Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject: The Slam Dunk Show
Salam all
One goon on FFI posted the following to me:
truthseeker2 of FFI said:
I tell you what, seeing I must have posted way to many examples of error with the quran. I will post some here again, but this time I will keep it small as we all know that our friend here ahmed can not take that many at a time, as it probably confuses him. So here are a few for you.
In Sura 41:30 and 57:21 there is said to be only one garden in Paradise.
or is it in fact
In Sura 18:31, 22:23, 25:33, and 78:32 there are many gardens in Paradise.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many groups will there be at the last judgement?
Sura 56:7 says there will be three distinct groups of people at the Last Judgment.
or is it
Sura 90:18-19 and 99:6-8 say there will be two distinct groups at the Last Judgment.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who takes people's souls at death?
Sura 32:11 The angel of death
Sura 47:27 The angels (plural)
or
Sura 39:42 "It is Allah that takes the souls at death"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many wings do angels have?
Sura 35:1 Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings
what about old Gabby, he is an angel.
The angel Gabriel had 600 wings. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about, How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad?
Sura 54:19 - One day
but we now have
Sura 41:16 & 69:6,7 - several days
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How many days did creation take?
Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 all clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days.
But we have
Sura 41:9-12, the detailed description of the creation procedure, add up to eight days.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which was created first, the heavens or the earth?
Sura 2:29 says the earth was created first and then heaven.
but
Sura 49:27-30 says the heaven was created first and then the earth was created.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heaven and earth ripped apart or called together?
Sura 41:11 states that in the process of creation heaven and earth were first apart and are called to come together.
& then we get
Sura 21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped apart.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Allah forgive shirk?
Sura 4:48, 116
No
then we get
Sura 4:153, 25:68-71
Yes
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moses and the Injil
Jesus was born more than 1,000 years after Moses, but in Sura 7:157 Allah speaks to Moses about what is written in the Injil (the book given to Jesus)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who brings the revelation from Allah to Muhammad?
Sura 2:97 - The Angel Gabriel
or was it
Sura 16:102 - The Holy Spirit
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander the Great
Surah 18:89-98 says Alexander the Great was a devout Muslim and lived to a ripe old age.
But?
Historical records show that Alexander the Great died young at 33 years of age. He believed he was divine and forced others to recognize him as such. In India on the Hyphasis River Alexander erected twelve altars to twelve Olympian gods.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezra the son of God
Surah 9:30 says the Jews believe that Ezra is the Son of God - the Messiah.
But!
This has never been a tenet of Judaism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now last but not least,
The Golden Calf
Surah 20:90-100 says a Samaritan helped the Israelites build the golden calf, and it mooed after coming out of the fire.
But & this is real good & I look forward to the explanation.
Samaritans did not exist as a people until at least 1000 years after the time of Moses and the Israelite exodus from Egypt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Ahmed, I have tried to be brief here & I have not given anywhere near the amount I did last time. Now I know I have given you more than one as you asked, but I am sure than a man such as yourself who has such a vast knowledge of the quran & islam would have no problem in explaining all the above for us. If you do not wish to do them all in one go, you can do them one at a time in the order they have been posted.
I actually have no time with their repeated ignorance as I'm now getting ready to leave for a long work trip on the 4 of June, however I decided to start a slam dunk show and reply to all the above crap as my time allows, today I hit them with the first 3 slams
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Mon 02 Apr, 2018 6:37 am; edited 4 times in total
Posted:
Tue 13 May, 2008 7:46 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
Let me get the slams going, I would like to finish refuting the above crap before I go overseas
The next stupid allegation to expose is this:
truthseeker2 wrote:
Allah's day is equal to how many human years?
In Sura 22:47 and 32:5 Allah's day is equal to 1,000 human years.
or is it in fact
In Sura 70:4, Allah's day is equal to 50,000 human years.
Hahahahahaahah
Again, I replied to the above ignorance many times:
Firstly, to define a day, we need a location somewhere in the universe
For example
Mercury day = 58.65 Earth days
Venus day = 243 Earth days
Earth day = 1 Earth days
Mars day = 1.03 Earth days
Jupiter day = 0.41 Earth days
Saturn day = 0.44 Earth days
Uranus day = 0.72 Earth days
Neptune day = 0.72 Earth days
Pluto day = 6.38 Earth days
Mercury day = 58.65 days of what the humans on earth count as days
And sure the same for every planet
Indeed every planet day or star day is different to another hence it can be referred to (relatively) by referring to the equivalent number of earth days instead. But that is only if I tell you that the day I'm talking about equals to what number of days/years on another location in the universe, if I mention a day without telling you what it is equal to at another place then you won't know what day I'm talking about , with this in mind let me now go through your silly argument:
Here is the first Arabic verse you mentioned:
And they mock you to hasten on the punishment, and Allah will by no means fail in His promise, and indeed a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you count. [The Quran ; 22:47]
وَيَسْتَعْجِلُونَكَ بِالْعَذَابِ وَلَن يُخْلِفَ اللَّهُ وَعْدَهُ وَإِنَّ يَوْمًا عِندَ رَبِّكَ كَأَلْفِ سَنَةٍ مِّمَّا تَعُدُّونَ (47)
-> Can you see the words عِندَ رَبِّكَ , Inda Rabaka, with your Lord, i.e. we have a location, i.e. Allah is talking g about the day that He chose to apply to Him and He also told us how long that day is by comparing it to the earth year, see what Allah said: وَإِنَّ يَوْمًا عِندَ رَبِّكَ كَأَلْفِ سَنَةٍ مِّمَّا تَعُدُّونَ, i.e. and indeed a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you count., see the words: of what you count. , i.e. of what the humans count as a year, i.e. an earthy year, from the above verse we can conclude:
1) 22:47 is talking about a day AT ALLAH END
2) Allah told us that this day AT HIS END = 1000 years of what the human count on earth as years
3) i.e. the day at Allah end = 1000 earth years
In the other verse you presented, Allah never told us that the day He is talking about is a day at His end, let's have a look:
He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count. [The Quran ; 32:5]
يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ مِنَ السَّمَاء إِلَى الْأَرْضِ ثُمَّ يَعْرُجُ إِلَيْهِ فِي يَوْمٍ كَانَ مِقْدَارُهُ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ مِّمَّا تَعُدُّونَ (5)
-> See, Allah is only talking about a day in which He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him, i.e. He never told us that this is a day of His as He said in 22:47, i.e. we can not compare the two, however Allah told us that the day He is talking about in 32:5 is also equal to 1000 years of what the human count on earth: in a day the measure of which is a thousand years of what you count., only the stupid dumb will take it as if Allah is talking about the same day He mentioned in 22:47.
From the above verse, we can conclude the following:
1) 32:5 is not talking about a day at Allah end, rather another day that He told nothing to where this day is, i.e. we can't know which day He is talking about other than the following:
2) The day 32:5 is talking about is the day required for Allah so: He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him, the verse never said that this day applies to Allah as we read in 22:47
3) It just happened that the two different days mentioned in 22:47 & 32:5 have the same length, which is equal to 1000 earth years
From the two verses we can conclude:
The length of the day at Allah end = the length of the day in which He regulates the affair from the heaven to the earth; then shall it ascend to Him = 1000 earth years
Now if we look at 70:4 we must conclude that the verse is talking about yet another day, which is different to the other two days mentioned in 22:47 $ 32:5
To Him ascend the angels and the Spirit in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years. [The Quran ; 70:4]
تَعْرُجُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ وَالرُّوحُ إِلَيْهِ فِي يَوْمٍ كَانَ مِقْدَارُهُ خَمْسِينَ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ (4)
Now 70:4 has nothing to do with 22:47, nor 32:5 for the following two obvious reasons:
1) The verse never told us that the day mentioned is a day at Allah, i.e. A day with Allah
2) The verse never told us that it is equivalent to 50,000 OF WHAT THE HUMANS ON EARTH COUNT as years, it only said that such day in which To Him ascend the angels and the Spirit, is equal to 50,000 years: the measure of which is fifty thousand years., those years can be any year, a year on Mars, a year on Earth or a year on any other location in the universe, the verse message is only to inform us with the huge numbers of angels that Allah created using the time they need to ascend to Him which is very long.
Here you have it, the three verses are talking about 3 different days, but the goons want to take it as one day, this is because they are desperate to find just one error, and because they can't, they have to cook one, well their actions won't save them from being slammed:
# 2
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Tue 28 Feb, 2017 5:22 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted:
Tue 13 May, 2008 7:47 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
truthseeker2 wrote:
How many garden's are there in paradise?
In Sura 41:30 and 57:21 there is said to be only one garden in Paradise.
or is it in fact
In Sura 18:31, 22:23, 25:33, and 78:32 there are many gardens in Paradise.
This one is one of the typical crap the kafirs spew trying hard to cook an error, however they always end up embarrassing themselves due to their lack of common sense, they are blinded with their kufr not to even see the simplest of logics and common sense
I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m sure many saw a building with possibly hundreds of offices inside, a person may have 1 or 2 or 3 or whatever number of these offices in this building allocated to him, now I can refer to the building in singular form to refer to the whole building if I want to say something about the building, or I can refer to the offices inside the buikding in plural if I want to say anything regarding the offices, and this is the common sense that the blind kafirs deliberately failed to see. Another example is a car park, to which I can refer to it in singular as a whole or refer to the individual car spaces inside in plural.
If you apply the above simple logic on Paradise then the Paradise will be the building and in it there should be many small paradises, and indeed this is exactly what the Quran told us because for any paradise resident, he or she may have many small paradises in the main paradise
The Quran referred to the Jannah (Paradise) using singular form in at least 75 verse, but as you can see that truthseekere is picking on two, I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m sure that he does not know how many times the Quran referred to the Paradise using the singular Arabic word (Jannah), that is the consequence of copy/pasting without knowing what the hell they are talking about, I will prove to you his stupidity later on inshalllah
What I will do is go through the verses he posted to support his ignorance then will provide more verses to support my argument that I explained above, by the end of my comment you should be assured to how stupid, ignorant and dumb truthseeker2 is:
These are the first verses he brought in:
As for) those who say: Our Lord is Allah, then continue in the right way, the angels descend upon them, saying: Fear not, nor be grieved, and receive good news of the garden which you were promised [The Quran ; 41:30]
إِنَّ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا رَبُّنَا اللَّهُ ثُمَّ اسْتَقَامُوا تَتَنَزَّلُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ أَلَّا تَخَافُوا وَلَا تَحْزَنُوا وَأَبْشِرُوا بِالْجَنَّةِ الَّتِي كُنتُمْ تُوعَدُونَ (30)
Hasten to forgiveness from your Lord and to a garden the extensiveness of which is as the extensiveness of the heaven and the earth; it is prepared for those who believe in Allah and His messengers; that is the grace of Allah: He gives it to whom He pleases, and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace. [The Quran ; 57:21]
سَابِقُوا إِلَى مَغْفِرَةٍ مِّن رَّبِّكُمْ وَجَنَّةٍ عَرْضُهَا كَعَرْضِ السَّمَاء وَالْأَرْضِ أُعِدَّتْ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا بِاللَّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ ذَلِكَ فَضْلُ اللَّهِ يُؤْتِيهِ مَن يَشَاء وَاللَّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ (21)
-> In these verses and another 73 verses at least, Allah is referring to the Jannah as one entity, like the building or the car park
-> An important note in 57:21, that the paradise (the main and only one) is so huge that: a garden the extensiveness of which is as the extensiveness of the heaven and the earth, please take note of this as I will use it later in another verse
It is obvious to a child that when Allah is using the singular form regarding the Jannah, then it has to be in s for the main one and only paradise, however we know that any garden being on earth or any where else may consists of many small gardens inside, for example:
-> Someone on earth may have one big garden, inside such garden is two small gardens, one that has trees to produce Mangos, and another has trees to produce Oranges, now, if that person refers to it in singular form then he must be referring to the main and only big garden he has, but if he refers to it in dual form then we must know that he is referring to both small gardens inside his main garden, how hard is that to understand, man, the kafirs desperation is making them look really fool, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s look at the following verses which is metaphoric story in the Quran about a rich and kafir man whose money did not save his two gardens from the curse of Allah:
32: And set forth to them a parable of two men; for one of them We made two gardens of grape vines, and We surrounded them both with palms, and in the midst of them We made cornfields.
