Well, David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi opted for a double act in trying to attack the Quran and its Preservation - fortunately people don't fall for such a charade so easily. Here is our rebuke of their attacks on Quranic Preservation
The narrations critics are using to attack the Preservation of the Quran
Here is a forged narration critics are using:
“The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Quran. I like it better to read according to the recitation of him [ie Muhammad] whom I love more than that of Zaid ibn Thabit”
(Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al Tabaqat al Kabir, Vol2, p444)
This narration does NOT even exist! This fact is confirmed by Muslim apologist, Bassam Zawadi [1]
The statement; “The people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Quran” does not exist in the actual source material. It appears somebody just fabricated this.
Honest people should not use this narration.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VdI0o4SmY0
Here is Dr GF Hadad adding some helpful insight regarding the narrations critics are using:
John Burton quotes plenty of additional evidence explaining the workings of the abrogation of that particular verses in part 5 of his book The Collection of the Qur'an (1977) which was posted in full three years ago in SRI and from which Katz et al. cull their insinuations then rechew them before us every year.
`A'isa explains how the wording came to be omitted from the mushaf: The stoning verse and another verse were revealed and recorded on a sheet (sahifa) which was placed for safe-keeping under her bedding. When the Prophet fell ill and the household were preoccupied with nursing him, a domestic animal got in from the yard and gobbled up the sheet. (Burhan al Din al Baji, "Jawab", MS Dar al Kutub, Taimur "majami`", no. 207, f. 15)
The above report is also taken from Burton. I consider it a forgery and add that its content is absurd, since the Companions did not rely on this missing piece to ascertain the existence of the wording or its abrogated status. At any rate, such a report stands out for not being cited in any of the recognized sources in the technical literature.
---
Many of (the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found even with (one person) after them. (Kitab al-Masahif, p.23)
Kitab al-Masahif was compiled by `Abd Allah ibn Sulayman ibn al-Ash`ath al-Sijistani, known as Ibn Abi Dawud, the son of the major early hadith master Abu Dawud. This is what the authorities said about Ibn Abi Dawud:
Ibn `Adi narrated in al-Kamil fi al-Du`afa' with his chain from `Ali ibn al-Husayn ibn al-Junayd: I heard Abu Dawud say: "My son, `Abd Allah, is a liar."
Ibn Sa`id said: "Suffice it for us, what Ibn Abi Dawud's father said about him."
Ibrahim ibn Awrama al-Asbahani said: "Ibn Abi Dawud is a liar."
Abu al-Qasim al-Baghawi received a paper from Ibn Abi Dawud in which the latter asked him about the wording of a hadith related from his grandfather. Al-Baghawi read the paper then said: "I swear by Allah that in my view you have brought yourself out of hadith science."
Sources: Ibn `Adi, al-Kamil fi al-Du`afa' (4:226); al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-I`tidal (2:433) and Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (10:582).
It follows that anything that comes only from Kitab al-Masahif must be held in suspension until corroborated by an independent, reliable source or declared authentic by one of the competent authorities, or adduced by them.
---
Full article by Dr G F Haddad can be found here:
http://www.sunnah.org/history/memorizers.htm
IslamResponses weighs in and shatters the "Ate by a Goat" nonsense and clarification concerning "the Quranic verse on stoning" issue.
IslamResponses also focusses on the tired and refuted argument of 2Surah al-Walayah & Surah al-Nurayn" - don't be surprised it is a response video to the most shoddy Christian missionary I have ever come across (Christian Prince). Christian Prince is reliant on lies and tired plus refuted arguments:
Video description:
Christian missionaries fail to prove the readability of the bible so they try desperately to prove the Quran has been altered and changed as the bible .
Note this post is still under construction and constant addition, inshaAllah
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
You can only shake your head at the antics of these 2 clowns. They are getting more and more desperate by the day. Woods has a PhD and qureshi a medical doctor :(
'Desperados' is the most appropirate description for them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-7xrav9rmo&feature=related
Sorry guys, I know how much you all missed me but I had to take a much needed vacation away from Yahyas deceits. I'm back, at least for now.
Dang Yahya, you got taken on the perfect preservation :D You basically said "Everybody supported this master copy and burned the original Quran's (pl)"!
This is completely incorrect, NOT everyone agreed on the 'master copy' – thats the whole point of David and Nabeels video which you don't address! Where are the other "forms" of the Quran which Muhammad approved? – Nowhere, they are lost. And the companion who was said to be the best reciter of Quran by Muhammad himself, well his stuff got rejected! There were disagreements! They give hadith and proof in the video which you don't explain! Nice try, but you respond with absolutely nothing.
