 23:14, he thought that he received the revelation as much as the Prophet(P) and he doubted in the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad(P). Therefore, he apostatized and returned to Quraysh [Mecca] where he sought refuge. Apostacy of Ibn Sarh In the beginning of our study, we have to determine whether he apostatized before the Hijrah, i.e., in Mecca or after the hijrah, i.e., in Medina. The author of the criticism says that cAbdullâh returned to Quraysh [Mecca] and the word he put between [ ] implies that he returned to Mecca. As a matter of fact, there is an entire science dedicated to the study of the life of the companions of the Prophet and the later generations of Muslims who were involved in the transmission of hadîth. This science is called cIlm al-Rijâl (i.e., the Science of the Folk). One of the biggest references in that field is Usûd Ulghâbah fi Ma'rifat Is-Sahâbah by Ibn al-Athîr. In the entry concerning cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh we find the following: The above excerpt reads: He converted to Islam before the conquest of Mecca and immigrated to the Prophet(P) [i.e. in Medina]. He used to record the revelation for the Prophet(P) before he apostatized and went back to Mecca. Then he told Quraysh: 'I used to orient Muhammad wherever I willed, he dictated to me "All-Powerful All-Wise" and I suggest "All Knowing All-Wise" so he would say: "Yes, it is all the same."[1] From the above quotations of Usûd Ulghâbah, no doubt remains concerning the conversion of cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh: he embraced Islam after the Hijrah and joined the Muslims in Medina. Thus, his apostasy occurred later which means it occurred in Medina. cUlûm al-Qur'ân & Revelation The "Science of Qur'ân" (in Arabic cUlûm al-Qur'ân) has fortunately conveyed lots of valuable details about the revelation of the Holy Qur'ân including the reason of the revelation (in Arabic Asbâb un-Nuzûl which is usually a certain event that motivated the revelation of some verses of the Qur'ân) and even the places where such and such verse or chapter of the Qur'ân were revealed to the Prophet(P). Note that the verses revealed in Mecca are called Meccan verses and the ones revealed in Medina are called Medinite verses. The main reference used in this article as to cUlûm al-Qur'ân is Al-Itqân fî cUlûm il-Qur'ân by Jalaluddîn al-Suyûtî. Concerning Chapter 6 (from which the verse 6:93 is quoted), many reports support the fact that it was entirely revealed in Mecca. They also go on saying that this Chapter was escorted by 70,000 angels when Gabriel carried it down to the Prophet(P). Refer to Al-Itqân, Section 13: What was revealed scattered and what was revealed in one unit,[2]. One may also refer to Al-Itqân, Section 14: What was revealed with an escort and what was revealed alone[3]. Consequently, the opinion the verse 6:93 addressed cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh falls flat on its face. Many commentators convey reports that the revelation of the verse 6:93 addressed Musaylamah al-Kadhdhâb of al-Yamâmah and al-'Ansy of Yemen, both of them having claimed prophethood at that time. For the sake of completeness, we will quote some more information given in Al-Itqân. According to Ibn as-Salâh in his Fâtawi: The report that conveys the revelation of Chapter 6 entirely in one unit was given from the way of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, it is weak in its isnâd (i.e. the chain of narration), and I have never seen a trustful (Sahih) isnâd for this tradition. Many traditions even said the contrary i.e. several verses of Chapter 6 were revealed later in Medina. They differed on the number of these verses whether they are 3 or 6 or some other number, and God knows best.[4] So, some reports concerning Chapter 6 classify several verses as Medinite verses. These reports differed on the number of verses: a report on the authority of Ibn cAbbas excludes 3 verses (6:151 to 6:153), others say 6 verses (the previous ones + 6:91 + 6:93 & 6:94- they also say that the last two verses concern Musaylamah). Other reports exclude two verses only, for example 6:20 & 6:114. They also differ on Asbâb un-Nuzûl of the verses excluded as they either concern Musaylamah or a Jewish Rabbi of Medina or other reasons. So, not withstanding what is said in the previous paragraph, we will not close the case yet because of the slight doubt about Asbâb un-Nuzûl of verse 6:93. According to the critic, the revelation of verse 23:12 and the amazed anticipation of cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh on the end of verse 23:14 triggered his apostasy. Many books about the cUlûm al-Qur'ân have made an accurate classification of the Chapters and verses that were revealed in Mecca (those are called Meccan verses or Chapters), and the ones revealed in Medina (those are called Medinite). According to Al-Itqân, we learn that the full Chapter 23 (i.e., Sûrat al-Mu'minûn) is Meccan. Refer to pages 17-21 where many reports confirm the revelation of Chapter 23 in Mecca with no exception of any single verse.[5] Obviously, this report quoted from al-Baidawi is a gross fabrication since cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh embraced Islam after the revelation of Chapter 23. When we add to the above the fact that the full quotation from al-Baidawî was not put forward by the critic even when we asked for it, and given the fact that the reports are stated without the chains of transmission, the authentication of such a report is impossible. Moreover, a comparison to other commentaries of the Qur'ân (such as the commentaries of al-Qurtubî[6] and at-Tabarî[7]) mentioning the same report provide disrupted chains of transmission. That is why the claim of the critic based on the report of al-Baidawî looses conclusively all its value. What Does Sirah Of al-cIraqî Actually Say? Now let us look into the argument quoted from Is the Qur'ân Infallible? by cAbdullâh cAbd al-Fad. The translation provided by the critic is: The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. 