33: Both these gardens yielded their fruits, and failed not aught thereof, and We caused a river to gush forth in their midst,
34: And he possessed much produce; so he said to his companion, while he disputed with him: I have greater wealth than you, and am mightier in followers.
35: And he entered his garden while he was unjust to himself. He said: I do not think that this will ever perish [The Quran ; 18:32-35]
وَاضْرِبْ لَهُم مَّثَلًا رَّجُلَيْنِ جَعَلْنَا لِأَحَدِهِمَا جَنَّتَيْنِ مِنْ أَعْنَابٍ وَحَفَفْنَاهُمَا بِنَخْلٍ وَجَعَلْنَا بَيْنَهُمَا زَرْعًا (32)
كِلْتَا الْجَنَّتَيْنِ آتَتْ أُكُلَهَا وَلَمْ تَظْلِمْ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا وَفَجَّرْنَا خِلَالَهُمَا نَهَرًا (33)
وَكَانَ لَهُ ثَمَرٌ فَقَالَ لِصَاحِبِهِ وَهُوَ يُحَاوِرُهُ أَنَا أَكْثَرُ مِنكَ مَالًا وَأَعَزُّ نَفَرًا (34)
وَدَخَلَ جَنَّتَهُ وَهُوَ ظَالِمٌ لِّنَفْسِهِ قَالَ مَا أَظُنُّ أَن تَبِيدَ هَذِهِ أَبَدًا (35)
-> See how Allah is telling Mohammed to tell a parable to the people: And set forth to them a parable of two men, one of these men is very rich while the other is poor, the rich man has TWO GARDENS: see how it is said in dual: جَعَلْنَا لِأَحَدِهِمَا جَنَّتَيْنِ , Jaallna Li Ihdahuma JANATAYN, i.e. for one of them We made two gardens, Allah then described the two gardens to us be referring to both of them in dual: and We surrounded them both with palms, and in the midst of them We made cornfields., Allah then continued to tell us more info about the two gardens the rich man owned: Both these gardens yielded their fruits, and failed not aught thereof, and We caused a river to gush forth in their midst, see how Allah is referring to the both gardens in dual: الْجَنَّتَيْنِ , Al Janatayn, i.e. The two gardens, the two gardens yielded their produce which made the owner wealthy so he was showing it off to the poor man: And he possessed much produce; so he said to his companion, while he disputed with him: I have greater wealth than you,, obviously because he is rich, he had a lot of arse lickers licking his arse, see what he said next: and am mightier in followers., some time later the rich man entered HIS BIG GARDEN (SINGUALR) which has the two small gardens inside, see how it is said in th next verse: وَدَخَلَ جَنَّتَهُ , Wa Dakhal Jannathu, i.e. And he entered his garden see how the verse is referring to it in singular form, i.e. he entered the MAIN GARDEN, surely both gardens are enclosed in one fence which mean both small gardens constitute the one big garden he owns
From the above:
1) The rich man owned one big garden
2) Each garden produced its own produce, possibly one produced tomatoes and another produced eggplant, you know
3) We can refer to the main garden the man owns by using singular form : جَنَّهُ , Jannat, i.e. a garden
4) Or we can refer to the two small gardens inside the main garden by using dual form الْجَنَّتَيْنِ , Al Janatayn, i.e. The two gardens
Another clear example is the earth, we know well that the earth is not Al Jannah (The Garden), we also know that the earth has many gardens, this means the many gardens on earth can NOT constitute the earth because the earth is not the main garden rather parts of it are gardens, therefore when Allah described to us the gardens on earth that are produced by the rain, He must use the plural form, Jannat, He can never refer to it as singular because all these Jannat (gardens) on earth DO NOT CONSTITUTE A MAIN JANNAH (Garden), let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s have a look at a few examples:
And We send down from the cloud water abounding in good, then We cause to grow thereby gardens and the grain that is reaped, [The Quran ; 50:9]
وَنَزَّلْنَا مِنَ السَّمَاء مَاء مُّبَارَكًا فَأَنبَتْنَا بِهِ جَنَّاتٍ وَحَبَّ الْحَصِيدِ (9)
-> See how the verse above is talking about the gardens on earth: And We send down from the cloud water abounding in good,, and what this rain will do: فَأَنبَتْنَا بِهِ جَنَّاتٍ , Fa Anbattna Bihi Jannat, i.e. then We cause to grow thereby gardens, it has to be plural because the earth is not one big garden rather parts of it are gardens
Another example goes like this:
14: And We send down from the clouds water pouring forth abundantly,
15: That We may bring forth thereby corn and herbs,
16: And gardens dense and luxuriant. [The Quran ; 78:14-16]
وَأَنزَلْنَا مِنَ الْمُعْصِرَاتِ مَاء ثَجَّاجًا (14)
لِنُخْرِجَ بِهِ حَبًّا وَنَبَاتًا (15)
وَجَنَّاتٍ أَلْفَافًا (16)
-> See what happens on earth: And We send down from the clouds water pouring forth abundantly, this water will cause the following: That We may bring forth thereby corn and herbs, and وَجَنَّاتٍ أَلْفَافًا , Wa Jannat Alfafa , i.e. And gardens dense and luxuriant., again, in plural as the singular can not be valid when we talk gardens on earth, again because the earth does not make a one big garden, rather parts of it are gardens and parts of it so hostile environment that can not be inhibited
Another example as follow:
33: And a sign to them is the dead earth: We give life to it and bring forth from it grain so they eat of it.
34: And We make therein gardens of palms and grapevines and We make springs to flow forth in it,
35: That they may eat of the produce thereof, and their hands did not make it; will they not then be grateful? [The Quran ; 36:33-35]
وَآيَةٌ لَّهُمُ الْأَرْضُ الْمَيْتَةُ أَحْيَيْنَاهَا وَأَخْرَجْنَا مِنْهَا حَبًّا فَمِنْهُ يَأْكُلُونَ (33)
وَجَعَلْنَا فِيهَا جَنَّاتٍ مِن نَّخِيلٍ وَأَعْنَابٍ وَفَجَّرْنَا فِيهَا مِنْ الْعُيُونِ (34)
لِيَأْكُلُوا مِن ثَمَرِهِ وَمَا عَمِلَتْهُ أَيْدِيهِمْ أَفَلَا يَشْكُرُونَ (35)
-> Again, we are talking about gardens on earth, see: And a sign to them is the dead earth: We give life to it and bring forth from it grain so they eat of it., but hey, for the blind kafirs, while they admit that it is a sign (a miracle), they reject that Allah is the one who caused it to happen such way, this is how blind they are, as if by accepting it, they will lose, what a bunch of ever losers, man, anyway, this rain will cause gardens to grow on earth: وَجَعَلْنَا فِيهَا جَنَّاتٍ , Wa Jaalna Fiha Jannat, i.e. And We make therein (in the earth) gardens, again, Allah is not referring to it in singular because the earth as one piece does not make one big garden, but see how all humans eat from the produce of all these gardens on earth as well trade in it and make their living yet most of them are kafiroon (disbelievers): That they may eat of the produce thereof, and their hands did not make it; will they not then be grateful?
In the following verse, Allah said it in more details:
And He is the One Who sends down from the sky water, then We bring with it plant of everything, then We bring from it green (leaf) from which We bring grain piled up; and of the palm-trees, of its sheaths come forth clusters (of dates which) are near (reach), and gardens of grapes and the olives and the pomegranates, alike and unlike; Look at its produce when it yields and ripens; indeed in there are signs for a people who believe. [The Quran ; 6:99]
وَهُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاء مَاء فَأَخْرَجْنَا بِهِ نَبَاتَ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ فَأَخْرَجْنَا مِنْهُ خَضِرًا نُّخْرِجُ مِنْهُ حَبًّا مُّتَرَاكِبًا وَمِنَ النَّخْلِ مِن طَلْعِهَا قِنْوَانٌ دَانِيَةٌ وَجَنَّاتٍ مِّنْ أَعْنَابٍ وَالزَّيْتُونَ وَالرُّمَّانَ مُشْتَبِهًا وَغَيْرَ مُتَشَابِهٍ انظُرُواْ إِلِى ثَمَرِهِ إِذَا أَثْمَرَ وَيَنْعِهِ إِنَّ فِي ذَلِكُمْ لآيَاتٍ لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ (99)
-> See how detailed it is this time: And He is the One Who sends down from the sky water, then We bring with it plant of everything, then We bring from it green (leaf) from which We bring grain piled up; and of the palm-trees, of its sheaths come forth clusters (of dates which) are near (reach), and gardens of grapes and the olives and the pomegranates, alike and unlike; Look at its produce when it yields and ripens; indeed in there are signs for a people who believe., what an amazing accuracy when we talk gardens on earth, it has to always be plural as I explained and proved many times so far
With the promised garden however, we can refer to it in two ways:
1) In singular form because the promised garden makes one and only big garden
2) In plural because the dwellers of the promised garden, each will have at least his/her own garden, in fact it is even possible that each dweller may have more than one garden inside the promised garden
The bottom line is this: the promised garden consist of nothing but many garden that will be owned by its dwellers, therefore in at least 65 verse in the Quran, Allah used the plural to refer to one garden by referring to many gardens inside
If the tiny earth whose main purpose is not the promised garden, have many gardens as we have seen in all the above verses, imagine the promised garden whose main purpose is to be the promised garden, a garden the extensiveness of which is as the extensiveness of the heaven and the earth;, it must have zillions of gardens, and its content must only be many gardens
From the above all the verses, it is obvious that when Allah uses the plural referring to the promised garden, he is using its content (the zillions of gardens) in plural to refer to it, in addition to that, a garden dweller may own many gardens in and in such case Allah is referring to many gardens that may be a reward to anyone who will prosper, let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s look at the following verse:
Blessed is He Who, if He please, will give you what is better than this, gardens beneath which rivers flow, and He will give you palaces. [The Quran ; 25:10]
تَبَارَكَ الَّذِي إِن شَاء جَعَلَ لَكَ خَيْرًا مِّن ذَلِكَ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِي مِن تَحْتِهَا الْأَنْهَارُ وَيَجْعَل لَّكَ قُصُورًا (10)
-> See what the reward may be for the promised garden dwellers: Blessed is He Who, if He please, will give you what is better than this, gardens beneath which rivers flow, and He will give you palaces., see, NOT one palace RATHER MANY PALACES, i.e. MANY GARDENS MAY ALSO BE GRANTED
How clear is that.
