| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Commentary | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
"If this teaching be from Allah, and you reject it, and a witness from among the Children of Israel testifies to its similarity with earlier scripture..."
The Meccan sura 46 is the last of the “Ha Mim” series of suras (40-46), and hews closely to the themes of the others: the Qur’an is revealed by Allah (v. 2); Allah created the heavens and the earth for a just purpose, but the unbelievers reject faith (v. 3); those whom they pray to besides Allah are powerless (vv. 4-5); the unbelievers dismiss the Qur’an as “sorcery” (v. 7) or forgery.
Allah tells Muhammad to respond to this by noting that Allah would punish him if he were falsely attributing words to Allah that he did not say (v. 8). Muhammad brings no new message – an implicit affirmation of the Islamic proposition that Islam was the original religion of all the earlier prophets, e.g., Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc., but their wicked followers corrupted their messages. To support this argument the Qur’an invokes “a witness from among the Children of Israel” who “testifies to its similarity” to the Jewish scriptures (v. 10).
Islamic tradition recorded by Muhammad’s first biographer, Ibn Ishaq, and the hadith collector Bukhari, identifies this as Abdullah bin Salam, a rabbi who was an early convert to Islam. As a rabbi, Abdullah was intrigued by Muhammad, and went to see him. Admitted to Muhammad’s presence, he asked him “about three things which nobody knows unless he be a Prophet. What is the first portent of the Hour? What is the first meal of the people of Paradise? And what makes a baby look like its father or mother?”
The Prophet coolly told him, “Just now Jibril (Gabriel) has informed me about that.”
Abdullah was surprised. “Gabriel?”
“Yes,” said Muhammad.
“He, among the angels is the enemy of the Jews,” noted Abdullah, whereupon Muhammad recited a verse of the Qur’an: “Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel—for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah’s will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe—Whoever is an enemy to Allah and His angels and messengers, to Gabriel and Michael, lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith” (2:97).
Then he proceeded to answer Abdullah’s three questions:
As for the first portent of the Hour, it will be a fire that will collect the people from the east to west. And as for the first meal of the people of Paradise, it will be the caudite (i.e. extra) lobe of the fish liver. And if a man's discharge preceded that of the woman, then the child resembles the father, and if the woman's discharge preceded that of the man, then the child resembles the mother.
Hearing these answers, Abdullah immediately converted to Islam and excoriated his own people, exclaiming: “I testify that La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah) and that you are the Messenger of Allah, O Allah’s Messenger; the Jews are liars, and if they should come to know that I have embraced Islam, they would accuse me of being a liar.”
Abdullah recounted that he “became a Muslim, and when I returned to my house I ordered my family to do the same.” He asked for Muhammad’s help in laying a trap for the Jews: “The Jews are a nation of liars and I wish you would take me into one of your houses and hide me from them, then ask them about me so that they may tell you the position I hold among them before they know that I have become a Muslim. For if they know it beforehand they will utter slanderous lies against me.” Muhammad agreed, summoned the Jewish leaders with Abdullah present but hidden, and asked them what they thought of Abdullah. They replied: “He is our chief, and the son of our chief; our rabbi, and our learned man.”
Muhammad asked them, “What would you think if ‘Abdullah bin Salam embraced Islam?”
The Jewish leaders answered, “May Allah protect him from this!”
The trap was sprung. Abdullah appeared and cried: “I testify that La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah) and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. O Jews, fear God and accept what He has sent you. For by God you know that he is the apostle of God. You will find him described in your Torah and even named. I testify that he is the apostle of God, I believe in him, I hold him to be true, and I acknowledge him.”
But the Jews now said: “Abdullah is the worst of us, and the son of the worst of us.”
Abdullah exclaimed, “O Allah's Messenger! This is what I was afraid of!” He later recounted: “I reminded the apostle that I had said that they would do this, for they were a treacherous, lying, and evil people.”
Such tales would only reinforce for Muslims throughout history the idea that the Jewish (as well as Christian) Scriptures really did bear witness to Muhammad in clear terms. Ibn Sa‘d recounts that Muhammad once went to a Jewish seminary, where he challenged the most learned rabbi: “Do you know that I am the Apostle of Allah?”
The rabbi answered, “By Allah! Yes, and the people know what I know. Verily your attributes and qualities are clearly mentioned in the Torah, but they are jealous of you.” It was only the sinful obstinacy of the Jews and Christians that prevented them from acknowledging this— indeed, that sin was so great that ultimately it led them to alter their Scriptures in order to remove all references to Muhammad. The idea of Jews and Christians as sinful renegades from the truth of Islam would become a cornerstone of Islamic thought regarding non-Muslims.
The Qur’an goes on to say that the unbelievers demean the believers, asserting that if Islam were true, people of such low quality as the believers would not have been the first to accept it (v. 11). Yet the Qur’an confirms in Arabic the Book of Moses (v. 12). Those who confess faith in Allah will not grieve, but will enjoy the Gardens of Paradise (vv. 13-14).
A good Muslim should honor his parents; some unbelieving children, however, rebuke their parents for their Islamic faith – they will be “utterly lost” (vv. 15-18). The unbelievers have pleasure in this world, but will be in hell in the next (v. 20). There they will acknowledge the truth of Islam, and pay the penalty for rejecting it (v. 34). The prophet Hud (see suras 7, 11, and 26) reappears to underscore this – he warns his people (v. 21) but they do not heed, and are destroyed (vv. 24-25). Allah then tells Muhammad that a crowd of jinns listened to him reciting the Qur’an (v. 29), and went back and warned their fellow jinns that those who do not accept the message are in error and will face the penalty (v. 32). Allah concludes the sura by telling Muhammad to be patient and persevere in preaching his message; the unbelievers will soon face the divine punishment.