But now since you claimed Paul was a liar, Ali, can you please explain this to me:
"Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (FALSE) thing (i.e. to DECEIVE Kab). "The Prophet said, " You MAY say it." [Bukhari Vol 5 Book 59 Num 369]
and of course all those sahih hadith stating
"Allah is the greatest of deceivers".
How in the world can you come after Paul and the Bible with such hypocritical standards Ali?
Look at your own sources, Muhammad literally lets his followers lie in order to propagate his religion. That is sick and twisted, and it is stunning you have enough bravado to pipe up and call Paul a liar when your prophet and your god were the best liars around, from your own authentic sources.
The hypocrisy is baffling. And you can actually go to the Bible and read your own context and inane understanding into something which has completely nothing to do with lies, but everything to do with truth – and then parrot it over and over? Just stunning! Man, you are really deceived.
REPOSTING REPLY TO ALI CONCERNING PHIL 1:18 (in this thread)
Ali said: 3 muslims became christians? no i'm guessing it's christians again, practicing philippians 1:18
Ok Ali, i have already chuckled a few times at seeing you go on about Philippians 1:18, so finally I’ll let you in on a little secret known as context:
Phi 1:12-21 RSV
“I want you to know, brethren, that what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole praetorian guard and to all the rest that my imprisonment is for Christ;
and most of the brethren have been made confident in the Lord because of my imprisonment, and are much more bold to speak the word of God without fear.
Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel;
the former proclaim Christ out of partisanship, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment.
18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I shall rejoice.
For I know that through your prayers and the help of the Spirit of Jesus Christ this will turn out for my deliverance, as it is my eager expectation and hope that I shall not be at all ashamed, but that with full courage now as always Christ will be honored in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
What Paul is saying here is that there are some preachers whom are preaching in order to afflict Paul whom is imprisoned for preaching and converting people to Christ. Paul is their competition, and since he is in prison his competition is being vocal and persistent in their preaching knowing this will cause Rome more unrest and leave Paul with a harsher penalty.
Paul says clearly in the passage you keep quoting that it is their MOTIVES which are false, but yet Paul cannot condemn them since he knows EVERYTHING coming out of their mouths concerning Lord Jesus is 100 PERCENT BONA FIDE TRUTH! And for THAT he REJOICES! Christ’s name is on EVERYONE’S LIPS!
This outweighs the motives the preachers have towards their competition, namely Paul, and Paul again clearly states he cares more about Jesus being preached than his wellbeing, it is a beautiful passage. Kind of like what happened with Acts 17 recently and their vocal “supposedly” Christian critics (where there really any?), but not really (cuz their persecution compared to Paul’s persecution was a cakewalk).
Maybe I can make it easier for you. Say you meet a really pretty girl that you want to get to know better and you ask her for her phone number and meet her up one day over coffee. During conversation it comes up that she is NOT a Muslim.
Now let me ask YOU: wouldn’t you preach allah to her, and wouldn’t your motive for preaching be because you want to be with her and not because of your zeal for allah or Islam?
Of course it would, because any other way you would have never preached or even spoken to her. The whole reason you preached is because of YOUR motive to be with her. Would you be saying anything false about Islam or Allah (as you understand it because of your reason for preaching to her? Of course not, your motives might be false but what you say can still be true!
BUT YAHYA! IF YOU DONT WANT ME TO ANSWER WHY DID YOU ASK?! LOL
Both Ibn and Yahya:
A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).
I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.
What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.
Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.
A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5
BUT YAHYA! IF YOU DONT WANT ME TO ANSWER WHY DID YOU ASK?! LOL
Both Ibn and Yahya:
A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).
I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.
What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.
Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.
A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5
BUT YAHYA! IF YOU DONT WANT ME TO ANSWER WHY DID YOU ASK?! LOL
Both Ibn and Yahya:
A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).
I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.
What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.
Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.
A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5
@Anonymousing
If you want to be taken seriously and want genuine responses from people then how about unveiling yourself and let people know your true identity
As for the show; Pastor Joseph, Hamoudy, Shamoun and Wood would operate heavy censorship - I guess being found out on their own show is not something they are willing to risk thus we would not receive real airtime
But hey, we have the next best thing; blogger and YT - don't you just love the internet
Take care
God bless
PS anonymousing
If you want to be taken seriously you would do well to resist comparing your pals with Paul
Anonymousing is at it again, making a fool of himself. The hadith he quoted on Kaab bin Al Ashraf has the Prophet(saw) allowing a person to lie in order to assassinate a troublemaker. From that he jumps to the conclusion that lying to propagate Islam is ok! Talk about non sequiturs.
As for Allah being a deceiver, where in the 99 names of God do we find one where He is called as such?