'Abdullah Ibn Sarh al-`Amiri was one of them, and he was the first Quraishite among those who wrote in Mecca before he turned away from Islam. He started saying, "I used to direct Muhammad wherever I willed. He would dictate to me 'All-Powerful, All-Wise' [the critic has wrongly translated 'Aziz by Most-High which is in Arabic 'Aliyy, it seems that he confused it with the previous word 'Alayya which means "to me"], and I would write down 'All-Wise' only. Then he would say, 'Yes it is all the same'. On a certain occasion he said, 'Write such and such', but I wrote 'Write' only, and he said, 'Write whatever you like.'" So when this scribe exposed Muhammad, he wrote in the Qur'an, "And who does greater evil than he who forges against God a lie, or says, 'To me it has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to him." The rest of the English translation go further than what is stated in Arabic, so we will not quote it here. However, it is available at the original site. The above argument is presented by the critic as a "quotation from as-Sîrah by al-'Iraqî". First of all, there are many people by the name of al-'Iraqî but the author does not say which al-cIraqî is mentioned here. Fortunately, God guided us to the source of this claim: Alfiyyat us-Sîrat in-Nabawiyyah by al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî. In fact, al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî has wrote the Sîrah in a piece of poetry of 1000 verse called Alfiyyat us-Sîrat in-Nabawiyyah. Here is the relevant quotation:[8] In the first verse of the above quotation (i.e. verse 780 in the poem), al-Hâfidh al-'Iraqî starts by saying that the scribes of the Prophet(P) were 42. Obviously, this detail links Alfiyyat us-Sîrat in-Nabawiyyah to the argument stated by the critic. The above quotation consists of twelve verses mentioning various scribes of the Holy Qur'ân among the most known. cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh is not mentioned yet. In the verse 786, al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî says: And I added from various accounts on Sîrah a lot of people, it is for you to verify and check. This means clearly that not all that is mentioned is to be taken blindly. Al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî is making a simple compilation of what he found leaving the verification for the reader. Then al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî goes on with his list: In verses 796 to 798, al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî says: They mentioned three who wrote [for the Prophet] and apostatized: Ibn Abî Sarh and Ibn Khatal and another one whose name is unknown. No one of them returned to the religion [Islam] except Ibn Abî Sarh while the others strayed from the right path. A minimum of objectivity is enough to understand that al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî does not back up such claims. He is merely reporting accounts and asks the people interested in them to take upon themselves the burden of verification. When we give a second look to the argument of the critic, we see clearly that he is putting words in the mouth of al-cIraqî. He is using the passage al-cIraqî himself doubts in the tone of established facts. This is called twisting facts to serve one's goal. It has nothing to do with objectivity, let alone the claimed honesty or the quest of the Truth. Al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî in his Alfiyyat us-Sîrat in-Nabawiyyah does not assert for sure that cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh was a scribe of the Prophet(P). He also states clearly that the scribes who apostatized had gone astray. Therefore, he cannot contradict himself by saying what the critic is putting in his mouth. Consequently, in the absence of the source of such claims, we dismiss this argument unless the critic provides us with its source stated fully and correctly. Discussion 1) What do we know about cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh? He embraced Islam after the Hijrah while Muslims were living in Medina. We don't know the year exactly. He probably had the opportunity to write for the Prophet(P). He apostatized but the reason stated in many accounts (i.e. verse 23:12) is not consistent because it goes against many established reports in the cUlûm al-Qur'ân. He returned to Islam and was a good Muslim. Indeed, here is what is said about him quoted in the commentary of al-Qurtubî[9]: For the convenience of our non-Arabic speaking audience, the full translation to English of the above report is also available. In the above quotation, we read a similar report to Baidawî's. However, the report gives more details about cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh. Indeed, the report says: According to Abû Omar, "cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh converted back to Islam during the conquest of Mecca and his Islam was fine, and later, his behavior was beyond reproach. He was among the wise and the noble from Quraysh, and was the knight of Banî 'Aamir Ibn Lu'ayy was respected among them. Later, 'Uthmân named him to govern Egypt in the year 25 H. He conquered Africa in the year 27 H and conquered Nuba in the year 31 H and he was the one who signed with the Nubites the armistice that is still valid today. He defeated the Romans in the battle of as-Sawaary in the year 34 H. When he returned from his advent, he was prevented from entering al-Fustât [the capital of Egypt], so he went to 'Asqalân where he lived until the murder of cUthmân®. It was also said: he lived in Ramlah until he died away from the turmoil. And he prayed Allah saying: "O Allah make the prayer of subh the last of my deeds. So he performed wudu and prayed; he read Surat al-Fâtihah and al-'Aadiyât in the first rak'ah and read al-Fâtihah and another sûrah in the second rak'ah and made salâm on his right and died before he made salâm on the left side. All this report was conveyed by Yazîd Ibn Abî Habîb and others. He didn't pledge allegiance to cAlî nor to Mu'âwiyah (RR). His death was before the people agreed on Mu'âwiyah. It was also said that he died in Africa, but the correct is that he died in 'Asqalân in the year 36 H or 37 H and it was rather said 36 H. In a nutshell, Ibn Abî Sarh embraced Islam after the Muslims had immigrated to Medina. He took the trouble to migrate to Medina where he became one of the scribes of the Prophet. For an unknown reason, he apostatized and went back to Mecca. He is supposed to have told the Meccans that he changed the Qur'ân according to his own will. This seems to be very predictable for someone in his situation seeking the favours of the Meccans whom he betrayed not a long time before. Then the above report states what is reported in Sîrat Rasulillah and in at-Tabaqât al-Kabîr as well: cAbdullâh was among the bunch that had to be executed but he could benefit of cUthmân's intercession and he kept his life safe. Though the beginning of his Islam was unstable (he migrated then apostatized then converted back to Islam in a very short time), he became a good Muslim and was even made the commander of Muslim troops. A report conveyed by 'Ikrimah in the commentary of at-Tabarî about verse 6:93 says that 'Abdullah Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh converted back to Islam before the conquest of Mecca by the Prophet(P).[10] This means that he converted back to Islam willingly without the shadow of any pressure. Of course, like all the reports involved in this case, the transmission of this report is disrupted. 