Next week: Sura 47, “Muhammad”: “When you meet the unbelievers in battle, strike at their necks…”
(Here you can find links to all the earlier "Blogging the Qur'an" segments. Here is a good Arabic Qur’an, with English translations available; here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
Posted by Robert at September 14, 2008 7:50 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
And if a man's discharge preceded that of the woman, then the child resembles the father, and if the woman's discharge preceded that of the man, then the child resembles the mother.
I've always wondered...does this mean if the man climaxes first, the child will look like him? And if the woman reaches orgasm first, the child will look like her? If that were really true, wouldn't 95 percent of American kids look like their dads??
Posted by: staringattheview.blogspot.com![[TypeKey Profile Page]](https://swap.stanford.edu/was/20100322163935im_/http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 14, 2008 8:34 AM
"Muhammad brings no new message"
Right. Because he couldn't think of one.
All he wanted was to gain power as a prophet. Since he possessed no imagination, he simply plagiarized from Judaism and Christianity, incorporating the moon deity, "al-ilah," the chief deity of the 350 Arabian pagan deities, into his Con.
In "Psychology of Mohammed," Ali Sina says, "Mohammed, a person who pretended to be the Prophet of Allah, clearly admits "War is deceit," and, moreover, lying and deception are encouraged in the Holy Book." (p. 189).
Mo is a lying fraud. His goal, as Sina says, "was to gain power by pretending prophethood."
"No new message." Wow, it's really tough to figure that one out! Even modern false prophets such as Jim Jones and David Koresh feigned bringing something new to the table.
at September 14, 2008 8:46 AM
And if a man's discharge preceded that of the woman, then the child resembles the father, and if the woman's discharge preceded that of the man, then the child resembles the mother.Something tells me that this will be the theme of todays discussion. Maybe, instead of the picture of Ahmadinejad with some Jooos, Robert could have posted a... Naah, never mind!
Staringattheview
Yes, that's precisely what it means. Like the previous discussion in this series of how Allah creates unbelievers and causes their disbelief in him, I can see no end to the number of questions the above quote will invoke.
One more great example of Islamic science.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 14, 2008 8:47 AM
"And if a man's discharge preceded that of the woman, then the child resembles the father, and if the woman's discharge preceded that of the man, then the child resembles the mother."
There's Islamic science for you, courtesy false prophet Mo.
Posted by: darcy at September 14, 2008 8:48 AM
Forgot to add - somehow, unlike Abdullah bin Salam, I am not feeling any urge to convert to Islam.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 14, 2008 8:50 AM
Hearing these answers, Abdullah immediately converted to Islam and excoriated his own people
That Abdullah was a real genius! I'm sure it had nothing to do with whatever deal Muhammad struck with him.
What's Abdullah history after he converts?
Posted by: TheBigOldDog at September 14, 2008 9:14 AM
Would You Believe?
"When Allah wants to frighten his slaves, the sun falls out of its chariot. This is a full eclipse, a misfortune for the sun."
Ok....this isn't this sura, but it's instructive to remember that the accounts of the Torah, and Talmud from which this is all a weird distortion, don't at all depend on this rewrite from Mohammed and his god, allah. However, they get to be slammed as guilty of hiding this info in the Quran from the public.
Got it?
There were no miracles to prove Muhammad's claim of being a godly conduit. There were no healings, parting seas, raising folks from the dead, or feeding multitudes. And there are no fulfilled prophecies, like the exacting and detailed predictions that Biblical prophets routinely made.
However, we can rely on the good news that his life was as despicable, as anyone who has ever lived. Now that's a message you can take great confort in.....
Muhammad fancied himself a Jewish prophet
But Islam's account of creation is a one to less credible and a boatload less consistent.
And as Winn comments upon Mohammeds' work.."Unfortunately, Muhammad's testimony puts us in a quandary. It is too foolish to be from a literate man, and yet his stories are loosely based upon Genesis, the world's best known written account of our beginnings. I believe that the following Hadith provides some insights into how Muhammad came to know these things and on whose authority he claimed to be speaking. Bukhari:V4B55N546 "A Jewish rabbi, Abdulla bin Salam approached the Messenger, 'I am going to ask you three things which nobody knows except a prophet: [Then how would the Rabbi know them?] What is the first portent of the Hour? What will be the first meal taken in Paradise? Why does a child resemble its father, and why does it resemble its mother.' Allah's Apostle said, 'Gabriel has just now told me of the answers.' 'Gabriel, from among all the angels, is the enemy of the Jews.' 'The first portent of the Hour will be a fire that will bring the people from east to west. The first meal of Paradise will be caudate lobe of fish-liver. As for the resemblance of a child to its parents: If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble him, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her.' On that the rabbi said, 'I testify you are the Apostle of Allah, and that Jews are liars.'" It's hard to believe that anyone believes this is scripture.
Salam was one of two Jews Ishaq believes sold out to Muhammad. He was in all likelihood responsible for providing the scripture the prophet corrupted to compile his Qur'an. And Gabriel was neither an enemy of the Jews, nor who Muhammad claimed him to be. I am certain Islam's prophet mistook Lucifer for Gabriel. The totality of the Qur'an and Hadith allow no other conclusion..."