Let me now have a quick look at the verses that talks about the promised garden in plural which mister copy and paste truthseeker2 referred to:
truthseeker2 wrote:
or is it in fact
In Sura 18:31, 22:23, 25:33, and 78:32 there are many gardens in Paradise.
[The Quran ; 22:23]
-> Is referring to the many gardens inside the promised garden
The next versed should prove to everyone how dumb, confused and ignorant truthseeker 2 is:
YUSUFALI: And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and the best explanation (thereof).
PICKTHAL: And they bring thee no similitude but We bring thee the Truth (as against it), and better (than their similitude) as argument.
SHAKIR: And they shall not bring to you any argument, but We have brought to you (one) with truth and best in significance. [The Quran ; 25:33]
وَلَا يَأْتُونَكَ بِمَثَلٍ إِلَّا جِئْنَاكَ بِالْحَقِّ وَأَحْسَنَ تَفْسِيرًا (33)
-> Hahahahahah, see the verse above never mentioned any garden, this means that truthseeker2 is dumb and blind, he is nothing but an ignorant copier/paster, consequently he must be dismissed by all
حَدَائِقَ وَأَعْنَابًا (32)
[The Quran ; 78:32]
-> Is referring to the many gardens inside the promised garden, and also another Arabic word for gardens is used, , Hadaiq, i.e. Gardens
# 3
What a slam that is
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Sun 12 Oct, 2008 8:58 am; edited 5 times in total
Posted:
Tue 13 May, 2008 7:48 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all
Today I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m very busy working on the DB that I have to install in London starting from the 4 of June inshaallah, therefore I only have time for one slam today, however if I feel like slamming them again, I may push myself and dunk another one or two
Let me first say, sorry about all the typos above, I will fix all inshaallah, the words in my head come way faster than my typing and I just miss many words trying to keep with the words hitting my thoughts.
Today I want a quick slam, a slam that requires one verse from me to dunk it and again expose the stupidity of the kafir enemy of Islam
Let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s see what kafir bound to hell truthseeker2 is spewing this time:
truthseeker2 wrote:
How many wings do angels have?
Sura 35:1 Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings
what about old Gabby, he is an angel.
The angel Gabriel had 600 wings. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455)
As you can see above, for the dumb to create a contradiction in the Quran, he is comparing it with other crap called whatever, I thought that dumb truthseeker2 should know that to prove a contradiction in the Quran we need at least two verses, that are clearly contradicting each other, not a verse from the Quran and a passage from Harry Potter book, can you see the stupidity of such desperate kafir enemy of Islam, must be obvious to a even a child I say, anyway, as you all know that any hearsay hadith can not be admissible in any Quran discussion that I get involved in unless I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m attacking some of the hadith that I believe must be fabricated or at least manipulated,
Now, because that dumb used the hadith as seen in his stupid comment above, I have every right to dismiss his crap in the nearest rubbish bin along with him, but I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m going to be very nice this time and assume (for argument sake) that the hearsay hadith by Bukhari posted by confused truthseeker2 is another verse in the Quran that is contradicting the Quran verse 35:1
Let me now re-write his crap just to save his red face which is the result of his stupidity:
The following is nothing but an assumption
Ahmed is assuming that dumb truthseeker2 presented the following argument:
How many wings do angels have?
Sura 35:1 Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings
what about old Gabby, he is an angel.
The angel Gabriel had 600 wings. (another Quran verse)
Ahmed says:
Let me bring 35:1 in here and walk you through it:
All praise is due to Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, the Maker of the angels, messengers flying on wings, two, and three, and four; He increases in creation what He pleases; surely Allah has power over all things. [The Quran ; 35:1]
الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ جَاعِلِ الْمَلَائِكَةِ رُسُلًا أُولِي أَجْنِحَةٍ مَّثْنَى وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ يَزِيدُ فِي الْخَلْقِ مَا يَشَاء إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ (1)
-> Hahahaha, I can sense the mother of all slams coming, ok let�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??s start it in slow motion:
-> The verse starts by praising Allah: الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ , i.e. All praise is due to Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth,
-> Then it starts by telling us something about Allah جَاعِلِ الْمَلَائِكَةِ رُسُلًا أُولِي أَجْنِحَةٍ مَّثْنَى وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ , the Maker of the angels, messengers flying on wings, two, and three, and four; , the verse didnÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t stop here, rather it continued to tell us about such creation by Allah
-> يَزِيدُ فِي الْخَلْقِ مَا يَشَاء , Yazeed Fi Al Khalq Ma Yashaa, i.e. He increases in creation what He pleases , i.e. some other angels may have more than 4 wings, possibly 5, possibly 100, possibly 600, possibly 1000000 wings, it all depends as the verse is telling us that Allah increases in the creation as He pleases and it happens that He was pleased to have Jibreel with 600 wings as the other ASSUMED QURAN VERSE IS TELLING , of course Allah can create an angel with 1000000 wings, isnÃ??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¢??t He Capable over all things, and that is how the verse ended
-> See, إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ , surely Allah has power over all things.
The mother of all slams, it needs a new animation:
Posted:
Wed 14 May, 2008 12:04 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam All,
Let's have a look at the subject of today's slam:
truthseeker2 wrote:
What about, How many days did Allah need to destroy the people of Aad?
Sura 54:19 - One day
but we now have Sura 41:16 & 69:6,7 - several days
Let me bring the 4 verses in here and walk you through one after the other and you should know by the end that the kafirs enemy of Islam failed again, I use Shakir translation as you know as I have not yet reached these suras to use my own translation which I believe is the most accurate and most literal one
Let's look at the first verse and indeed it should be enough to slam dunk this silly allegation:
Surely We sent on them a tornado in a day of bitter ill-luck [The Quran ; 54:19]
إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ مُّسْتَمِرٍّ (19)
-> The verse above is telling us that Allah sent a violent tornado on a day to punish the people: ِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ , translated according to Shakir as follow: Surely We sent on them a tornado in a day of bitter ill-luck, as you can clearly see that his translation is missing the last word in the Arabic verse: مُّسْتَمِرٍّ , Mustamir, here is Google translation to the word: Mustamir
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.
Hahahaha, i.e. the day in which Allah sent the tornado CONTINUED. In this verse Allah didn't tell us how long that day continued, but he did in other verses, let's have a look
So We sent on them a furious wind in unlucky days, that We may make them taste the chastisement of abasement in this world's life; and certainly the chastisement of the hereafter is much more abasing, and they shall not be helped. [The Quran ; 41:16]
فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي أَيَّامٍ نَّحِسَاتٍ لِّنُذِيقَهُمْ عَذَابَ الْخِزْيِ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَلَعَذَابُ الْآخِرَةِ أَخْزَى وَهُمْ لَا يُنصَرُونَ (16)
-> See, in this verse Allah told that the wind lasted some days: فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي أَيَّامٍ نَّحِسَاتٍ , i.e. So We sent on them a furious wind in unlucky days, , see how those days in here were described as being unlucky as the day that is described in the 54:19, let me put it to you under each other:
-> 41:16, فِي أَيَّامٍ نَّحِسَاتٍ , Fi Ayam Nahisaat, i.e. Unlucky days
-> 54:19, فِي يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ , Fi Yawm Nahis, i.e. Unlucky day
-> As you can see that the only difference between these words above as used in 41:16 and 54:19 is: 41:16 is talking plural while 54:19 is talking singular, now if the word مُّسْتَمِرٍّ , Mustamir, i.e. Continued was not used in 54:19 to describe the singular day then I would have agreed that it has to be a clear cut contradiction, but Allah described the singular day in 54:19 not only by calling it Nahis, i.e. Unlucky, rather He also called it مُّسْتَمِرٍّ , Mustamir, i.e. Continued, i.e. that unlucky day continued on, and that should be exactly what 54:19 is telling us, here is the proper translation for 54:19
Indeed We sent on them a whistling tornado in a day that was unlucky and continued. [The Quran ; 54:19]
إِنَّا أَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ رِيحًا صَرْصَرًا فِي يَوْمِ نَحْسٍ مُّسْتَمِرٍّ (19)
-> Compare the two verses and you should recognise HOW ACCURATE THE WORDS OF ALLAH ARE.
Allah even told us how many days the tornado lasted in another verse:
6: And as to Ad, they were destroyed by a roaring, violent blast.
7: Which He made to prevail against them for seven nights and eight days unremittingly, so that you might have seen the people therein prostrate as if they were the trunks of hollow palms. [The Quran ; 69:6-7]
وَأَمَّا عَادٌ فَأُهْلِكُوا بِرِيحٍ صَرْصَرٍ عَاتِيَةٍ (6)
سَخَّرَهَا عَلَيْهِمْ سَبْعَ لَيَالٍ وَثَمَانِيَةَ أَيَّامٍ حُسُومًا فَتَرَى الْقَوْمَ فِيهَا صَرْعَى كَأَنَّهُمْ أَعْجَازُ نَخْلٍ خَاوِيَةٍ (7)
-> See: سَخَّرَهَا عَلَيْهِمْ سَبْعَ لَيَالٍ وَثَمَانِيَةَ أَيَّامٍ حُسُومًا , i.e. He made to prevail against them for seven nights and eight days unremittingly , see how those 7 nights and 8 days were described as حُسُومًا , Husuma, i.e. unremittingly , which confirms what we read in 54:19, that is the singular unlucky day Continued
From all the above, it is been proven that the kafir enemy of Islam have failed again to prove a clear cut contradiction in the Quran and in this case they deserve the following slam:
# 5
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Mon 13 Jun, 2016 4:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Fri 16 May, 2008 9:17 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam All
Let's have a look at the next desperate attempt by the kafirs enemy of Islam in their quest to fabricate an error in the Quran:
truthseeker2 wrote:
How many groups will there be at the last judgement?
Sura 56:7 says there will be three distinct groups of people at the Last Judgment.
or is it , Sura 90:18-19 and 99:6-8 say there will be two distinct groups at the Last Judgment.