2) Did cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh contribute to the Qur'ân? There is no factual proof for such a horrendous claim. The claim about Chapter 23 proved to be a fabrication because it was revealed before cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh became a Muslim. If we take into account the most admitted opinion among the Qur'ânic scholars, the entirety of Chapter 6 is Meccan. Consequently, the verse 6:93 is not revealed in regard of Ibn Abî Sarh but rather in regard of Musaylamah and al-'Ansy and more generally in regard of anyone who claims prophethood falsely. Moreover, if the scribes were allowed to contribute to the Qur'ân, how can the critic explain that among the 42 scribes there is only one (cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh) who was bothered about it? Didn't the others feel uneasy about such a thing if it ever happened? Of course, it is out of the question that the Prophet of God(P) allow such contribution because it is claimed many times in the Qur'ân that the Holy Book is dictated upon revelation and any contribution to it must be of divine inspiration. 3) The author of the criticism asks: If this story about Sarh were a fabrication, why did so many early Muslim writers document it? Certainly devout Muslims would not document a lie that serves to undermine their faith. This is the best question raised in the whole argument. Its answer is implied in the quotation of al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî in his Alfiyyat us-Sîrat in-Nabawiyyah. Many of the early writers were concerned by the compilation only. Fearing that the material available could be lost, they collected whatever reports they could find without authenticating them. They left the authentication process to the following generations as it is clearly stated in the following excerpt of Alfiyyat us-Sirat in-Nabawiyyah by al-Hâfidh al-cIraqî: In the verses 5 & 6, he says: Let the seeker of knowledge know that Sîrah collects every account whether true or false. But the intention is to mention all that is conveyed in the books of Sîrah regardless of the isnaad. (i.e., the authenticity of the chains of narration) A devout Muslim does not need to twist the facts to protect his faith especially when an authentication process existed even in the early stages of Islam. A whole Science is concerned with the reliability of the narrators based on their life and their moral values. That is why many people could compile many reports leaving the authentication procedure to the ones who followed them. In reality, if all the early scholars cared about authenticating every report they heard of, a lot of the material available today would be lost. Unlike Muslims, some people, unaware of the Science of Hadîth and the "Knowledge of the Folk" when venturing into the Islamic references alone without a teacher, encounter great hardship digesting all the material available. Others, more wicked, use the same characteristic of the early references to lead innocent people astray. But, with God's help and protection, their dark plans are always unveiled. As for the author of the critic, we would rather refrain from classifying him in either category. The readership may judge him and only God can tell what his real intentions are. 4) If cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh really deserved to be executed according to a Law, why did the Prophet(P) accept the intercession of cUthmân? This is a trick question. However, it also shows that the author of the criticism is either ignorant in the field of Islamic Law or his goal is to deceive as many people as he can. In terms of Islamic Law, there are two categories of crimes. The ones named by God (such as murder, theft, fornication etc.) to which He defined the proper punishment "Hudood"(the singular is 'Hadd'). And the ones not named by God, their evaluation and their punishment (called ta'dhîr) are left for the judgment of the sovereign. Provided that the reports of Sîrat Rasulillah and at-Tabaqât al-Kabîr are correct, the case of cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh is simply about the sovereign (Prophet Muhammad(P)) making a decree against a criminal (cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh) then upon the intercession of a third party (cUthmân Ibn 'Affân), the sovereign agrees to give amnesty to the criminal. Given that the punishment is originally left to the sovereign, a subsequent change in the judgment especially forgiveness cannot be criticized. Conclusions After the above study, the claims that the Holy Qur'ân has been tainted by Ibn Abî Sarh do not hold water. One thing is sure. We do not know a lot about the beginning of the faith of Ibn Abî Sarh. It was apparently unstable. However, later, he converted back to Islam and his faith was beyond reproach. The question raised about the change in the judgment concerning Ibn Abî Sarh denotes of real ignorance of the Islamic Law or a crooked intention of deception. If the goal behind that criticism was the quest of the Truth, then by God's will the above elaboration is likely to be enough for the author of the criticism to retract it. And Allah knows best. Acknowledgements We would like to express our deep gratitude to Brother Khalid from the Emirates for his effective contribution to this article and for providing us with a lot of material and fruitful ideas. May Allah reward him for his good deeds. References [1] Ibn al-Athîr, Usûd Ulghâbah fî Ma'rifat Is-Sahâbah, 1995, Dâr al-Fikr, Beruit (Lebanon), Volume 3, p. 154. [2] Jalaluddîn as-Suyûtî, Al-Itqân fî cUlûm il-Qur'ân (In Two Volumes), 1987, First Edition, Dâr al-Kutub al-cIlmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), p. 82. [3] as-Suyûtî, Op.Cit, p. 83-85. [4] as-Suyûtî, Op.Cit,, p. 82. [5] as-Suyûtî, Op.Cit,, p. 17-21. [6] al-Qurtubî, Al-Jâmic li Ahkâm Il-Qur'ân, Volume 7, page 40-41, Available online. [7] Abû Jacfar Muhammad bin Jarîr al-Tabarî, Jâmic ul-Bayân fî Tafsîr Il-Qur'ân, 1986, Volume 5, published by Wizârat ul-Ma'rifah (The Ministry of Education), Beirut, Lebanon, Available online. [8] Hafiz Zainuddîn cAbdurrahîm al-cIraqî, Alfiyyat us-Sîrat in-Nabawiyyah (attached to the book of as-Sîrah an-Nabawiyyah of Ibn Hisham), 1998 (Second Print), Dâr al-Fikr, Beirut (Lebanon), Volume 4, p. 299. [9] al-Qurtubî, Op.Cit, [10] al-Tabarî, Op.Cit,
  9. Does The Quran Misunderstand The Trinity?

    Idols are cast down by a priest:
  10. Evolution Of Man

    It's darwinists' problem not ours. Their conjecture of them having common ancestor with bacteria is funny & not testable. Your line of reasoning also commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Here’s why. Evolutionists claim: "If evolution is true, we would expect to see similarities in genomes. We do see similarities. Therefore, evolution is true." This conclusion may not be true — there are other explanations for similarities in genomes, such as a common designer. To escape their argument being labelled as a fallacy, evolutionists might substitute the conclusion "therefore, evolution is true" with "therefore, evolution is probably true". But this is also fallacious. We could say: "If the moon is made of Swiss cheese, it will have large depressions. The moon has large depressions. Therefore, the moon is probably made of Swiss cheese." Adding ‘probably’ to the conclusion does not change it from being fallacious as it still commits the fallacy of Hasty generalization. Darwinists come to muslims forum to beg them to "believe" that they were initially microbes, Great !