Well, I don't know what kind of evil it actually represents, but the expression " none for me...thanks" comes to mind.
Of course if the entirety of the 1400 yr old history didn't speak of 'submitting' all others, slaughtering each other along with the 'infidel'
having tyranny, oppression, backwardness, and an Olympic gold medal lock on how many murders, terrors, homicidies performed in the name of their lord...'allahu akbar' along with the mind numbing hate filled screeds of the muslims own texts, speakers and those who forbid speaking ... anything....anything... negative, about their 'profit'or his 'book' as if... as if it was holy.
It screams for the exact opposite. No more appeasement, no more allowing the lunacy to go
about it's business of 'submittiing' everyone, without question.
Caudate lobe of fish liver.... indeed.
Posted by: mgoldberg at September 14, 2008 9:27 AM
"And if a man's discharge preceded that of the woman, then the child resembles the father, and if the woman's discharge preceded that of the man, then the child resembles the mother."There's Islamic science for you, courtesy false prophet Mo.
Posted by: darcy at September 14, 2008 8:48 AM
Sounds unscientific until you read about the Shettles Method.
Posted by: Shy Guy at September 14, 2008 9:37 AM
As a fan of fish liver, I'd say I'm somewhat astonished that it's heavenly fare, though I'm not sure how many people would go so far as to convert to Islam in order to enjoy it in the afterlife. Now there's a way to cut down on suicide bombing: Replace the 72 virgins with a promise of endless doses of cod liver oil. That's probably what those bombers will really receive.
Posted by: jewdog at September 14, 2008 10:08 AM
What happens if the M/F 'discharge' happens at the same time? Twins maybe?
Abdullah sounds like an opportunistic social climber who knew what side of the bread the butter was on...
Posted by: duh_swami at September 14, 2008 10:22 AM
I assume that “What is the first portent of the Hour?” Refers to Judgment Day. Is this correct?
“He, among the angels is the enemy of the Jews,” noted Abdullah
I was told that in Jewish theology that there are no angels. Is this correct? The person who told me was a Cantor for an Orthodox congregation.
How did this guy, Abdullah know WHICH QUESTIONS A PROPHIT WOULD KNOW THE ANSWERS TO, in addition to the correct answers?
at September 14, 2008 10:37 AM
Abdullah was a figment of Mo's imagination, just like everything else.
In order for a lie to gain traction, it has to be really big. Sure, all of the characters in the Bible were really Muslims, and I'm really Santa Claus.
at September 14, 2008 10:38 AM
I'm curious why a rabbi would have the name, "slave of Allah" or did he change his name after perverting to Islam?
Posted by: BL@KBIRD at September 14, 2008 10:46 AM
Thanks, Mr. Spencer. Another great post.
It was only the sinful obstinacy of the Jews and Christians that prevented them from acknowledging this— indeed, that sin was so great that ultimately it led them to alter their Scriptures in order to remove all references to Muhammad.
Riiiiiiight.
Posted by: Spirit of 1776 at September 14, 2008 10:52 AM
Mr. Spencer,
Can you comment on why, if the Quran is considered by Muslims to be an eternal document, the commentary - and even, it seems implicit that the Quran itself - references "earlier scriptures" as proof that it is legitimately the word of Allah (who is supposed to be taken as equal with the great I AM)?
Thanks,
Active Listener
at September 14, 2008 11:00 AM
So how does Herbert's 'House Atreides and spice melange' fit into all this again?
Ahem.
Since it's Meccan, #46 is fairly reasonable and mostly lucid - not much different than the tests, proofs, proclamations & invocations from Jewish or Christian religions. Only in Arabic & always centered around Mohammed with Allah in no more than a supporting role. Blasphemous, I know. But the summation is still a cult of Mohammed - Mohammedism.
Great post per usual, R.S.
Thank you!
Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at September 14, 2008 11:32 AM
"...after perverting to Islam?
Posted by: BL@KBIRD at September 14, 2008 10:46 AM
Oh, that's good. Says so much more than plain 'ol "converting."
Posted by: darcy at September 14, 2008 11:53 AM
Mr. Spencer,
Can you comment on why, if the Quran is considered by Muslims to be an eternal document, the commentary - and even, it seems implicit that the Quran itself - references "earlier scriptures" as proof that it is legitimately the word of Allah (who is supposed to be taken as equal with the great I AM)?
Thanks,
Active Listener
---------
I'm going to take this one. The reason is that if they reason, discuss, debate or thus assert that it might not be so...that mandates that their heads be separated from their shoulders.
Mark
Posted by: mgoldberg at September 14, 2008 12:02 PM
so the crux of the story is that muhammed wanted the jews to convert when he got their rabbi converted to islam. but instead they just disowned the rabbi and might have abused him a little, and then went on their lives, much to muhammeds disappointment/??!! so they changed their minds that he was best of them, and son of best among them... SO WHAT?? i would do too if my best friend or someone i trusted converted to islam... if he'd call me a liar, id say "poor sucker, i thought you were more smart than that"
Totally immature and frivolous example/story how a whole nation/community is full of liars
Posted by: John Moe at September 14, 2008 12:03 PM
What a touching scene! President Ahmadinutjob embracing the Learned Elders of Neturei Karta! Can you imagine how this beautiful friendship will unfold and blossom? Just wait until Ahmadinutjob sees his dear friends off at the train platform, as they board specially reserved, private cattle cars, embarking on the Final Solu--errr, Journey that caps The Ultimate Triumph of Islam!