So if I speak about 3 groups in one incident then in another I speak about only two out of those three, it means that I contradicted myself, hahahahaha, see how desperate they are, well let me walk you through the verses he is using and you should realize how the dumb got it wrong
In the following verses Allah CLEALY tells us that on the J D we are going to be three groups:
7: And you shall be three pairs (groups)
8: Then (as to) the companions of the right hand; how happy are the companions of the right hand!
9: And (as to) the companions of the left hand; how wretched are the companions of the left hand!
10: And the foremost are the foremost, [The Quran ; 56:7-10]
وَكُنتُمْ أَزْوَاجًا ثَلَاثَةً (7)
فَأَصْحَابُ الْمَيْمَنَةِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الْمَيْمَنَةِ (8)
وَأَصْحَابُ الْمَشْأَمَةِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الْمَشْأَمَةِ (9)
وَالسَّابِقُونَ السَّابِقُونَ (10)
-> Very clear from the above that all humans will be 3 groups: And you shall be three pairs (groups) , then in the next 3 verses, Allah told us the names of those three groups:
A) The companions of the right hand (56-8)
B) The companions of the left hand (56-9)
C) The foremost (56-10)
The next verses described to us who are the third group: The foremost, let's read their descriptions so we can have a clear perspective on who are they:
10: And the foremost are the foremost,
11: These are they who are drawn nigh (to Allah),
12: In the gardens of bliss.
13: A numerous company from among the first,
14: And a few from among the last.
15: On thrones decorated,
16: Reclining on them, facing one another.
17: Round about them shall go youths never altering in age,
18: With goblets and ewers and a cup of pure drink;
19: They shall not be affected with headache thereby, nor shall they get exhausted,
20: And fruits such as they choose,
21: And the flesh of fowl such as they desire.
22: And pure, beautiful ones,
23: The like of the hidden pearls:
24: A reward for what they used to do.
25: They shall not hear therein vain or sinful discourse,
26: Except the word peace, peace. [The Quran ; 56:10-26]
وَالسَّابِقُونَ السَّابِقُونَ (10)
أُوْلَئِكَ الْمُقَرَّبُونَ (11)
فِي جَنَّاتِ النَّعِيمِ (12)
ثُلَّةٌ مِّنَ الْأَوَّلِينَ (13)
وَقَلِيلٌ مِّنَ الْآخِرِينَ (14)
عَلَى سُرُرٍ مَّوْضُونَةٍ (15)
مُتَّكِئِينَ عَلَيْهَا مُتَقَابِلِينَ (16)
يَطُوفُ عَلَيْهِمْ وِلْدَانٌ مُّخَلَّدُونَ (17)
بِأَكْوَابٍ وَأَبَارِيقَ وَكَأْسٍ مِّن مَّعِينٍ (18)
لَا يُصَدَّعُونَ عَنْهَا وَلَا يُنزِفُونَ (19)
وَفَاكِهَةٍ مِّمَّا يَتَخَيَّرُونَ (20)
وَلَحْمِ طَيْرٍ مِّمَّا يَشْتَهُونَ (21)
وَحُورٌ عِينٌ (22)
كَأَمْثَالِ اللُّؤْلُؤِ الْمَكْنُونِ (23)
جَزَاء بِمَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ (24)
لَا يَسْمَعُونَ فِيهَا لَغْوًا وَلَا تَأْثِيمًا (25)
إِلَّا قِيلًا سَلَامًا سَلَامًا (26)
-> Very clear from the above verses that this group that is called The foremost is a WINNING group, i.e. are destined to paradise , what we should pay more attention to from all the above description are the following ones:
A) These are they who are drawn nigh (to Allah) (56:11)
B) And a few from among the last. (56:14)
Allah then detailed to us the description of the first group The companions of the right hand, let's read their descriptions so we can have a clear perspective on who are they:
27: And the companions of the right hand; how happy are the companions of the right hand!
28: Amid thornless lote-trees,
29: And banana-trees (with fruits), one above another.
30: And extended shade,
31: And water flowing constantly,
32: And fruit in plenty
35: Neither intercepted nor forbidden,
34: And exalted thrones.
35: Surely We have made them to grow into a (new) growth,
36: Then We have made them virgins,
37: Loving, equals in age,
38: For the sake of the companions of the right hand.
39: A numerous company from among the first,
40: And a numerous company from among the last. [The Quran ; 56:27-40]
وَأَصْحَابُ الْيَمِينِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الْيَمِينِ (27)
فِي سِدْرٍ مَّخْضُودٍ (28)
وَطَلْحٍ مَّنضُودٍ (29)
وَظِلٍّ مَّمْدُودٍ (30)
وَمَاء مَّسْكُوبٍ (31)
وَفَاكِهَةٍ كَثِيرَةٍ (32)
لَّا مَقْطُوعَةٍ وَلَا مَمْنُوعَةٍ (33)
وَفُرُشٍ مَّرْفُوعَةٍ (34)
إِنَّا أَنشَأْنَاهُنَّ إِنشَاء (35)
فَجَعَلْنَاهُنَّ أَبْكَارًا (36)
عُرُبًا أَتْرَابًا (37)
لِّأَصْحَابِ الْيَمِينِ (38)
ثُلَّةٌ مِّنَ الْأَوَّلِينَ (39)
وَثُلَّةٌ مِّنَ الْآخِرِينَ (40)
-> Again, very clear from the above verses that this group that is called The companions of the right hand is a WINNING group, i.e. are destined to paradise , however they are not identical to the other group called The foremost, in the above verses we do not read that the companions od the right hand will be drawn near Allah, there is also a distinct difference that the companions of the right hand are numerous company from among the later. while the foremost are few from among the last
-> From all the above a child can clearly see that both groups The foremost and The companions of the right hand are winners, it is like dividing the winning group into two winning sub groups, one is higher in reward than the other, i.e. The foremost group is higher in the reward than the companions of the right hand group
-> The foremost group as the verses above told us that they are few from the latest generations, this is very logical because as the humans progress further in the timeline and get more distant from the time when Allah messages were sent, they tend to think of these messages as the tales of the anceient, consequently they abandon it or even those who believe in it do not hold to it humbly, therefore only few from the latest generations who will belong to this winning group, unlike the companions of the right hand group, whose members will be numerous from the latest generations.
Allah then detailed to us the description of the second group The companions of the left hand, obviously this is a losing group let's read their descriptions so we can have a clear perspective on who are they:
41: And those of the left hand, how wretched are those of the left hand!
42: In hot wind and boiling water,
43: And the shade of black smoke,
44: Neither cool nor honorable.
45: Surely they were before that made to live in ease and plenty.
46: And they persisted in the great violation.
47: And they used to say: What! when we die and have become dust and bones, shall we then indeed be raised?
48: Or our fathers of yore?
49: Say: The first and the last,
50: Shall most surely be gathered together for the appointed hour of a known day.
51: Then shall you, O you who err and call it a lie!
52: Most surely eat of a tree of Zaqqoom,
53: And fill (your) bellies with it;
54: Then drink over it of boiling water;
55: And drink as drinks the thirsty camel.
56: This is their entertainment on the day of requital. [The Quran ; 56:41-56]
وَأَصْحَابُ الشِّمَالِ مَا أَصْحَابُ الشِّمَالِ (41)
فِي سَمُومٍ وَحَمِيمٍ (42)
وَظِلٍّ مِّن يَحْمُومٍ (43)
لَّا بَارِدٍ وَلَا كَرِيمٍ (44)
إِنَّهُمْ كَانُوا قَبْلَ ذَلِكَ مُتْرَفِينَ (45)
وَكَانُوا يُصِرُّونَ عَلَى الْحِنثِ الْعَظِيمِ (46)
وَكَانُوا يَقُولُونَ أَئِذَا مِتْنَا وَكُنَّا تُرَابًا وَعِظَامًا أَئِنَّا لَمَبْعُوثُونَ (47)
أَوَ آبَاؤُنَا الْأَوَّلُونَ (48)
قُلْ إِنَّ الْأَوَّلِينَ وَالْآخِرِينَ (49)
لَمَجْمُوعُونَ إِلَى مِيقَاتِ يَوْمٍ مَّعْلُومٍ (50)
ثُمَّ إِنَّكُمْ أَيُّهَا الضَّالُّونَ الْمُكَذِّبُونَ (51)
لَآكِلُونَ مِن شَجَرٍ مِّن زَقُّومٍ (52)
فَمَالِؤُونَ مِنْهَا الْبُطُونَ (53)
فَشَارِبُونَ عَلَيْهِ مِنَ الْحَمِيمِ (54)
فَشَارِبُونَ شُرْبَ الْهِيمِ (55)
هَذَا نُزُلُهُمْ يَوْمَ الدِّينِ (56)
From all the above we can classify the humans into two major groups:
1) The winners
2) The losers (The companions of the left hand)
The winners group is divided into two sub groups:
A) The foremost
B) The companions of the right hand
It seems to me that the winning sub group (the foremost) will enter paradise with ease, while the companions of the right hand will enter paradise but possibly after paying some dues for their sins and possibly been forgiven later as Allah desires
Let's now see if the verses above are conflicting with some other verses as ignorant truthseeker2 is alleging:
17: Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion.
18: These are the people of the right hand
19: And (as for) those who disbelieve in our communications, they are the people of the left hand. [The Quran ; 90:17-19]
ثُمَّ كَانَ مِنَ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالصَّبْرِ وَتَوَاصَوْا بِالْمَرْحَمَةِ (17)
أُوْلَئِكَ أَصْحَابُ الْمَيْمَنَةِ (18)
وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِآيَاتِنَا هُمْ أَصْحَابُ الْمَشْأَمَةِ (19)
-> See how stupid the ignorant kafirs and enemy of Islam are, the verses above never classifies the people into a number of groups, rather it is telling us who will belong to two of the three groups mentioned in sura 56, see how it is said in here: Then he is of those who believe and charge one another to show patience, and charge one another to show compassion. These are the people of the right hand , and And (as for) those who disbelieve in our communications, they are the people of the left hand., the verses above never discussed who belongs to the third group The foremost, for the dumb and stupid kafirs however, it means that the verses above classified the people into only two groups, hahahahah, in addition to being a case of stupidity, it has to be a case of desperation as well
The last lot of verses presnenetd by dumb truthseeker2 to which he alleged that they are conflicting with sura 56 are seen below, in here his clear cut stupidity will be assured, the verses below does not even mention any of the three groups nor it even told us who belongs to any group, let's have a look:
6: On that day men shall come forth in sundry bodies that they may be shown their works.