  11. Evolution Of Man

    False. http://creationrevolution.com/2011/11/vitamin-c-loss-is-not-evolution’s-gain/ http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/larry-moran-vitamin-c-pseudogene-is.html http://creation.com/potentially-decisive-evidence-against-pseudogene-shared-mistakes http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/junk.html For the "extra evidence" of chromosome 2: http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740321-dna-chromosomes-proof-of-evolution/?p=1271286
  12. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    Conclusion: The crucifixion of Jesus is a tale that is indeed fascinating and quite fitting for a bedtime story and can be safely placed in the fiction section in any library or bookstore. We are satisfied with concluding that the cumulative 9 contentions proposed in this critique soundly and sufficiently disprove the tale of Jesus' crucifixion as historical fact and it should instead be called the CRUCIFICTION(coined by the late Ahmed Deedat). We submit that the Qur'an is absolutely right when it says, "And their saying: "We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, messenger of God." They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. " (4:157). References: [1] Howard Clark Kee, Eric M. Meyers, John Rogerson, Anthony J. Saldarini. The Cambridge Companion to the Bible(1997). Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press. pp. 447 [2] Obert C. Tanner, Lewis M. Rogers, Sterling M. McMurrin. Toward Understanding the New Testament(1990). Salt Lake City: Signature Books. pp. 30 [3] Ed Parish Sanders. The Historical Figure of Jesus(1995). England: Penguin Books. pp. 72 [4] Geza Vermes. The Changing Faces of Jesus(2000). London, England: Penguin Books. pp. 43 [5] Raymond E. Brown. The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 1(1994). New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. pp. 648 [6] Raymond E. Brown. An Introduction to the New Testament(1997). New York: Doubleday. [7] Flavius Josephus. Jewish Antiquities(1998). Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers. [8] Raymond E. Brown. Op. Cit. (1997). [9] Tacitus. Annals (1962). London: William Heinmann Ltd. [10] G.A. Wells. The Historical Evidence for Jesus(1988). London, England: Prometheus Books. pp. 16-17 [11] Raymond E. Brown. Op. Cit. (1997). pp. 337 [12] Paul J. Achtemeier. HarperCollins' Bible Dictionary(1996). HarperCollins. pp. 164 [13] Watson E. Mills. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible(1990). Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press. pp. 128 [14] Paul Ellingworth. The Epistle to the Hebrews, A Commentary on the Greek Text (1993). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. [14] Joel B. Green. Crucifixion, The Cambridge Companion to Jesus(2001). Cambridge University Press. pp. 91 [15] Geza Vermes. Op. Cit. pp. 181 [16] Bart D. Ehrman. Lost Christianities(2003). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 58 [17] http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=542 [18] Bart D. Ehrman. Op. Cit. pp. 57 [19] Raymond E. Brown. The Death of the Messiah, Vol. 2(1997). Op. Cit. pp. 1088 [20] Ibid. pp. 1092 Recommended reading: The Mystery of The Historical Jesus by Louay Fatoohi The Mystery of the Crucifixion: The Attempt to Kill Jesus in the Qur'an, The New Testament, and Historical Sources by Louay Fatoohi 200+ ways the Qur'an Corrects the Bible by Mohamed Ghounem Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman Jesus Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown The Truth About the Crucifixion of Jesus by A.S. Abraham http://muslim-responses.com/Cross_Critique/Cross_Critique_
  13. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    Contention 9: Even if (for the sake of argument) Jesus was put on the cross he could not have died so fast! The Roman method of crucifixion was not to cause instant or immediate death of the victim. Historically, the Roman method was to fix someone upon the cross either by tying or nailing and to allow him to die a shameful and above all a slow painful and agonizing death. The Gospel narratives give conflicting timelines for Jesus' crucifixion and time of expiration/death, but none exceed 6 hours. What exactly was the blow that caused his death if indeed he was put on the cross? In discussing this issue Prof. Raymond E. Brown says clearly, "Crucifixion pierces no vital organ, and so inevitably one must wonder what physical or organic factor caused Jesus to die. The extremely brief Gospel descriptions of the death of Jesus are of little help in answering this question." [19] Christian apologists are fond of citing medical professionals who have delved into this matter to argue for the impossibility of surviving the cross and affirm Jesus' death on it. Regarding this Raymond E. Brown says, "In my judgment the major defect of most of the studies I have reported on thus far is that they were written by doctors who did not stick to their trade and let a literalistic understanding of the Gospel accounts influence their judgments on the physical cause of death of Jesus. There is no evidence that the evangelists personally knew anything about that matter." [20]
  14. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    Contention 8: The earliest Gospel has no passion narrative in it! You might be saying that I've gone bonkers for claiming that the earliest Gospel has no passion narrative. You might think I'm talking about Mark which is considered by scholars to be the first of the four canonical Gospels to be written. No, I am not talking about Mark. Rather, I am talking about a Gospel that predates even the Gospel of Mark. I'm talking about the lost Gospel "Q". To understand what the Gospel Q is one needs to understand some background concerning the first three Gospels. The first three Gospels are labelled as Synoptics which means "seen together" the reason of which is due to the fact that the passages and pericopes in the three bear numerous stark similarities. Biblical scholars considered this as the "Synoptic Problem". The conclusion that they arrived at was that both Matthew and Luke relied heavily on a common source namely, the Gospel according to Mark. However, Mark cannot account for a considerable number of verses that are found in Matthew and Luke. These are verses that Matthew and Luke share in common, but are missing in Mark. To solve this issue German Biblical scholars postulated another source that Matthew and Luke relied upon which they have simply dubbed "Q" which is short for the German word Quelle meaning source. Though there are scholars who contest the existence of "Q", the majority accept it as the most tenable explanation for the parallels found between Matthew and Luke that are not accounted for in Mark. Most scholars have dated the "Q" Gospel to approximately 50 CE predating the Canonical Gospels.[17] By comparing Matthew and Luke closely the scholars have reconstructed this "Q" Gospel. What does it contain? A lot of things, but most importantly is that it has no passion or resurrection narrative at all. One of the foremost scholars on the "Q" Gospel notes, ".the Sayings Gospel has no passion narrative or resurrection stories."[18]. Bart D. Ehrman also notes, "Most striking was the circumstance that in none of the Q materials (that is, in none of the passages found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark) is there an account of Jesus' death and resurrection." [19] Gospel "Q" came about around the same time Paul was writing his letters and teaching the theology of the crucifixion and resurrection as essential to the Christian faith. If the crucifixion truly happened and indeed necessary for salvation and that Jesus definitely raised from the dead why is it not mentioned in this gospel that was made used by Matthew and Luke? We contend that the reason why it does not contain either passion or resurrection narrative is because neither really took place and are indeed unessential to the faith that Jesus brought.