Posted by: John C at September 14, 2008 12:15 PM
The unbelievers have pleasure in this world, but will be in hell in the next (v. 20). There they will acknowledge the truth of Islam, and pay the penalty for rejecting it (v. 34).
That this is a Meccan sura explains the apparent tolerance of the above verses. Of course it's all a bunch of hooey.
I would ask Muslims not to worry about my soul. If I am to have hell in the next world, what is that to you in THIS world? If I will pay the penalty for rejecting Islam in the next world then what do I owe YOU in THIS world?
Posted by: PMK at September 14, 2008 12:21 PM
Hmm. What if you look like one of your grandparents? Or one of your great-grandparents?
It doesn't take the benefit of 21st century science to see that the given explanation hits a wall pretty quickly.
Posted by: MarisolJW at September 14, 2008 12:23 PM
So a learned rabbi converts after hearing three answers "only a prophet would know." Why do I think there was already some conflict present in Mecca's Jewish community between the rabbi and his congregants, and that maybe a little gold and a promise of revenge were involved?
Me? Cynical?
Speaking of those "three things," is there anything in the Jewish canon that corresponds to that, or is it another invention of Muhammad?
Posted by: Anthony (Los Angeles) at September 14, 2008 12:28 PM
As for the caudite lobe of fish liver... I'd be interested to find out where in the world that came from-- cultural delicacy?
Posted by: MarisolJW at September 14, 2008 12:34 PM
See, you Jews can trust a Muslim leader like Ahmadinutjob; after all, Islam respects The People of The Book as fellow monotheistic heirs of Abraham. And besides, wasn't Chaim Rumkowski, Eldest of the Jews in the Lodz Ghetto, Poland, on splendid, friendly terms with Heinrich Himmler?
Posted by: John C at September 14, 2008 12:50 PM
Admitted to Muhammad’s presence, he asked him “about three things which nobody knows unless he be a Prophet.
How could the rabbi say the answers were correct unless he himself already knew them? And how did the rabbi know them? Didn't that make the rabbi a prophet as well? If the rabbi knew them then why wouldn't it have been possible for Mohammed to have learned them from the same source?
Maybe Muslims have been following the wrong prophet all this time? They should have been following the rabbi!
Posted by: PMK at September 14, 2008 1:00 PM
I was told that in Jewish theology that there are no angels. Is this correct? The person who told me was a Cantor for an Orthodox congregation.Posted by: dentalque at September 14, 2008 10:37 AM
Perhaps one of you misunderstood the other?
The word for angel in Hebrew is "mal'ach", which also literally means a "messenger", which is what angels are in the service of doing on behalf of G-d.
Angels are alluded to and mentioned throughout the Torah and scriptures.
Tell you cantor friend to simply learn the weekly Torah reading with the Rashi commentary and he will come across numerous references to angels over the annual cycle of reading through the Torah.
Posted by: Shy Guy at September 14, 2008 1:12 PM
Shy Guy at September 14, 2008 1:12 PM
There is no need to be cute. It is a fair question. He is not a stupid man. He gave me that translation and said that "a messenger" is a human, not a being of heaven.
As I am not a scholar of the Torah, I just want to know if in Jewish theology angels are considered "heavenly beings" or human.
at September 14, 2008 1:26 PM
There is no need to be cute. It is a fair question. He is not a stupid man. He gave me that translation and said that "a messenger" is a human, not a being of heaven.Posted by: dentalque at September 14, 2008 1:26 PM
While it is true that the word "mal'ach" sometimes refers to human messengers, there are definite cases where this is not so. Quick example: the angel who blocked Bil'am and his donkey on his way to Balak, King of Moav.
As I am not a scholar of the Torah, I just want to know if in Jewish theology angels are considered "heavenly beings" or human.
at September 14, 2008 1:45 PM
The Prophet coolly told him, “Just now Jibril (Gabriel) has informed me about that.” Abdullah was surprised. “Gabriel?”“Yes,” said Muhammad.
“He, among the angels is the enemy of the Jews,” noted Abdullah
But in no way did any Jewish sources ever consider Gavriel in any which way an enemy of any sort.
Abdullah's fulla bulla.
Posted by: Shy Guy at September 14, 2008 2:01 PM
Maybe I should have asked my question more like this:
Is there any other commentary/explanation provided by other Islamic scholars that tries to explain the apparent contradiction of the Quran containing a reference to "earlier scriptures" as a proof of its authenticity? I wasn't trying to ask for Robert's personal opinion.
One thing that's been a challenge for me to understand is why/how those that believe the Quran to be "eternal" don't find it odd that it was so aligned to Mohammed's life events both in content and in the order it was revealed.
It occurs to me that this suggests that they accept an extremely strong version of predestination. Or, perhaps there is another explanation - from the words of Islamic scholars themselves.
If this has been addressed elsewhere on the site or in a previous thread, then please just point me in the right direction.
Thanks,
Active Listener
at September 14, 2008 2:22 PM
Active Listener:
Is there any other commentary/explanation provided by other Islamic scholars that tries to explain the apparent contradiction of the Quran containing a reference to "earlier scriptures" as a proof of its authenticity? I wasn't trying to ask for Robert's personal opinion.
According to the mainstream Islamic commentators (not my personal opinion), this is no contradiction at all, for the Qur'an is saying that it confirms the earlier scriptures in their uncorrupted form. The Islamic contention is that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as we have them today have been corrupted, and that's why their message is not identical to that of the Qur'an.