7: So. he who has done an atom's weight of good shall see it
8: And he who has done an atom's weight of evil shall see it. [The Quran ; 99:6-8]
يَوْمَئِذٍ يَصْدُرُ النَّاسُ أَشْتَاتًا لِّيُرَوْا أَعْمَالَهُمْ (6)
فَمَن يَعْمَلْ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ خَيْرًا يَرَهُ (7)
وَمَن يَعْمَلْ مِثْقَالَ ذَرَّةٍ شَرًّا يَرَهُ (8)
-> LOL, see what is said above: On that day men shall come forth in sundry bodies that they may be shown their works. So. he who has done an atom's weight of good shall see it. And he who has done an atom's weight of evil shall see it. , the verses above never talked about the foremost group, nor the companions of the right hand group, neither the companions of the left hand group, and most certainly the verses above never talked about who belongs to any of these groups, the enemy of Islam must be on drugs, but if they are sober then they must be very stupid
# 6
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Mon 13 Jun, 2016 4:45 am; edited 2 times in total
Posted:
Sat 17 May, 2008 12:11 am
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Hello all
The following crap by confused christian and idol worshipper truthseeker2 should be slam dunked using a debate that I had in the past with a confused Muslim, let's dunk it:
truthseeker2 wrote:
Who brings the revelation from Allah to Muhammad?
Sura 2:97 - The Angel Gabriel
or was it Sura 16:102 - The Holy Spirit
Salam brother The and all,
As I stated earlier, I have one comment to make, firstly I agree that Jibreel has the following 3 titles:
1) Al Ruh Al Ameen (a definite noun with an Al + adjective with an Al)
2) Ruh Al Qudus (a Muddaf without an Al + Muddaf Ilaih with an Al)
3) Al Ruh
The first two titles are two words each, yet the first two titles are totally different structure regarding grammar, bear in mind that Al Qudus in the second title actually means Allah, i.e. Ruh Al Qudus means Ruh of Allah, the first title however means the honest Ruh, the last one is one word only
I left the word Ruh above untranslated, this is because the word Ruh has two meanings in Arabic and I don't think any of these meaning apply to any of the above 3 titles:
A) Wahi (inspiration or revelation)
B) Soul
I will only discuss the first meaning as this is what is associated to the message sent to the prophets
A) An example to the first meaning of Ruh is clearly seen in the following examples:
He sends down the angels with the inspiration by His commandment on whom He pleases of His servants, saying: Give the warning that there is no god but Me, therefore be careful (of your duty) to Me. [The Quran ; 16:2]
يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلآئِكَةَ بِالْرُّوحِ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ عَلَى مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ أَنْ أَنذِرُواْ أَنَّهُ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ أَنَاْ فَاتَّقُونِ (2)
-> See, يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلآئِكَةَ بِالْرُّوحِ , Yunazzal Al Malaika Bi Al Ruh, which means: He sends down the angels with the inspiration , in fact Allah elaborated to what Al Ruh is at the end of the verse, Give the warning that there is no god but Me, i.e. the prophets has been inspired by Allah to warn other humans that there is no God but Him, now what carried such inspiration to the humans are the angels as seen from the start of the verse: يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلآئِكَةَ بِالْرُّوحِ , Yunazzal Al Malaika Bi Al Ruh, which means: He sends down the angels with the inspiration , i.e. for Mohammed or any other prophet for that matter, all must have received the revelations via ANGELS according to 16:2, now if it is thought under Iman that Jibreel was the name of such creature who carried the inspiration to Mohammed then Jibreel must be an angel according to 16:2
Another example for the word Al Ruh to mean (The inspiration or the Revelation) is this:
Possessor of the highest rank, Lord of power: He makes the inspiration to light by His command upon whom He pleases of His servants, that he may warn (men) of the day of meeting. [The Quran ; 40:15]
رَفِيعُ الدَّرَجَاتِ ذُو الْعَرْشِ يُلْقِي الرُّوحَ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ عَلَى مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ لِيُنذِرَ يَوْمَ التَّلَاقِ (15)
-> See, يُلْقِي الرُّوحَ , Yulqi Al Ruh, which roughly means: He makes the inspiration to lit, literally it means, He drops the inspiration, and again Allah elaborated to what is the inspiration, at the end of the verse: that he (any messenger) may warn (men) of the day of meeting., that Ruh (inspiration to warn other humans is carried by the Angels as we learnt from 16:2)
Now, if the ones who carry such inspiration from Allah are angels according to 16:2 then the following verse indicate that Al Ruh Al Ameen (As a title) is one of those angels:
193: Al Ruh Al Ameen has descended with it,
194: Upon your heart that you may be of the warners [The Quran ; 26:193-194]
نَزَلَ بِهِ الرُّوحُ الْأَمِينُ (193)
عَلَى قَلْبِكَ لِتَكُونَ مِنَ الْمُنذِرِينَ (194)
-> Note that I left the words: الرُّوحُ الْأَمِينُ , Al Ruh Al Ameen untranslated, to highlight that in this verse it has to be the title for the entity that carried the inspiration down., can you see the link of the verb Na Za La, comes down between 16:2 and 26:193, from these two verses, Al Ruh Al Ameen must be an angel who carried the message down to the human prophet, can you also see the other link of the verb Na Za Ra, to warn between 26:194 and both 16:2 & 40:15.
Now, the following verse must confirm that Jebril is Al Ruh Al Ameen if compared with 16:193-194 above:
Say: Whoever is the enemy of Jibreel-- for surely He sent him down to your heart by Allah's command, verifying that which is before it and guidance and good news for the believers. [The Quran ; 2:97]
قُلْ مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّجِبْرِيلَ فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ بِإِذْنِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ وَهُدًى وَبُشْرَى لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ (97)
-> See: فَإِنَّهُ نَزَّلَهُ عَلَى قَلْبِكَ , Fainnahu Nazzalahu Ala Qalbika, i.e. for surely He sent him (Jibreel) down to your heart, compare this with 26:193-194. Al Ruh Al Ameen has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners, now consider 16:2 He sends down the angels with the inspiration , we have to conclude the following:
1) Jibreel is Al Ruh Al Ameen who carried the inspiration to Mohammed heart
2) Jibreel must be an angel
There is actually an alleged reason of revelation to 2:97, apparently the Jews went to Mohammed and told him that there is no prophet but whom Allah must send Angels to, so they asked him who was the angel sent to him, when he replied to them by saying: Jibreel, they were not happy and claimed that Jibreel is always sent by Allah to cause wars and killings, so they claimed that he (Jibreel) is their enemy and that is why 2:97 starts with: Say: Whoever is the enemy of Jibreel-- for surely He sent him down to your heart by Allah's command,, the Jews also told Mohammed that if it was angel Michael that was sent to him, they would have followed Mohammed because Michael is always sent with mercy, that is why you read in the next verse:
Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His messengers and Jibreel and Michael, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers. [The Quran ; 2:98]
مَن كَانَ عَدُوًّا لِّلّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَجِبْرِيلَ وَمِيكَالَ فَإِنَّ اللّهَ عَدُوٌّ لِّلْكَافِرِينَ (98)
-> See how both Jibreel and Michael are mentioned explicitly in this verse: Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His messengers and Jibreel and Michael, I believe the reason for that is to give those who boast about Michael and degrade Jibreel a lesson that both should be respected the same by us.
What you should know also that Ahl Al Kitab tradition gives the archangel Michael four tasks:
1) To fight against Satan.
2) To rescue the souls of the faithful from the power of the enemy, especially at the hour of death.
3) To be the champion of God's people, the Jews in the Old Law, the Christians in the New Testament; therefore he was the patron of the Church, and of the orders of knights during the Middle Ages.
4) To call away from earth and bring men's souls to judgment.
Jibreel is, in contrary with his name, the angel of the Power of God, and it is worth while noting the frequency with which such words as "great", "might", "power", and "strength" occur in the passages referred to Jibreel. The Jews indeed seem to have dwelt particularly upon this feature in Jibreel 's character, and he is regarded by them as the angel of judgment, while Michael is called the angel of mercy. They attribute to Jibreel the destruction of Sodom and of the host of Sennacherib, they also regard him as the angel who buried Moses, and as the man deputed to mark the figure Tau on the foreheads of the elect.
That is why the Jews preferred that Michael to be the angel sent to Mohammed instead of Jibreel. Jibreel is one of only two angels named in the Bible. His name means strong man of God or God is my strength as explained above. He appeared by name four times: twice to Daniel to interpret the meaning of his visions:
In Daniel 8, Jibreel explains the vision of the horned ram as portending the destruction of the Persian Empire by the Macedonian Alexander the Great, after whose death the kingdom will be divided up among his generals, from one of whom will spring Antiochus Epiphanes:
15: And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as the appearance of a man.
16: And I heard a man's voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. [Daniel ; 8:15-16]
In Daniel 9, after Daniel had prayed for Israel, we read:
21: Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
22: And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding.
23: At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.
24: Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
25: Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
26: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
27: And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
[Daniel ; 9:21-27]
-> See, how the above is qualified by the Quran regarding sending the angels carrying inspiration to whomever Allah wills from the humans:
He sends down the angels with the inspiration by His commandment on whom He pleases of His servants, saying: Give the warning that there is no god but Me, therefore be careful (of your duty) to Me. [The Quran ; 16:2]
يُنَزِّلُ الْمَلآئِكَةَ بِالْرُّوحِ مِنْ أَمْرِهِ عَلَى مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ أَنْ أَنذِرُواْ أَنَّهُ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ أَنَاْ فَاتَّقُونِ (2)
Jibreel was also mentioned once to announce John the Baptist's birth to his father Zacharias:
11: And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12: And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13: But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14: And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15: For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.
16: And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
17: And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
18: And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
19: And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
20: And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season. [Luke 1:11-20]
-> Again, the above Bible story is qualified by the Quran:
Then the angels called to him as he stood praying in the sanctuary: That Allah gives you the good news of Yahya verifying a Word from Allah, and honorable and chaste and a prophet from among the good ones. [The Quran ; 3:39]
فَنَادَتْهُ الْمَلآئِكَةُ وَهُوَ قَائِمٌ يُصَلِّي فِي الْمِحْرَابِ أَنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكَ بِيَحْيَى مُصَدِّقًا بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَسَيِّدًا وَحَصُورًا وَنَبِيًّا مِّنَ الصَّالِحِينَ (39)
Jibreel is mentioned for the last time in the Bible to announce the birth of Jesus to Mary:
26: And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27: To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29: And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30: And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31: And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32: He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36: And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37: For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38: And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. [Luke 1:26-38]
-> And again the same story is qualified by the Quran:
When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah). [The Quran ; 3:45]
إِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلآئِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَجِيهًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ (45)
From all the above compelling Bible and Quran evidences, there is no doubt that Jibreel is an angel who is sent carrying the inspiration to whomever Allah wishes from the humans
One point I would like to reply to, brother The claimed the following: # if u say god has sent angels as rasool to humankind, then it is perhaps contradicting 17:95!
Let me bring 17:94-95 to explain what brother The missed:
94: And nothing prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger?