  15. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    Contention 7: The crucifixion is unjustified. According to Christian apologists Jesus' death was in accordance with Roman law which stipulated that rebels should be executed. Jesus according to the same apologists was a rebel since he called himself the King of the Jews thus usurping Roman authority. The following is an explanation concerning the Crucifixion method by Joel B. Green who is professor of New Testament interpretation at Fuller Theological Seminary: "In the context of any discussion of the material aspects of crucifixion it is crucial to remember that Rome did not embrace crucifixion as its method of choice for execution on account of the excruciating pain it caused. The acts of the crucifixion resulted in little blood loss and death came slowly, as the body succumbed to shock. This form of capital punishment was savage and heinous, but for other reasons. Executed publicly, situated at a major crossroads or on a well-trafficked artery, devoid of clothing, left to be eaten by birds and beasts, victims of crucifixion were subject to optimal, unmitigated, vicious ridicule. Rome did not expose its own citizens to this form of heinous punishment, but reserved crucifixion above all for those who resisted imperial rule." [15] Generally, modern scholars argue that Pilate's active part in Jesus' punishment was justified due to a political threat that he posed by claiming that he 's the King of the Jews. There is no explicit verse anywhere in the Bible where Jesus unequivocally claimed to be a king of anyone, let alone a king of an entire nation. Jesus was not the military messiah that the Jews were anticipating. He was the spiritual messiah that was generally passive in his mission. In the gospel records there is no indication that Jesus intended to usurp the Roman empire. He gave them no justified reason to have him executed as a rebel. In fact, when asked about the accusation thrown against him concerning his alleged worldly kingship he denied it. "Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" "Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?" "Am I a Jew?" Pilate replied. "It was your people and your chief priests who handed you over to me. What is it you have done?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place." "You are a king, then!" said Pilate. Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him." (John 18:33-38) In the above passage we see Jesus clearly denying a worldly kingship and instead affirmed a spiritual one(Matthew 18:3, Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17). As a result of this Jesus was found innocent by Pilate. His verdict was, "I FIND NO BASIS FOR A CHARGE AGAINST HIM." The same verdict is found in Luke 23 repeated twice in the same passage(verses 14-22)! In John 6:14-15 we are told that when Jesus thought that people wanted to make him King he withdrew into seclusion to the mountain. The following passage is very telling, "When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two-drachma tax?" He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt. However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me." (Matthew 17:24-27) Jesus obeyed the regulations of Rome and taught his followers to pay taxes. In fact, we have the famous statement from Jesus, "Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him." (Mark 12:17) How can such an obedient subject of the Roman empire be condemned to a rebel's death? G. Vermes says, "contrary to the claim of some contemporary New Testament interpreters, the general context of the portrait of Jesus in the Synoptics and in the rest of the New Testament shows that he was not a pretender to the throne of David, or a would-be leader of a revolt against Rome." [16] Christian apologists may offer a counterargument by arguing that it did not really matter what Jesus himself personally believed or practiced, but what the Jews told Pilate. However, if Pilate had believed the Jews in that Jesus was a threat to Rome surely his followers would have been persecuted too. But nothing like that happened in the years that ensued. People were allowed to convert to Christianity and followed Jesus' teachings as Bart D. Ehrman mentions in Misquoting Jesus. The earliest official Christian persecution by Rome was during Emperor Nero's rule around 54 to 68 CE. However, this was not because of the charges levelled against Jesus by the Jewish leaders. The idea that a very powerful Roman prefect could be pressured into believing tall tales after he himself found the person innocent is fantastically absurd. As a matter of fact, John says that he did not fall for theaccusations and continued to affirm Jesus' innocence, "Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him."(John 19:6) Were Roman prefects so callous and unjust? This is akin to a modern judge in a court of law declaring a person innocent, but sending him to the gallows regardless. Does that make sense? It is absolutely absurd! As we have seen there is no sufficient or satisfactory reason for Jesus' crucifixion, which must lead us to the conclusion that many of the tales surrounding his trials have been fabricated. What else have been fabricated?