One thing that's been a challenge for me to understand is why/how those that believe the Quran to be "eternal" don't find it odd that it was so aligned to Mohammed's life events both in content and in the order it was revealed.
One has two options in the face of this: one can believe that Muhammad was fabricating it all for his own advantage, or (and this is the perspective of the Muslim believer) one can believe that the events of Muhammad's life were foreordained from all eternity so as to teach various theological truths.
It occurs to me that this suggests that they accept an extremely strong version of predestination. Or, perhaps there is another explanation - from the words of Islamic scholars themselves.
Muhammad is al-insan al-kamil: the perfect man, the model of emulation. His exalted status comes in part from his central importance to the Qur'an and Islamic teaching in general.
If this has been addressed elsewhere on the site or in a previous thread, then please just point me in the right direction.
Yes, it has come up here and there in earlier Q-Blogs. You may wish to scroll through the archives. See, for example, here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022348.php
And there are many other places where this comes up also.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at September 14, 2008 2:32 PM
And as for the first meal of the people of Paradise, it will be the caudite (i.e. extra) lobe of the fish liver. And if a man's discharge preceded that of the woman, then the child resembles the father, and if the woman's discharge preceded that of the man, then the child resembles the mother.
.....................................
More of that groundbreaking Islamic science. Why study the role of DNA and genes when you have this priceless knowledge? I suppose this means that in places where FGM is common, like Egypt (where 97% of women are victims) that few children ever resemble their mother.
You know how Islamists push that whole thing about the 72 dark-eyed houris that await "Shaheeds"? I don't know why they don't put more emphasis on fish liver!
More:
For by God you know that he is the apostle of God. You will find him described in your Torah and even named.
.................................
There seem to be two explanations offered for this--one, is that this is a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18, which reads:
"I will raise up a prophet from among your brethren, like unto you, and will put words in his mouth..."
Well, that's clear--it could refer to any number of Jewish prophets, as well as Jesus, but most Muslims believe that it clearly and unequivocably refers to Mohammed.
The other explanation is the one noted by Robert above, that Jewish and Christian scripture was full of clear references to Allah and Mohammed until they changed the texts, the Christians out of ignorance and stupidity, and the Jews out of craftiness and sheer perversity.
That none of these "Ur-texts" have ever come to light seems no impediment for so Muslims to believe in their existance. Even relying on these supposedly altered texts, many Muslims believe that modern Jews and Christians still somehow know that Islam is the true reliegion, but are just too perverse to follow it.
at September 14, 2008 10:02 PM
That would be "religion".
Posted by: gravenimage at September 14, 2008 10:05 PM
Mr. Spencer,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question so thoroughly. I've been visiting this site regularly for quite a while now, but I can tell I've got a lot more to learn.
I feel strongly that I need to become as educated as I can about the Muslim faith, its relationship to Western (Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian) civilization, and the challenges (or threats) that it brings. I am hoping to be able to start to gently educate those around me as well so they are aware of the incompatibilities of Islamic thought and the beliefs and values that are core to Western civilication - or perhaps better stated - that were foundational to the development of what we call Western civilization. I want them to be aware of the choices they are making and the implications to the future for their children and their society at large.
At the same time, I don't want to become totally paranoid and fearful. I don't want to teach my kids to fear everyone that embraces the Muslim faith - because that kind of fear is too easily followed by hatred, and I am doing my best to raise my children to follow the teachings of who I truly believe IS the "perfect man, the model of emulation" - Jesus Christ - who told us to love our enemies - but to completely reject any evil they do or they advocate us to do. It is that evil that I want to teach my children to hate.
I am trying to take my motivation for my self-education from Jesus' instruction to be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. It is my hope that through educating myself, my family - and hopefully those around me - that I can fulfill that command insofar as understanding how to react to the increasing challenges brought forward by Islam.
So, thank you again,
Active Listener
at September 15, 2008 12:02 AM
Muslims haven't heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls then?
Posted by: snufkin at September 15, 2008 4:26 AM
I’m pretty new to the study of Islam, having just read the Qur’an this summer (interesting holiday reading… hmm…). Apart from that I only know what I’ve seen on TV. And I’ve only recently found this blog, so I hope you’ll be patient with me if I ask questions that are too obvious, but do I understand correctly that Mohammed believed the torah and gospels of his day to be correct, confirmed and corroborated by the Qur’an, and that the claim is that the writings were only corrupted LATER, out of jealousy and pique?
If that is the case surely it is easy to prove that it’s not true. My understanding is that the biblical documents are reliably authenticated to well before Mohammed’s time. Am I wrong?
I understand why TV documentary makers are unable to make programmes that might discredit the person of Mohammed, but I can’t help but think that if they quit trying to tear down Christianity with pseudo-facts about Jesus family tombs, and fiction-based mythology about him being married to Mary Magdalene, and did a serious examination of the pedigree of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, maybe a few of the poor deceived 1.3 billion Muslims might have the chance to begin to wonder. Surely even atheists can see that if there’s going to be religion (and there is!) Christianity would be preferable to Islam.
at September 15, 2008 5:47 AM
Hannahgee
you wrote "My understanding is that the biblical documents are reliably authenticated to well before Mohammed’s time. Am I wrong?"
You're not wrong. For starters, google 'Dead Sea Scrolls' 'Scroll of Isaiah' 'Jerusalem Post' and see what pops up.