95: Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger. [The Quran ; 17:94-95]
وَمَا مَنَعَ النَّاسَ أَن يُؤْمِنُواْ إِذْ جَاءهُمُ الْهُدَى إِلاَّ أَن قَالُواْ أَبَعَثَ اللّهُ بَشَرًا رَّسُولاً (94)
قُل لَّوْ كَانَ فِي الأَرْضِ مَلآئِكَةٌ يَمْشُونَ مُطْمَئِنِّينَ لَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِم مِّنَ السَّمَاء مَلَكًا رَّسُولاً (95)
-> I believe what brother missed is verse 17:94 which clearly says that the people rejected to believe because a human messenger was sent to them: And nothing prevented people from believing when the guidance came to them except that they said: What! has Allah raised up a mortal to be a messenger?, now for Mohammed to refute such claim, Allah ordered him to say: Say: Had there been in the earth angels walking about as settlers, We would certainly have sent down to them from the heaven an angel as a messenger., i.e. IF THERE HAS BEEN ANGELS ON EARTH WHO ARE REQUIRED TO BELIEVE VIA SUCH TEST THAT IS ENFORCED ON THE HUMANS THEN AN ANGEL MESSNGER WILL BE SENT TO THEM, 17:95 is no way denying that Allah sends Angels to the human messengers, because 16:2 told us that Allah uses the angels to carry His inspirations to the humans whom He chose to be messengers to the rest of humans
Finally, I will leave you with some conjectures regarding the angels:
The Angels
Angels were created as messengers of God. The current Injeel reveals that God created nine orders of angels:
Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominations, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Archangels, and Angels.
Out of this order come the familiar seven Archangels which include: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Sariel, and the fallen Lucifer.
The Eighth Choir - The Archangels, The seven angels that stood before God in Revelations are considered to be the Archangels. Although it is agreed that there were seven Archangels, there has been some debate on who the seven were. Most accounts name, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel, the remaining three are generally chosen from Metatron, Remiel, Sariel, Anael, Raguel and Raziel. The Archangels were the divine messengers between the humans and God. Of the nine choirs the Archangels are probably best known to us. They are the battlers of the Sons of Darkness.
Lucifer, whose ambitions were a distortion of God's plan, is known to us through the various religious teachings as the fallen angel, with the use of many names, among which are Iblis, Satan, Belial, Beelzebub, Shaitan and the Devil. This does not contradict the Quran in anyway because it seems Iblis as a Jinn was given the rank of an angel, that is why he was up there when Allah ordered the angels to prostrate to Adam and he failed to do so because he was from among the Jinn.
Historical and Literary References: Gabriel's Name means "Hero of God." Angel of Revelation and Chief Ambassador to humanity. Apart from Michael, Gabriel is the only other Angel mentioned by Name in the Old Testament. He was said to sit on the left hand side of God. In many religious, writings Gabriel has appeared as a messenger and deliverer to humanity of blessed events. Mohammed claimed that it was Gabriel (Jibreel in Islamic) who dictated to him the Koran. In Christian beliefs, Gabriel was the Angel who appeared to Mary to inform her that she would conceive and give birth to Jesus. In addition, Gabriel also appeared before Zacharias to announce that his son will be called John (the Baptist).
# 7
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Mon 13 Jun, 2016 4:46 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Sat 17 May, 2008 6:45 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam All,
The alleged Samaritan error was destroyed in 1999 by a group of knowledgeable Muslim brothers from http://www.islamic-awareness.org/ , they also kept updating it for more than 6 years, it is another mother of all slams, I really appreciate their excellent work, for me is more than enough to dunk the following allegation:
truthseeker2 wrote:
The Golden Calf
Surah 20:90-100 says a Samaritan helped the Israelites build the golden calf, and it mooed after coming out of the fire. But & this is real good & I look forward to the explanation. Samaritans did not exist as a people until at least 1000 years after the time of Moses and the Israelite exodus from Egypt.
The above crap is actually two allegations in one, therefore it is going to be double slam, ignorant truthseeker2 is wondering how the calf mooed as well he is alleging that the Samaritans did not exist as a people until at least 1000 years after the time of Moses
M S M Saifullah
Abdurrahman Robert Squires
Abdullah David
Elias Karim
Muhammad Ghoniem
First Composed: 1st May 1999
Last Updated: 26th November 2006
1. Introduction
According to the Christian missionaries and apologists, comparisons between the Qur'anic and Biblical narrations expose serious errors within the Qur'an. The Qur'anic narrations are said to be either 'absurd' or 'historically impossible'. Take for example the story of Moses as related in the Qur'an: the Qur'an mentions a certain Haman who was associated with the Court of Pharaoh - when in reality, say the missionaries, he was a counsellor of Ahasuerus who lived 1,100 years after Pharaoh; the Qur'an mentions that Pharaoh crucified or impaled his victims upon a stake, yet crucifixion was unknown in Egypt at that time.
Relying heavily on a single (prolific) Christian orientalist, the missionaries also state that the Qur'an, according to Surah 20, says the Israelites were led astray by a "Samaritan" - yet the Samaritan people did not exist until many centuries later. What evidence is presented to support these claims? Can the presuppositions of the Christian missionaries be taken seriously in the light of contemporary Samaritan scholarship? This paper proposes to examine the origin of the Samaritans as suggested by the Christian missionaries.
2. The "Samaritan" Error
The "Samaritan" error in the Qur'an can be traced to Judeo-Christian attitudes provided by a prima facie consideration of the Old Testament material. Even after the advent of critical biblical scholarship, it was supposed that the picture of the Samaritans as a people of mixed race and religion, as provided in II Kings 17, was for all intent and purposes an accurate one. A prime example comes from the 1898 edition of James Hastings' A Dictionary Of The Bible. In the article "Samaria, Territory Of" by C. W. Wilson, the description of the Samaritans is given as:
In 2 K 17:29 these colonists are termed 'Samaritans.' Josephus says... that they were called Cuthaeans in Hebrew, from Cuthah, the city of their origin... and he regarded the Samaritans of his day as their descendents. The Cuthaeans and others brought their national gods, an act which was believed to have brought on them the vengeance of God of the land.[1]
Descriptions of Samaritans worshipping an admixture of gods owe a great deal to later day Jewish polemics, in particular, that arising from Josephus' Antiquities as well as from the Old Testament itself. It is not surprising that the views concerning the Samaritans origins also positively influenced in a different way the anti-Islamic polemics in the West in the beginning of the 20th century CE. For example, while discussing the mention of al-Samiri in the Qur'an, Henri Lammens stated that:
"the most glaring anachronisms" is "the story of the Samaritan (sic) who is alleged to have made the Jews worship the golden calf..."[2]
That these claims have literally pullulated amongst the Christian missionaries is something of an understatement. For example, Anis Shorrosh says:
The Qur'an says the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness was molded by a Samaritan... In fact, the term Samaritan was not used until 722 BC, several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus.[3]
Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, presumably quoting Shorrosh, say:
The Qur'an says that the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites at Mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan. The term Samaritan was not coined until 722 B.C., several hundred years after the Exodus, when the idol was crafted.[4]
Similar claims have been made by Mateen Elass who says:
As-Samiri is not a proper name as the definite article before the hyphen makes clear. Most Muslim scholars understand this term to mean "the Samaritan," but this is problematic since the Samaritans were not constituted as a separate people until after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel under the Assyrian empire, some five hundred or more years after the golden calf incident.[5]
Gleason Archer in the section "Anachronism and Historical Inaccuracies in the Koran" finds difficulty in the explanation offered by Yusuf Ali for the word al-Samiri in the Qur'an. Archer says:
Yusef Ali suggests that Samariyyu may have been an Egyptian name meaning "stranger, foreigner," or possibly a Hebrew term derived from Shomer ("watchman") - in a valiant effort to avoid the charge of anachronism. Samaritan did not come into being as a race until after the 6th century B.C., and so there could have been no Samaritan around as early as 1445 B.C.![6]
Similar claims were also made by Abdallah Abd al-Fadi,[7] Robert Morey,[8] Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.[9]
Jacques Jomier, however, offers a different form of argument concerning al-Samiri in the Qur'an. He says:
At the scene of the Golden Calf, a mysterious character appears: he is called the Samaritan (al-Sāmirī). It is hard to know what this word signifies. Some Westerners have seen a connection with the golden calves of Samaria, but this would take us several centuries beyond Moses. In the absence of other documents, one is very hesitant to subscribe such a hypothesis (cf. Qur'an 20. 85-95).[10]
According to Newman, the mention of al-Samiri in the Qur'an is the result of Muhammad's confusion of the "time periods" and transferring "Jewish teachings about Samaritans to a single person."[11]
Except for Jomier and Newman, almost all these claims can be traced back, whether directly or indirectly, to none but Tisdall the fountainhead of all Christian polemic against the Qur'an. Confident in his ability to truthfully exegete the Qur'an, the "Samaritan" issue appears to be a source of amusement for Tisdall, who notes rather derisively,
But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years after Moses' death, the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur.[12]
It is interesting that Tisdall equated the Samaritans with the appearance of the city of Samaria to claim the anachronism. In the same vein, Christian missionaries have claimed that the Qur'an contains a historically impossible narration when it mentions the name al-Samiri which some translate as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95). They claim that:
The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.
And furthermore:
How can a Samaritan have led the Israelites astray at the time of Moses [about 1400 B.C.] when the city of Samaria was founded by King Omri in about 870 B.C. (see 1 Kings 16:24)? But "the Samaritans" as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the Northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II in after 722 B.C. with non-Israelites which then adopt a syncretism [mixture] between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. Hence, it is historically impossible that a Samaritan could have led the Israelites into idolatry in the time of Moses. This is another time compression of at least 500, but rather 700 years.
The problem with this claim is that the Samaritans were not known as a distinct ethno-religious group until around 722 B.C., when the term "Samaritan" was coined...
The claim of the Christian missionaries concerning the origin of the Samaritans rests on the events mentioned in II Kings 17. We will begin by discussing the claims of the Christian missionaries that II Kings 17 describes the origins of Samaritans. What do the scholars of Samaritan studies say about the claim that II Kings 17 accurately describes the origins of Samaritans? This will be discussed along with the usage of the terms "Samaritan" and "Samarian" in light of recent historical investigations. Finally, we will also consider recent scientific studies examining the principal characteristics of the Samaritan and Jewish genetic composition, in order to confirm if there is indeed any shared ancestry.
3. II Kings 17: The Source Of Samaritan Origins?
Before we go into the historical background of II Kings 17, a background relating to the events leading to sacking and exile of Israel in the 8th century BCE is necessary. About two centuries earlier a united Israel had reached its peak under the leadership of Saul, David and Solomon. However, after Solomon's death, a civil war broke out and the former united kingdom split into two kingdoms: Judah in the south with Jerusalem as its capital, and Israel in the north whose capital was eventually established in Samaria. The two kingdoms struggled for nearly two centuries before Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. The account in II Kings 17 implies that the Samaritans descended from peoples deported by the Assyrians from other parts of the vast empire during the mid-8th century BCE. The Assyrian ruler brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. Eventually the term "Cuthean", that is people of Cuthah, sometimes also referred collectively to denote new settlers, became the Jews' name for Samaritans and a word of contempt for these genetically and religiously impure people. This name was also adopted by Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities in his polemics against the Samaritans. Thus, according to the Jewish version of history, the Samaritans are a mixed race people, being a native or inhabitant of Samaria, a distinct territory or region in central Palestine. The question now is whether there is any truth in this version of the history.