Anonymousing: Where are the other "forms" of the Quran which Muhammad approved? – Nowhere, they are lost.
Or they are incorporated in the existing Quran. That position is also supported by scholars you know.
Both Ibn and Yahya:
A simple cursory search with the word “Muhammad” and “gay” will produce Many articles and websites accusing Muhammad of just this thing. I do not see a single refutation anywhere (besides Yahyas meager attempt).
I read your article on homosexuality in Islam Yahya. It does not address a single authentic hadith of Muhammad cross dressing in women’s clothes (regarded as homosexual activity). Simply saying “we all KNOW Islam doesn’t allow homosexuality” and quoting the words of later Islamic scholars doesn’t say anything about Muhammad and his cross dressing practices.
What if a Muslim with those particular sinful tendencies read those hadith (above) and started following the example of Muhammad? He would think it was OK because Muhammad did it and therefore it’s acceptable in Islam! It is very sad.
Remember, nobody said anything about committing the act of homosexuality, but about Muhammad cross dressing, which sure can be thought of as a form of homosexuality.
A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5
Pssst anonymousing ,
No matter how you twist and turn , it still does not change the context of phi1:18 that deception can be used in preaching christianity (phi1:18 '..The important thing is that in every way, whether from FALSE MOTIVES or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice..). You guys even rejoice upon doing it.
If you find it difficult to be honest with us muslims , do yourself a favour , be honest with yourself.
Islam is disproven because the Koran teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. Where'd Mohammed get that from? From Matthew chapter 1. Where'd Matthew get it from? He made it up on the basis of a lying and purposeful misinterpretation of Isaiah 7.
Now then, o ye people of the Koran, why did you not believe us when we showed you that your book is not of Allah? Repent and turn from serving a book written by a deceived illiterate, and serve Allah in truth! (i.e. be a Deist)
For indeed, Matthew bases his claim that Jesus was born of a virgin on Isaiah 7:14 "Behold the LORD himself will give you a sing: a virgin will conceive and bear a son" and Mohammed follows Matthew's blunder.
But in Isaiah 7 the prophecy is not about Jesus, nor about any long distant future time (o people of the book and people of the Koran give heed, for we speak truth) but is about when two kings who live in Isaiah's own time will be defeated.
Ahaz is being attacked by Pekkah son of Remaliah king of Israel who is based in Samaria, and by Rezin king of Syria bases in Damascus. And he fears greatly (as you should fear, ye people of the Koran).
And Isaiah is sent by Yahweh to tell him not to fear for the kings will not defeat him, but he does not believe. And Isaiah gives him a chance to choose a sign to prove that God will protect him from these kings, but he refuses to choose a sign.
So Isaiah says, "Behold the LORD himself will give you a sign: a virgin shall conceive and bear a son" -- this is not Jesus, this is not Isa -- for what is the sign about??
He says further if you continue reading in Isaiah 7:15-16 that between the birth of this virgin-born child and the time he comes to a knowledge of good and evil the two kings (then alive) will be defeated by Assyria!!!
"For before this child knows to choose good and refuse evil, the land you hate will be deserted by both its kings, for I will shave the land close with a hired razor, the king of Assyria"
The sign is when the two kings will be defeated, in Ahaz and Isaiah's only time!!!!!!!! And in chapter 8, Isaiah declares that God declared to him that the promised child was a child born before his very eyes, Mahershalalhashbaz!!!!!!
You are decieved then, o people of the Koran, as much as the people of the book are, for Isa was not the child promised to be born of a virgin, but Mahershalalhashbaz who was born much earlier was the child!!!!!
Your Koran is written by an illiterate and you are on the path to Jehennam!!!!!! Repent ye of your obstinance against God, and your idiocy!!!!
Mohammed was so illiterate he thought that Miriam the daughter of Amram (sister of Moses) and Miriam the Mother of Isa were the same!!!! Way to bridge a gap of at least 2000 years with illiteracy!
At length she brought (the babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms), They said: "O Mary! Truly a strange thing has thou brought! "O sister of Aaron, thy father was not a man of evil, nor your mother a woman unchaste!"....(vs 34 Such is Isa, son of Mary...)
-- Sura 19:27-28...34
And Mary, the daughter of `Imran, who guarded her chastity,....
-- Sura 66:12
beowulf2k8:
How dare you? You come here and start spewing your self-defeating statements and you call us idiots?
You wrote:
"book written by a deceived illiterate"
Think about it...
Muhammad (saas) was illiterate. That's why the Quran could not be his words, but almighty God's, because no one can match the Quran.
Also, before posting anything, I suggest you watch all of brother Yahya's videos and read all of his posts....
Post a Comment