The full text of the book of Isaiah, exactly as known to Jews and Christians, was found among the 'dead sea scrolls' - dating from before the time of Christ, i.e. at least 600 years before 'Mohammed'. The Septuagint (Greek 'Old Testament') was translated from Hebrew into Greek in Alexandria, a good century before the time of Christ; thus demonstrating the antiquity of the prior texts from which the translation was made.
There are Jewish posters here who could probably tell you more about the textual history of the TaNaKh (Hebrew Scriptures) for the past 2000 years or so, than I can. It has been transmitted with great accuracy; the earliest surviving fragments of the text - which date from well before Mohammed's day - are consistent with all later versions.
The New Testament textual canon is remarkably well attested. I have a Greek New Testament which lists all the known manuscripts, and the citations of canonical Christian texts, that occur in the earliest Christian writers. The earliest portions of the text, on papyrus, long predate Constantine - one such dates from 'about 125'. There are Coptic translations that date from the 3rd century - which means the manuscripts from which they were made, would be earlier.
Essentially, the Muslim claim that the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures have been 'corrupted' and that this is why the bible stories of persons such as Moses, as known to Jews, or Jesus and Mary, as known to Christians, differ so radically from the stories told in the Qur'an, is completely counterfactual: it is supported by not one single shred of historical, archaeological or textual evidence.
The two most blatant Muslim Big Lies are these: they claim that Abraham offered Ishmael, ancestor of the Arabs, rather than Isaac, ancestor of the Jews; and they claim that Jesus was not crucified (the crucifiers killed a 'body double').
Before the Qur'an appears in the 8th century AD, there is - as far as I know - absolutely no evidence for a version of the 'Abraham offering his son' story, that involves Ishmael rather than Isaac. 'Mohammed' seems to have pulled this 'revision' - foe-fic, I would call it - out of the air.
The claim about a 'body double' being substituted for Jesus, might be from Gnosticism - or might have been inspired by the docetic heresy, only going a bit further. I think Mr Spencer might be able to tell you more.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 15, 2008 6:45 AM
Hannahgee:
...but do I understand correctly that Mohammed believed the torah and gospels of his day to be correct, confirmed and corroborated by the Qur’an, and that the claim is that the writings were only corrupted LATER, out of jealousy and pique?
Yes. This is clear from 10:94, wherein Allah tells Muhammad to check with those who have the earlier Scriptures if he doubts the revelations he is receiving. This assumes that those revelations are intact, uncorrupted, and available. But since, in the course of time, Muslims discovered that they do not actually confirm Muhammad's message, they began to claim that they were corrupted.
Both claims are in the Qur'an.
The Qur'an presupposes that the true text of the Bible is available in Muhammad's day: see, besides 10:94, 2:40-42, 126, 136, and 285; 3:3, 71, and 93; 4:47 and 136; 5:47-51, 69, and 71-72; 6:91; 10:37; 21:7; 29:45-46; 35:31; and 46:11.
However, it also says that the "transgressors" -- who are clearly Jews from the context, since it is talking about Moses etc. -- "changed the word from that which had been given them" (2:59).
Also: "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby" (2:79).
"And remember Allah took a covenant from the People of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made!" (3:187)
This goes for Christians as well as Jews:
"But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done." (5:13-14)
On those verses rests the Islamic idea that the Jewish and Christian Scriptures have been corrupted, as well as the assertions that the earlier prophets were Muslim (3:67, etc.).
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at September 15, 2008 8:53 AM
Thanks to dumbledoresarmy and to Robert. But I confess I'm a little confused. Could Muhammad's problem have been with the practices that had been added to the written scripture? Didn't he, for instance, object to the idea of Christians praying to Mary and the saints, as some did and do? (Am I confusing saints and idols? -Ah - but this would be the same thing anyway in Islamic terms, wouldn't it?) -Or is it a matter of chronology? Did he start out thinking that the previous scripture was correct, and then, maybe being challenged, decide that they must have rewritten it along the way. If the latter is true, then it would appear that Islam is a religion entirely created by one charismatic but insecure human, subject to changing his mind according to public opinion. But if the former is the case, then Islam is surely founded upon an incredible paradox – based on ‘perfect’ scripture claiming to be corroborating previous scripture, whilst in fact contradicting it from the beginning, while Muslims are trained to follow blindly, shackled by dogmatic misinformation.
It leaves me breathless to think of the deception that has been practised upon so many people. I have been asking myself – and I hope I can explain this clearly – whether ‘Allah’ is in fact YHWH being wrongly worshipped because of false revelations by Satan ‘masquerading as an angel of light’ (2 Corinthians 11:14), or whether he is another entity entirely, ‘stealing’ worship from YHWH. Or is Islam entirely man-made? Of course this doesn’t matter to those who don’t see the problem of Islam in spiritual terms, but does it to those who do? Does anyone here have an opinion on this?
at September 15, 2008 11:45 AM
Dumbledoresarmy,
First read your bible again.
Abraham dreamed and obeyed the dream and offered his only son.
At what time did he have an only son?
I leave you to the devices of your intellect as it struggles against the vices of your prejudices and await your referenced scripture from the Bible that confirms this fact.
Ishmael was a teenager when Issac was born.
Truth
at September 15, 2008 1:16 PM
Hanaghee,
The Quran confirms the truth of the prior revelation is what is spoken of.