SAMARITANS OR SAMARIANS?
As mentioned earlier, the traditional view of the origins of Samaritans is based on II Kings 17. The verse in question is II Kings 17:29 where the Hebrew word shomronim or shomeronim appears and is usually translated into English as "Samaritans" (underlined in the Hebrew text below).
Thumbnail, click to enlarge.
But every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities which they dwelt... (RSV)
The name shomronim that appears in II Kings 17:29 is associated with the worship of idols. However, the Samaritans do not address themselves by this name at all. They call themselves shamerin , that is "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah.[13] The Samaritans themselves make a clear distinction between their own ancestors and the inhabitants of Samaria. For example, in the part of the Samaritan Chronicle II which corresponds to I Kings 16 of the Hebrew Bible, the biblical account of the founding of Samaria by Omri is followed by a note which explains that the inhabitants of Samaria and its nearby cities were called "Shomronim after the name Shomron".[14] Thus the distinction between the people of Samaria and the Samaritans is clearly maintained in the Samaritan Chronicle II. Put simply, shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. In fact, a long line of Samaritan scholarship has already pointed out this fact, which, unfortunately, is ignored by the missionaries at their own peril. For example, about 100 years ago James Montgomery pointed out that the Samaritans:
.... call themselves by the ancient geographical apellative, Samerim, which they interpret however as meaning "the Observers", i.e., of the Law.[15]
Similarly, The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible confirms that:
... the Samaritans prefer to style themselves 'Shamerim' i.e., "the observant" - rather than 'Shomeronim' i.e., "the inhabitants of Samaria."[16]
The Encyclopaedia Judaica under the entry "Samaritans" says:
Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans. The Bible uses the name Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29, but this probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called themselves Shamerin; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of the truth = al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being in constant use in their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean inhabitants of the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the probable origin of the word Shomronim is to be found).[17]
Contrary to the claims of the missionaries, the use of the term shomronim in II Kings 17 tells us nothing about the origins of the Samaritans because this word means "inhabitants of Samaria". Now that the issue of the names that differentiates the Samaritans from the inhabitants of Samaria is dealt with, let us now move to the claim of the missionaries which says that the Samaritans as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of foreigners in the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE.
II KINGS 17:18-24 - A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OR A HISTORICAL ABSURDITY?
The narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 relates that the population of Israel in its totality was deported and exchanged to an alien population. However, the archaeological evidence shows that this narrative is incorrect. Estimates of the population in Israel show that in the Middle Bronze Age II [2000 - 1550 BCE] it was approximately 140,000 and in the Iron Age [1200 - 586 BCE],[18] during the period of divided monarchy, the population of northern kingdom of Israel reached nearly 600,000.[19] A survey of Judea, Samaria and the Golan carried out in 1967-1968 suggests a total of 560,000.[20] On the other hand, Roland de Vaux estimated the total population during this time to be around 800,000.[21]
The Assyrian ruler Sargon II was responsible for defeating the northern kingdom of Israel and sending them into exile. An Assyrian inscription from the time of Sargon II records that he deported 27,290 prisoners from Samaria,[22] suggesting a depopulation of the order of nearly 5% of Israel's population.[23] Hence 95% of the population remained. Also it can be claimed that the Assyrian kings in their royal inscriptions tended to exaggerate the number of exiles, as they considered a larger number to show the extent of their power and might.[24] If we accept this, then the total number of people exiled would be further reduced. We are essentially left with most of the population intact. Obviously there is a serious historical problem here with II Kings 17:18-24. Commenting on this historical discrepancy and how it undermines the Bible concerning the claim of the Samaritans' origins, A. D. Crown says:
This is a prima facie evidence that the greatest concentration of people remained in the province until at least sixth century B.C.E. Clearly the story of Samaritan origins in the Bible must be viewed with caution.[25]
A similar observation was made by Coggins about 30 years ago. Using the estimate of Roland de Vaux of 800,000 people in the northern kingdom of Israel and the inscription from the time of Sargon II, he says:
If this is at all accurate it would imply the deportation of between 3 and 4% of the population. Not much stress can be placed on the actual wording of the Assyrian annals, but they would suggest - and the circumstances of a siege would bear out - that the majority of the deportees would have been the inhabitants of Samaria itself, no doubt including many who had gone there as refugees during the siege.[26]
Such discrepancies were also mentioned by Frank Cross[27] and The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible.[28]
Coggins and others have suggested that most of the affected people would have been from the upper class, as they would be readily identifiable as potential leaders of resistance.[29] In place of those exiled, the settlers brought in would not have enjoyed the majority, as the native Israelites continued to enjoy being the overwhelming majority of the population. Clearly, the narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 claiming that the population of Israel in its totality was deported by the Assyrians and exchanged to an alien population is unsupported by the archaeological evidence.
How do the Samaritans portray themselves during the period of Assyrian rule? According to their Chronicles, the righteous remnants who belonged to "the community of the Samaritan Israelites, that is the tribe of Ephraim and the tribe of Manasseh, sons of Joseph, and a few other priests and a small number from the rest of the tribes of Israel" who "did not deviate from the way of the holy law, nor did they worship other gods. They did not behave as the nations did, and did not forsake the chosen place Mount Gerizim Bethel, but they continued to worship the Lord their God...".[30] As Coggins pointed out, even if this idealization is discounted in the Samaritan Chronicles, it is clear that the "religious features of later Samaritanism show no sign of any syncretism brought about by a mixture between native Israelites and those whom the Assyrians brought into the country".[31]
Unlike the claim of the Christian missionaries, there is nothing to suggest in the Samaritan Chronicles that they adopted a syncretism between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. On the contrary, the Chronicles clearly affirm their monotheism during the Assyrian rule. It must be emphasized that the Samaritans' devotion to the Torah was already recognized from the fact that it alone constituted their canon of Scripture. This is further emphasized by the word shamerin - the keepers of the Torah. This very name implies a group which maintained the traditional ways and was suspicious of change.
AN APPRAISAL OF THE MISSIONARY VIEWS
The Christian missionaries and apologists have had some difficulty in coming to terms with Samaritan scholarship. Although this is partly due to basic errors in comprehension, more seriously, it is primarily due to the fact that contemporary scholarship including the archaeological evidence undermines the veracity of the biblical account. Recognising these basic problems of method, the missionaries have attempted to synthesise their views on the Samaritans into one coherent account; resultantly we are left with nothing more than a mishmash of interpretations with little validity. For instance, consider the Christian missionary Andrew Vargo's "three views " of the Samaritan origins:
The Jewish view. The Samaritans are the descendants of the colonists that King Shalmaneser, of Assyria, brought from Cutha, Babylon, Hamath, and other foreign regions after he conquered Samaria in 722 B.C.. King Shalmaneser then deported the native population according to II Kings 17.
Samaritan view: The Samaritans are remnants of the northern Israelite tribes who were left behind when their brethren were deported by the Assyrians.
Modern Scholars: The Samaritans are descendents of Mesopotamian tribes who were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians to Samaria.
He claims that "all three explanations of the origins of the Samaritans are correct, at least to some degree". It is hard to see why all the three "explanations" can be true to "some degree" at the same time. Simple logic dictates that if the "Samaritans are remnants of the northern Israelite tribes" then they could not have been simultaneously "the descendants of the colonists" resettled by the Assyrian rulers. Furthermore, Vargo claims on behalf of unnamed and unknown "modern scholars" that the Samaritans are "the descendents of Mesopotamian tribes who were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians to Samaria". In fact, we have not come across this view at all in modern scholarship on the Samaritans. What we know is that modern Samaritan scholarship has firmly rejected equating shomronim in II Kings 17:29 with Samaritans. Shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. Moreover, it was seen that there are serious historical problems with II Kings 17:18-24 which severely undermines the biblical account concerning the claims of the Samaritan origins.
To complete the argument what does modern scholarship say about II Kings 17 being the alleged source of the Samaritans' origins? Let us start with A Companion To Samaritan Studies published in 1993. One can consider it as a dictionary 'desk reference' for Samaritan studies. As for II Kings 17 and the origins of the Samaritans, it says:
Older scholarship took 2 Kings 17 as a reliable account of the origins of Samaritanism and in many translations that is the only place where the word Samaritans is found in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. KJV, RSV). The idea that this passage can give us information about the Samaritan origins is now abandoned though it is undeniable that at an early date the text of understood in this sense. Thus Josephus (Ant. 9:291) states that the heterodox community formed after the Assyrian capture of Samaria was the direct forerunner of the Samaritan or Cuthaean community of his day. Egger has shown how many of Josephus' references to the Samaritans cannot properly be understood of the Samaritan religious community. Josephus' work is a clear example of anti-Samaritan polemic at work extrapolating materials from one setting to another as part of his condemnation of the Samaritans.[32]
Similar conclusions were also reached by Lester Grabbe. He says:
The origins of the [Samaritan] community and cult are still uncertain. The origins according to interpretations of 2 Kings 17 (pagan foreigners brought in) and Josephus (dissident Jerusalem priests) are the product of considerable bias and cannot be taken at face value.[33]
Writing in 2002, Anderson and Giles in their book The Keepers: An Introduction To The History And Culture Of The Samaritans say that II Kings 17 cannot be considered an objective account of Samaritan history:
The Cutheans are simply the inhabitants of the north, not the Samaritan sect. Sargon's deportation of the indigenous Israelite population probably affected primarily the aristocracy within the city of Samaria. The people groups brought into the region replacing the deportees remained a minority. The invectives of the 2 Kings account address this select few and not the general population, and certainly not a religious sect [i.e., the Samaritans] that had, according to the bulk of evidence, not yet attained a sense of self-awareness.
...
It is generally recognized that the account in 2 Kings 17 is not objective and unbiased history. The purpose of 2 Kings 17, as well as other passages in the Hebrew Bible (particularly in Chronicles and Ezra), is to highlight the primacy of Jerusalem over any potential rivals.[34]
After examining the evidence, Anderson and Giles conclude that the Samaritans did exist during the time of Assyrian invasion, not as a separate sect but as a part of the northern kingdom of Israel. In other words, Samaritans did not emerge after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE.
After doing a detailed discussion on the alleged presence of the Samaritans in II Kings 17, Coggins concluded that:
The simple truth is, as it is hoped that the first main part of the study has shown, that there is no reference to the Samaritans in the Hebrew Old Testament. Some of the allusions in the work of the Chronicler may point to a situation which would later develop into Judaeo-Samaritan hostility, but that is most that can be said.[35]
The New Bible Dictionary under the entry "Samaritans" says:
... Samaritans are mentioned only in 2 Ki. 17:29, a passage which describes the syncretistic religion of those peoples whom the king of Assyria transported to the N kingdom of Israel to replace the exiled native population after the fall of Samaria (722/721 BC).