  16. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    Contention 6: Jesus was a very righteous man and a great prophet so it would have been in God's interest to save him especially if he had asked. Jesus prayed earnestly to God to save him! "And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will."(Matthew 26:39, Mark 14:36 and Luke 22:42) Jesus was asking to be removed from being harmed by his enemies. Make no mistake about it! Even Christian commentaries admit that the cup in the verse symbolises the impending hardships. The People's New Testament commentary says, "This cup is the betrayal, the trial, the mocking, the scourging, the cross, and all besides which our thoughts cannot reach." Was Jesus' prayer answered? If he was a righteous servant it should have been answered according to the Old Testament. The following are verses and prophecies assuring Jesus' safety: "If you would earnestly seek God and make your supplication to the Almighty, if you were pure and upright, surely now He would awake for you, and propser your rightful habitation." (Job 8:5-6) "But I call upon God, and the Lord will save me." (Psalms 55:16) "..what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you do care for him?(Psalms 8:4) Who is the son of man if not Jesus who is described as just that 83 times in the New Testament! " The Lord answer you in the day of trouble." (Psalms 20:1) "When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears, and deliver them out of all their troubles."((Psalms 34:17) "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord delivers him out of them all." (Psalms 34:19) "The Lord delivers him in the day of troubles." (Psalms 41:1) "The lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land, you do not give him up to the will of his enemies." (Psalms 41:2) "For he stands at the right hand of the needy, to save him from those who condemn him to death." (Psalms 109:31) "He will fulfill the desire of them that fear him: he also will hear their cry, and will save them." (Psalms 145:19) Jesus himself taught that if a righteous person prayed the Father would answer in Matthew 6:6, Matthew 7:7-8 and Matthew 18:19. Jesus said explicitly, "if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer." (Matthew 21:22) God hears the worshipper as John 9:31. Was Jesus' prayer answered? Amazingly, the Bible says yes and in the book of Hebrews at that! "During the days of Jesus' life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered." (Hebrews 5:7-8) The above is clear indication that Jesus' fervent prayer was answered. The following Bible commentary by Dr. Paul Ellingworth on Hebrews 5:7 explains the meaning of the verse in detail concluding with the Orthodox Christian position, but at the same time admits that the verse likely means Jesus was asking to be saved from death/being killed: "σωζω here has the literal meaning of preservation or rescue from physical death (cf. Σωτηρία in 11:7), not the extended meaning of preservation from eternal death, as in 7:25. σῴζειν αὐτὸν ἐκ θανάτου may mean either "prevent him from being killed" (cf. Pr. 15:24; Jas. 5:20; 2 Clem. 16:4) or "rescue him by raising him out of death" (cf. Wis. 14:4; Jn. 12:27; absolutely, Lk. 8:50; more generally, of rescue from the threat of death, Ps. 107:20 [LXX 106:19]; Ho. 13:14; Sir. 51:12). If the reference is specifically to Gethsemane, the first alternative is more likely."[14] (emphasis added)
  17. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    Contention 5: People were forgiven before Jesus so his sacrifice was not necessary for atonement... then there was no point behind the crucifixion. In Jonah 3 an entire community is forgiven by God when they repented of their sins. "Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land. " (2 Chronicles 7:14) The above verse clearly shows that what enables forgiveness is sincere repentence. This is further affirmed in Jeremiah 36:3, ""Perhaps the people of Judah will repent when they hear again all the terrible things I have planned for them. Then I will be able to forgive their sins and wrongdoings." Jesus is not required for atonement. "Unfailing love and faithfulness make atonement for sin. By fearing the Lord people avoid evil." (Proverbs 16:6) "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgement of God rather than burnt offerings" (Hosea 6:6) Because it was not necessary for Jesus to sacrifice himself to enable atonement of sins God would have saved him. More on this later. Related to this is the matter concerning Jesus' sinlessness and perfection. Christians contend that Jesus is the only one who can die for mankind because of his uniqueness as the sinless and perfect man. How can such a claim be true when Job is clearly described as PERFECT in Job 2:3? "Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason." Most Bible translators render the highlighted part in like manner. However, the KJV has retained the meaning of perfectness, "And the LORD said to Satan, Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that fears God, and eschews evil? and still he holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause." (KJV) The same is retained in the following versions. "And Jehovah said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and turneth away from evil: and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause." (American Standard Version) "And Jehovah said to Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and abstaineth from evil? and still he remaineth firm in his integrity, though thou movedst me against him, to swallow him up without cause."(Darby Bible Translation) "And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job? for there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and art upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil: and he still holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause."(English Revised Version) "And the LORD said to Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause."(Webster's Bible Translation) In fact the Bible in Basic English renders it in the following manner, "And the Lord said to the Satan, Have you taken note of my servant Job, for there is no one like him on the earth, a man without sin and upright, fearing God and keeping himself far from evil? and he still keeps his righteousness, though you have been moving me to send destruction on him without cause." The Arabic Bible uses the word كامل KAMIL which means PERFECT. The original Hebrew word is tam which does mean perfect, sinless and blameless. A similar word is found in Deuteronomy 32:4, "He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he." The word used here is tamiym which means the same thing as tam. So if God had required a perfect man to die in order to save mankind he could have used Job or even Zacharias and Elizabeth both of whom are described as righteous and blameless(sinless) in Luke 1:6. Jesus' candidacy and the crucifixion are both absolutely unnecessary.