Where there is a difference that contradicts clear legislation in the Quran that narration is rejected, yet if it is a matter that is not confirmed or denied by the Quran then it remains as a narration from the people of the book, neither taken as truth nor condemned as lie. This is the respect for the People of the Book and their traditions that is still maintained today by the believers.
Now there is an incident in the life of Mohammad that proves there was truthful narration from the people of the book in his time that were yet uncorrupted by the ages. The Jewish handmaiden of Aisha supplicated once in front of her, paraphrased, “May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave.”
Aisha relayed this saying to Mohammad who had no prior revelation to this “punishment in the grave.” Mohammad thus stated, paraphrased, “She is lying.” Or something to that affect.
Soon thereafter Mohammad experienced revelation confirming the punishment of the grave, in the life in the grave, known as Barzak, and he came out of that state of revelation and proclaimed, “Oh people, seek protection from the punishment of the grave!”
There are hadiths speaking of his seeking protection from the punishment of the grave for himself, his people, and even two Muslims who had died, and Mohammad informed the Companions that the two were being punished in their graves for sins that were not too serious, and he placed a green piece of some foliage on their graves and asked Allah to lighten their punishment as long as the foliage stayed green.
This is a clear example of the confirmation of prior revelation and evidence that some of the narration of the people of the book in those days were still valid. We believe what is in the Quran is the truth, and the lasting truth, protected for all time from any corruption.
There is still an original copy of the Uthmani Quran, standardized texts with the Harakat, or vowel accent marks, around forty years after the Prophet passed away. This original text is preserved in Istanbul. Today’s Quran is no different almost 1,400 years later. No editing, no major revisions, not one iota of change.
If you truly wish to learn something about Islam I do not recommend Robert Spencer as a source. He has an agenda that is clearly not to reveal the truth, but only the “truth” he wants you to see in the light he wants you to see it.
Peace.
at September 15, 2008 1:35 PM
Hannahgee,
Please reference the following:
http://www.geocities.com/athens/academy/8559/Abraham.html
It offers another point of view on the "only son" claims made by Abdullah...
Posted by: Active Listener at September 15, 2008 3:12 PM
Hannahgee,
Look at the character of the people who claimed to be the conduit of The Eternal, Jesus 2000 C.E and Mohammed 610 C.E. In semitic languages word and work (actions) are interchangeable. You need to look at the words and actions of both and their IMMEDIATE followers. Now everyone has the words of both, how are they interpreted today. Mr Spencer gives the commentaries of the earliest apologists and therefore are reliable as Islamic scholars use these to discern historic interpretation of the Qur'an and ahadith.
All you need to do is be able to read. Dreadful things aren't done in the name of Jesus as now everyone can read his words for themselves Jesus says "love your enemies,pray for those who persecute you". Compare with the words of Mohammed, are people still doing those things today whilst holding up a Qur'an?
Words=works
Tip: know the earlier works (Tanach/Gospels)please look up Dumbledoresarmy's J.Post link for the Dead Sea Scrolls translations as these are solid evidence that the scriptures haven;t been tampered with. You need a baseline to see that the Qur'an is very different.
Posted by: snufkin at September 15, 2008 4:02 PM
Ladies and gentlemen: as regards A. M's baseless assertions and bizarre attempt at textual twisting:
I trust the Hebrew scripture. It says, repeatedly, in the text - in the text as copied with great care by Hebrew scribes for centuries before Islam was ever invented - that ISAAC - the beloved one, the heir, the child miraculously born to Sarah and Abraham in their old age, the child of the Promise, the son of Abraham's dear wife not of his concubine, the one whose name means 'He Laughs' - is the one who is offered.
Jewish, Hebrew posters - Shy Guy, you're Orthodox, are you reading this? - can you help us out with the standard Masoretic reading of Genesis 22, and the classic rabbinic/ yeshiva interpretations of that Hebrew text, including the significance in context of the Hebrew word "yâchîyd or yahid, pronounced yaw-kheed¢"? This is *your* history, the story of *your* actual ancestor, written in *your* book and in *your* own language, and I think you should have the right to demolish the revolting, slippery sophistry of the Mohammedan. Have at him! And I, a Gentile Christian, will stand back and cheer you on!
In the meantime: I find that the link given by 'active listener' gives a lucid and sensible explanation of why Isaac is called 'the only son'. It draws attention to the fact that he is the only one remaining, after Ishmael has been sent away into the desert.
'Mohammed' - or the person or persons who 'created' or embellished the figure of 'Mohammed' and concocted the Qur'an, the sira, and the Hadith - was a liar and a fraud of a magnitude and audacity that literally boggles the mind. The Arab/Muslim world had perfected the art of the Big Lie over a thousand years before Goebbels.
Something for us all to bear in mind: truth, the objective truth or falsehood of a statement, does not appear to be much valued in Mohammedan culture.
All that matters is power, power over the listener, power over the Other. Whatever will enable the Arab or the Muslim to gain power over the non-Muslim - to confuse, to disarm, to destroy, to defraud - may be said; whether what is said is 'true' as we in the West consider truth, or 'false', is immaterial. Outright lies will be brazenly used, even at times lies that contradict each other, lies piled upon lies.
Martha Gellhorn noticed this, when she was interviewing local Arabs, mostly Muslims, some Christians, in 1960; it was so common for her to hear statements that bore no discernible connection with reality, that she coined the term 'mad hattery' in order to cope with it. At one point she declared in exasperation: "To listen to these conversations is work for a psychiatrist, not a journalist".
Even the Arabised Christians, after centuries surrounded by Muslims, had caught the disease - though an Italian missionary priest that Gellhorn spoke to in Israel, made a very telling observation about the Christians, after hearing of their presence in camps in Lebanon: " I am surprised. There must be very few. I would have expected them to manage better. They do not dream all the time. They have more contact with reality than the Muslims."
When Sheik Ikrima Sabri asserts that there was never a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount, I suspect he does so knowing full well that there is good historical and archaeological evidence that there WAS; he knows he is saying The Thing Which Is Not, but he simply. does. not. care. All that matters is that he gets a particular desired result.
Frankly, if I have a choice between believing a statement made by a Jew, and believing a statement made by a Mohammedan, I will in general believe the Jew. I know of many, many occasions on which Mohammedans have lied in the most disgusting fashion. I know that there is a permission to lie in Mohammedan culture. It rots their societies - because if everyone lies, and no-one ever owns up to failure, then NOTHING can be built, nothing mended, nothing can grow and no-one can ever learn or change.
Whereas I know the strength of the Jewish devotion to truth. There is a reason why one finds Jews doing brilliant work in science and in fields like psychology and psychiatry. Their whole religious and philosophic tradition involves a ruthless unmasking of the human capacity for self-deception and hypocrisy. There are renegade Jews who do lie - e.g. the deplorable Ilan Pappe - but in general I find a passion for objective truth, running right through Jewish culture, that is immensely attractive.
Maimonides, who had had plenty of firsthand experience of several Mohammedan societes, dissected the sheer irrationalism of the Muslim worldview, centuries ago...and diagnosed Mohammed as Ha-Meshugga, the Madman.
Aside to any Jews reading this: I *love* you guys! "Blessed are you among the nations, and blessed is the Word that you bear!"
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 15, 2008 11:56 PM
Jewish, Hebrew posters - Shy Guy, you're Orthodox, are you reading this? - can you help us out with the standard Masoretic reading of Genesis 22, and the classic rabbinic/ yeshiva interpretations of that Hebrew text, including the significance in context of the Hebrew word "yâchîyd or yahid, pronounced yaw-kheed¢"? This is *your* history, the story of *your* actual ancestor, written in *your* book and in *your* own language, and I think you should have the right to demolish the revolting, slippery sophistry of the Mohammedan. Have at him! And I, a Gentile Christian, will stand back and cheer you on!Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at September 15, 2008 11:56 PM
Here's Genesis 22 (with Rashi's commentary displayed), unadulterated since time immemorial.
I think it is very important, from a chronological perspective, that you take a look at the last verse, 34, in the preceding chapter 21. Note the Rashi there and note that he is quoting the commentary Seder Olam, which was compiled way before any creature named Mohamed wreaked disaster in this world.
Posted by: Shy Guy at September 16, 2008 7:19 AM
Wow, Shy Guy, that certainly covers the Ishmael/Isaac question. I believe Ishmael was off living in the Desert of Paran with his Egyptian wife by then…
Abdullah – you wrote:
“The Quran confirms the truth of the prior revelation is what is spoken of.
Where there is a difference that contradicts clear legislation in the Quran that narration is rejected, yet if it is a matter that is not confirmed or denied by the Quran then it remains as a narration from the people of the book, neither taken as truth nor condemned as lie. This is the respect for the People of the Book and their traditions that is still maintained today by the believers.”
I’m not sure what you’re trying to tell me. It sounds like ‘the Qur’an respects previous scripture until it says something that disagrees with it, and then it rejects it.’ This seems very far away from all those verses that say the Qur’an corroborates and confirms the previous scripture, which was also given by God.
The story that you followed with – about “punishment of the grave” means nothing at all to me since I can find no biblical reference to said “punishment”. Perhaps someone can enlighten me here. Also, this account is surely from ‘hadith’, not the Qur’an. I have only read the Qur’an. Should I read hadith and sunna? I know very little about these. Are they also considered to be ‘scripture’? I have formed the impression that among the schisms of Islam there are some who reject one or the other, or do not give either credence at all; and even, I gather, those who would wish to remove parts from the Qur’an – though who on earth (literally) would dare claim the authority to do such a thing is a mystery to me.
You said:
“There is still an original copy of the Uthmani Quran, standardized texts with the Harakat, or vowel accent marks, around forty years after the Prophet passed away. This original text is preserved in Istanbul. Today’s Quran is no different almost 1,400 years later. No editing, no major revisions, not one iota of change.”
I’m not arguing with the authenticity of the Qur’an as a record of Muhammad’s recitations (though I’m a little wary of the accuracy of something that began written in fragments on assorted palm leaves and stones and suchlike, and was only assembled and copied out later). My point has always been that the Jewish and Christian scriptures have an even older history of reliability, and are supposedly corroborated and respected by the Qur’an, and yet at the same time appear to be bastardized and mocked by it.
You said:
“If you truly wish to learn something about Islam I do not recommend Robert Spencer as a source. He has an agenda that is clearly not to reveal the truth, but only the “truth” he wants you to see in the light he wants you to see it.”
I know that Robert Spencer has his own opinions about Islam, but in this blog his agenda seems only to be to give us a better understanding of what the Qur’an says, with reference to mainstream Islamic commentary. When answering questions he gives straightforward references which can easily be checked in the text. I haven’t had time to read back through the whole series, but as far as I’ve seen he is very restrained with his opinion, refusing to be provoked into emotive rhetoric. A perfect gentleman. Thank you Robert.
at September 16, 2008 8:35 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)