  18. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    Contention 4: Jesus could not have been crucified outside of Jerusalem. We will prove from Jesus' own words that he could not have possibly suffered at the hands of his enemies. Let us begin with the proof text for our premise namely Luke 13:33. The context of Luke 13:33 starts at verse 31. It says that the Pharisees came to Jesus and warns him of an impending threat from Herod who supposedly wants him dead. In response to this warning Jesus responds, 12. Go tell that fox, ?I will drive out demons and heal people today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will reach my goal. 13. In any case, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day - for surely no prophet can die outside of Jerusalem! The last part in verse 13 is a clear negation by Jesus regarding the impossibility of a Prophet to die outside of Jerusalem. The prophet that is mentioned is a reference to his own person. The verse itself and the context does not allow a different interpretation unless the Christians wish to tell us that Moses died in Jerusalem which he obviously did not. There may be Christians out there who think that Jesus was not a prophet(and I have met quite a few myself). Let us assure them that Jesus was indeed a prophet according to their own books, "And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee."(Matthew 21:11) "But Jesus said to them, "A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country and his own house."(Matthew 13:57) "But Jesus said to them, "A PROPHET is not without honour except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house."(Mark 6:4) "Then he said, "Assuredly, I say to you, no PROPHET is accepted in his own country."(Luke 4:24) "And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:"(Luke 24:19) "And there came a fear on all: and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up among us"(Luke 7:16) "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet."(John 7:40) Some of you may raise the question, "If Jesus was speaking about himself in Luke 13:33 surely he would have said something like , ?I cannot die outside of Jerusalem' instead of ?a prophet cannot die outside of Jeruslame' which is in the third person." That is a legitimate question. And the answer to that is given in the verses you just read i.e. Matthew 13:57, Mark 6:4 and Luke 4:24. They are all relating about the same incident and Jesus is clearly addressing himself as a prophet in the third person. Thus the question raised has secured our premise further, alhamdulillah. Clutching at straws some Christians(of whom I have met) may try to insist that the verse does not totally negate the possibility of Jesus dying outside of Jerusalem and that it just says that he cannot like in the KJV, NASB and other translations of the verse. First of all, granted that the KJV and the NASB have translated the verses correctly what does the word ?cannot' mean? If I said, "I cannot go to the USA" does it mean I can? It's a silly question I know, but the question raised by the Christians in this regard is also silly. The word cannot is a negation which means not able to or not possible. In fact, that is what the Greek says. The verse reads, πλὴν δεῖ με σήμερον καὶ αὔριον καὶ τῇ ἐχομένῃ πορεύεσθαι, ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται προφήτην ἀπολέσθαι ἔξω Ἱερουσαλήμ The words in question are the ones highlighted which transliterates into ou endechetai. The particle ou is a negative and it can mean no, not or even never. The verb enedechetai means possible. Joined together it means not possible. Therefore, Young's Literal Translation correctly translates the verse thus, "but it behoveth me to-day, and to-morrow, and the day following, to go on, because it is not possible for a prophet to perish out of Jerusalem." God's Word Translation also translates it in the following manner, "But I must be on my way today, tomorrow, and the next day. It's not possible for a prophet to die outside Jerusalem." So "cannot" as found in the KJV, NASB etc. or "no prophet can" as found in the NIV translation for the verse really means NOT POSSIBLE. Before we move on let us reiterate it one more time lest we forget, that is, the prophet mentioned in verse 13 is no other than Jesus himself. By now, you must be wondering what the point is. In fact, some of you may be sitting in your chair saying to the screen, "Okay, so what if Jesus said he cannot die outside of Jerusalem? What does that prove?" Well, the point will be unveiled very shortly. Where did Jesus allegedly die? According to the records that we have in the gospels he supposedly died at a place called Golgotha in Aramaic, Calvary in Latin and Kranious Topos in Greek(Matthew 27:23, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33 and John 19:17). Let's just take one of the four. "And when they came to a place called Gol'gotha (which means the place of a skull)," So, according to the verse Jesus was taken to Golgotha to be crucified. Where was Golgotha? According to an article by Keith W. Stump published on two Christian websites http://www.wcg.org/lit/jesus/golgotha.htm and http://www.towards-success.com/dejnarde_files/golgotha.htm Golgotha was outside of Jerusalem. "What does the Bible tell us about the location? The Gospel writers call the place where Jesus was crucified Golgotha?an Aramaic word meaning "the skull." Calvary is the Latin form of the word. Scripture does not reveal the precise location of Golgotha. It simply states that Jesus' crucifixion took place outside the city of Jerusalem, though near it (John 19:20; Hebrews 13:12). Jewish law did not permit executions and burials inside the city." (emphasis added) HarperCollins' Bible Dictionary informs, "John 19:20 and Jewish and Roman execution customs indicate that it was located outside of Jerusalem's city walls". [12] Mercer Dictionary of the Bible tells us, "Jewish and Roman law would likely have required capital punishment to take place outside the city walls (John 19:20; Heb 13:12)." [13] According to Encyclopedia Brittanica Golgotha was outside Jerusalem, "The hill of execution was outside the city walls of Jerusalem, apparently near a road and not far from the sepulchre where Jesus was buried." (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/238060/Golgotha) (emphasis added) According to Online Etymology Dictionary it was near Jerusalem, "hill near Jerusalem," via L. and Gk., from Aramaic gulgulta, lit. "place of the skull," from Heb. gulgoleth "skull." So called in reference to its shape (see Calvary)" (GOLGOTHA." Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. 23 Apr. 2009. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/GOLGOTHA>.) (emphasis added) In John 19:20 which is cited by Keith W. Stump in his article we read that the place was NEAR the city(Jerusalem), "Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek." The word is eggus which literally means near. What does it mean to be near? Near indicates being outside! If you said, "I am near my house." What does it mean? Does it mean you're inside your house? NO. It means you're in close proximity to your house, but it is outside. If you said that you are near New York, you are not inside it but rather outside. So according to John Jesus was taken to a place called Golgotha which was near(outside) of Jerusalem. If that is true then it is in clear opposition to Jesus' own testimony in Luke 13:33 which we read and analysed earlier. There are really only two options for reconciliation. 1. Jesus lied in Luke 13:33 2. Jesus did not lie in Luke 13:33. In Matthew 7:24 Jesus says,"Everyone, them, who listens to this sayings of Mine and puts them into practice will be like a thoughtful man who built his house on the rock." Who is your master? Is he Jesus or the anonymous author of John? My master is Jesus and I would like to follow and believe in what he says. What about you? Luke 13:33 clearly denies what is told about his alleged crucifixion. Unless he died in Jerusalem the whole incident was no incident at all. In fact, it was a lie. Jesus was never crucified nor killed as the Qur'an clearly declares in Chapter 4.
  19. The Crucifixion Tale: Contradictions And Problems

    Contention 2: There are no reliable multiple independent attestations The following are some of the historical sources appealed to by Christians that are considered independent historical attestations. 1. Flavius Josephus. Flavius Josephus is popularly quoted by Christians to substantiate the crucifixion tale. They quote the very famous passage that is attributed to him known as the Testimonium Flavianum. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3) [7] Scholars have long suspected the above to be spurious. Questions regarding the authenticity of this particular passage have been raised since the 16th century as Raymond Brown notes in his volume one of The Death of the Messiah on page 374. Today it is widely rejected as a forgery attributed to Josephus. Raymond E. Brown on the same page of his work cites a number of authorities who rejected the text as outright inauthentic which includes Battifol, Birdsall, Burkitt, Conzelmann, Hahn, L. Hermann, Lagrange, Norden and Zeitlin. It is historically known that Josephus was a Jew and died as one. He did not convert to Christianity at any point in time. It goes without saying that being a Jew he would have hardly attested Jesus' Christhood and his rising again fulfilling the prophecies of the prophets of old. Had he believed in such Christian doctrines he would have been a Christian. The early church father Origen explicitly states in Against Celcus, 1.47 and in his Commentary on Matthew, 10.17 that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Christ. Had the passage been authentically written by Josephus surely the early church fathers of the second and third centuries quoted him especially when they cite him regarding Old Testament interpretations. The earliest citation of the text is from the fourth century by Eusebius of Caesaria in Demonstratio Evangelica or The Proof of the Gospel. That's over 400 years of a gap which is more than enough time to fake a document. Impossible to be traced back to Josephus it is indeed a fake. It is noteworthy that Raymond E. Brown prefers the position of partial-interpolation where Josephus is thought to have written the basic text and the special references to Jesus e.g. as Messiah are later Christian interpolations. In discussing this however, Brown does not offer any definite substantiation for this position. In fact, he merely describes it as "plausible". The Testimonium is found in all the mss. of Ant. [8] and none omits the special references to Christ which leads us to contend that the whole text must have been forged. 2. Cornelius Tacitus. The work involved in Tacitus' Annals. This work was written in approximately 117 CE. In it Jesus' death is mentioned. "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus." (Annals, 15.44) [9] Several scholars have questioned the authenticity of this passage. It is claimed that Tacitus made use of Roman documents in reporting the above. If that is true surely he would not have made the error with Pilate. Pilate is identified as a procurator rather than a prefect. This is a historical problem that has been noted by scholars. Those two positions are not one and the same. A procurator is a financial administrator(civilian) whilst a prefect is a military position. Historically Judea was ruled by a prefect appointed by Rome from 6 CE to around 44 CE. It was after that period that the governor was procurator. In fact, an inscription that was found at Caesarea Maritima, ludaea there is an inscription dedicated to Pilate which reads, "praefectus iudaeae" which means "prefect of Judea". Raymond E. Brown notes, "In calling Pilate a procurator Tacitus was reflecting the later terminology of the 1st cent., still in vogue at the time of his writing." [10]Secondly, official Roman documents could not possibly have referred to Jesus as "Christus" as G.A. Wells points out in The Historical Evidence for Jesus.[11] So where did Tacitus get his information from? Well, isn't it obvious? Christians were already quite known then. He could have easily gotten his information from the Christians as R.T France, E.P. Sanders, G.A. Wells and others have pointed out. This means that even if Tacitus authentically wrote the information it is almost 100 years after the happenings and does not rely on independent sources. Other historical sources that Christians appeal to include Lucian of Samosata's The Passing of Peregrinus, Mara Bar Serapion, Thallus and Jewish Rabbinic literature. All these historical sources are late second to third century cources that can hardly be described as independent. And many of them suffer from historical inaccuracies as we have seen inTacitus' Annals. Contention 3: There are no prophecies that truly predict the crucifixion An often quoted passage in support of the crucifixion is Isaiah 53 which we have discussed in another article. Please click on A Critical Study of Isaiah 53 to read it. We will later show that there are clear prophecies and promises in the Old Testament that should ensure Jesus' safety from any harm that his enemies could have wished to inflict upon him.
  20. Miracles, Predictions, Prophecies Of Prophet Muhammad (Saw)

    أخبر النبي بمصارع القوم يوم بدر كما جاء في الحديث التالي : كنا مع عمر بين مكة والمدينة ... ثم أنشأ يحدثنا عن أهل بدر فقال : إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كان يرينا مصارع أهل بدر بالأمس . يقول " هذا مصرع فلان غدا ، إن شاء الله " قال فقال عمر : فوالذي بعثه بالحق ! ما أخطؤا الحدود التي حد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم . قال فجعلوا في بئر بعضهم على بعض فانطلق رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى انتهى إليهم فقال " يا فلان بن فلان ! ويا فلان بن فلان ! هل وجدتم ما وعدكم الله ورسوله حقا ؟ فإني قد وجدت ما وعدني الله حقا " . قال عمر : يا رسول الله ! كيف تكلم أجسادا لا أرواح فيها ؟ قال " ما أنتم بأسمع لما أقول منهم . غير أنهم لا يستطيعون أن يردوا علي شيئا ) (54) سبحان من عرفه مصارع الطغاة قبل أن يحين وقت المعركة . He knew exactly where polytheists would be killed in the battlefield Anas b. Malik reported: Umar said: Allah's Messenger showed us one day before (the actual battle) the place of death of the people (participating) in (the Battle) of Badr and he was saying: This would be the place of death of so and so tomorrow, if Allah wills. Umar said: By Him Who sent him with truth, they did not miss the places (of their death) which Allah's Messenger had pointed for them. http://sunnah.com/muslim/53/91
  21. Miracles, Predictions, Prophecies Of Prophet Muhammad (Saw)

    أخبر النبي بعدم غزو المشركين بعد الخندق سُلَيْمَانَ بْنَ صُرَدٍ، يَقُولُ سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ حِينَ أَجْلَى الأَحْزَابُ عَنْهُ ‏ "‏ الآنَ نَغْزُوهُمْ وَلاَ يَغْزُونَنَا، نَحْنُ نَسِيرُ إِلَيْهِمْ ‏"‏‏.‏ He said that Quraish won't attack muslims after The Ghazwa of Al-Khandaq Narrated Sulaiman bin Surd: When the clans were driven away, I heard the Prophet () saying, "From now onwards we will go to attack them (i.e. the infidels) and they will not come to attack us, but we will go to them." http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64/154 - Quraish didn't attack muslims again till muslims opened Meccah.