Several reasons argue strongly against the identification, favoured by Josephus and many others since, of this group with the Samaritans as they are more widely known from the NT..., some of whose descendents survive to the present day in two small communities at Nablus and Holon: (i) the word used (hamrm) seems merely to mean 'inhabitants of (the city or province of) Samaria (Ã???????Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?¡ōmrÃ???????Ã??????Ã?????Ã????Ã???Ã??Ã?´n)', and this fits the context of 2 Ki. 17 best; (ii) there is no evidence that the later Samaritans inhabited Samaria. The earliest certain references to them, by contrast, all points clearly to their residence at Shechem..., whilst one of the Josephus' sources refers to them as 'Shechemites'...; (iii) nothing whatever that is known of later Samaritan religion and practice suggests the pagan influence of 2 Ki. 17 or Ezr. 4.[36]
It is worthwhile adding that modern biblical scholarship has recognized that antagonism between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel existed for many centuries which goes back to the period of the united monarchy. The account in II Kings 17 was written from a southern viewpoint and was quick to highlight the primacy of Jerusalem over any potential rivals. Independence from Jerusalem, an identifying characteristic of Samaritanism, draws unqualified criticism in the Hebrew Bible.[37] Modern Samaritan scholarship also realizes that there was no sudden break that separated Jews and Samaritans. Rather, the rift developed over a long period of time with certain events causing more hostility than others.[38] Perhaps it was after John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple on Mount Gerizim in 2nd century BCE, the two communities went separate ways.
To summarize, modern scholarship conclusively refutes the claim of Samaritan origins based on II Kings 17. The Christian missionary and apologist views, including Vargo's "Jewish view" and the views of his unknown and unnamed "modern scholars", can now be safely discarded.
4. What Do The Samaritans Say About Their Origins?
As we have seen from our discussion on II Kings 17, until the middle of the 20th century it was widely believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest in 722 BCE. Scholarship has moved ahead since then and in recent years research based on the study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (under "Samaritans") summarizes both past and the present views on the Samaritans' origins. It says:
Until the middle of the 20th Century it was customary to believe that the Samaritans originated from a mixture of the people living in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of Samaria by Assyria (722/1 B.C.E.). The Biblical account in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan materials.
According to the former, the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory in central Palestine and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new cult there. For the Samaritans, this was the 'schism' par excellence.[39]
Furthermore, even to this day the Samaritans still claim descent from the tribe of Joseph:
The laymen also possess their traditional claims. They are all of the tribe of Joseph, except those of the tribe of Benjamin, but this traditional branch of people, which, the Chronicles assert, was established at Gaza in earlier days, seems to have disappeared. There exists an aristocratic feeling amongst the different families in this petty community, and some are very proud over their pedigree and the great men it had produced.[40]
Clearly, if the Samaritans trace their origins from the time of Joseph's descendants, then they were certainly in existence in the time of Moses. However, the Samaritan Chronicles, just like the books of the Hebrew Bible, especially the book of Kings, are late compilations.[41] Moreover, as observed earlier, the literature of both the Jews and Samaritans have their own inherent bias in them. They were written from their own point of view and thus exhibit to varying degrees a polemicizing of the events.[42] Nevertheless there are some indications that the Rabbis were aware of the Samaritans' ancient origins and conceded that they were of genuine Israelite stock. An interesting narration is found in Genesis Rabbah, part of which involves Rabbi Meir discussing the plausibility of the Samaritan claim to have a continuous ancestral link to the tribe of Joseph. The discussion proceeds as follows:
R. Meir met a Samaritan and asked him: 'Whence are you descended?' 'From Joseph,' he replied. 'That is not so,' he said. 'Then from whom?' 'From Issachar,' he told him. 'How do you know this?' he countered. - Because it is written, AND THE SONS OF ISSACHAR: TOLA, AND PUVAH, AND IOB, AND SHIMRON - the last name referring to the Samaritans.'[43]
Although disputing the Samaritan version of the account, Rabbi Meir concurs with their claim to be of genuine Israelite origin. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, the Samaritans can in fact trace their lineage to a time that precedes the advent of Moses.
The problem of establishing the authenticity of the claims of the Jews and Samaritans concerning the origins of the latter is not as insurmountable as it seems. We have already seen that II Kings 17 has nothing to do with the Samaritan origins. On the other hand, the Samaritans claim that they have continuously occupied their ancient territory in central Palestine and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh. Perhaps the most crucial question now is whether the Ten Tribes, especially the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh from which Samaritans claimed to have directly descended, survived the Assyrians onslaught? The answer to this question has been dealt with in detail by Nathan Schur using information gleaned from the Hebrew Bible and corroborating it with the archaeological records. His observations can be summarized as follows.[44]
From the Assyrian and biblical records, it is clear that Sargon II moved settlers to the city of Samaria in 722 BCE. If all or most of the new settlers went to the city of Samaria, obviously most of the rest of the country was left basically untouched. This is confirmed by the Hebrew Bible itself in II Chronicles 30:1, 10 which says that King "Hezekiah [727-698 BCE] sent word to all Israel and Judah and also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh, inviting them to come to the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem and celebrate the Passover to the Lord, the God of Israel... The couriers went from town to town in Ephraim and Manasseh, as far as Zebulun, but the people scorned and ridiculed them. Nevertheless, some men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and went to Jerusalem." If the people of the northern kingdom of Israel had been completely replaced, as claimed in II Kings 17, there would have been no point to try and get them to come to Jerusalem for Passover. Moreover, the old tribal names would have lost their meaning. What is more interesting is that in the above passages the new foreign upper classes are not even mentioned, which can be taken to mean that their numbers and influence could not have been very sizeable. Ephraim's old attitude to Jerusalem seems to have been quite unchanged, and only members of the peripheral tribes agreed to come to Jerusalem and follow the lead of the king of Judah. It has been claimed that the disdainful attitude of Ephraim was due to a massive implant of foreign settlers, but if so, why call them by the Israelite tribal name? Furthermore Ephraim's attitude here is not much different from the traditional one of previous centuries. There is no need, therefore, to stipulate foreign settlers, though their presence, at least in the capital, is of course well established.
In the Book of Ezra further plantations of foreign settlers are mentioned from the times of Assyrian kings Esarhaddon [681-669 BCE] (Ezra 4:2) and Assurbanipal [669-627 BCE] (Ezra 4:10). However in the 12th year of Josiah [628 BCE], after his initial reforms in Jerusalem, he extended them also to the area of the northern kingdom, which he had occupied after the collapse of the Assyrian empire in the west. II Chronicles 34:6 mentions again the old tribes: "And so did he in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali ..." Thus a hundred years after the fall of Samaria and after the latest Assyrian settlements the old tribal names were still in use and no new, foreign ones had superseded them. It has to be assumed therefore that the old inhabitants were mostly still residing in their old homes and had not been displaced by new settlers.
This conclusion is strengthened by the attitude of Jeremiah. He is reported to have said in chapter 31 that Ephraim is still enjoying the love of God and prophesises its complete restoration jointly with Judah. Nowhere does he allude to Ephraim's having been supplanted by newcomers. The same goes for Ezekiel. He speaks in the same terms of Ephraim as of Judah. There, too, is no allusion to a strange people having displaced the original settlers.[45]
We lack information of what passed in Samaria during the time of the Babylonian rule. However, even in Judah no new settlers were brought in instead of those exiled to Babylon. The Babylonians do not seem to have taken over the Assyrian concept of replacing local populations by others - or might have lacked the power and resources to do so. Thus it does not seem likely that there were any further settlements in Samaria after those of Assurbanipal. If the old tribal framework was basically intact after the time of this last important Assyrian ruler, the resident Israelite population, with a slight admixture of foreign settlers in the main towns, cannot have changed its composition till the time of Persian rule and the initial Jewish return from Babylonian exile. After making this detailed argument, Schur concludes by saying:
Our conclusion is therefore that the Samaritan tradition is generally correct in claiming direct descent from the Ten Tribes of Israel.
This conclusion can be checked now also by archeological evidence. Except for the destruction of the towns sacked by the Assyrians, such as Samaria and Shechem, other places, where occupation was continuous, show no trace of a different material culture intervening in the later Assyrian period. In the 1967/8 survey ceramic remains of 81 sites were also examined in the province of Samaria, and no differences of nuances could be discovered between the Assyrian period on the one hand and the Persian on the other. The same results were obtained in the 1978/9 survey of the Dotan region, in the exploration of western Samaria and by further archeological excavations of the last 15 years in Samaria.[46]
Nearly similar conclusions were also reached by Frank Cross concerning the uninterrupted existence of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh before and after the Assyrian invasion, although he considers that the earliest form of Samaritanism to be an old Israelite religion.
Accordingly, the later Jewish tradition comes to call the Samaritans en bloc Kutians (kwtym), or sardonically, "lion-proselytes" in light of the anecdote in 2 Kings 17:25-28. For their part, the Samaritans of the later times claimed to be the remnants of Ephraim and Manasseh, authentic Israelites who alone preserve the ancient faith and service of the god of Israel unsullied by Judaean innovations.
In fact, neither of these two polemical positions can stand close critical scrutiny. On the other hand, there are very strong arguments to support the conclusion that the bulk of the men of Ephraim and Manasseh remained in the land; on the other hand, there is equally strong evidence... that Samaritanism in the form we find it in the Roman Age and later is not a survival of old Israelite religion, pure or syncretistic, but rather is essentially a sectarian form of Judaism.[47]
Thus, it can be said the Samaritan tradition is correct in claiming direct descent from tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Since the Samaritans trace their origins from the time of Joseph's descendants, then they were certainly in existence during the time of Moses. However, it is not known from the Samaritan Chronicles or the Hebrew Bible as to when the label shamerin was first used by the Samaritans to identify themselves as a distinct group. The Qur'an suggests that this label was already in place during the time of Moses.
The claims of the Samaritans about their Israelite origins were partially corroborated by a recent study involving genetics which we will now turn to.
5. A Genetic Perspective
The Samaritans are a distinct religious and cultural minority in the Middle East. They number slightly over 500 and they reside in Holon, a suburb of Tel Aviv and Nablus, near their holy site of Mount Gerizim.[48] The Samaritans, according to their origins, are divided into three large clans: children of Ephraim (the Danafi and Joshua-Marhiv families), the children of Manasseh (Tsdaka family), and the Priests (Cohanim). As for the priests, the Samaritan Chronicle tells us that in 1624 CE, the priestly house descended from Aaron became extinct, and that since then their sacred functions devolved upon the Levites. Thus the modern-day priestly Cohen lineage is from the tribe of Levi.[49]
Throughout the whole of their history, the Samaritans adhered to an endogamous marriage system that was practised not only within the limits of the community but also within the limits of the lineage. Female Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are expelled from the sect, while the children of male Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are regarded as Samaritans. Recent studies have shown that around 84% of marriages occur between cousins, producing the highest inbreeding coefficient recorded for any population.[50] This gives a good opportunity to study their genetic character and compare it with Jewish and non-Jewish populations.
Before we go into the issue of genetics, let us first clarify some terms used. A haplotype is the genetic constitution of an individual chromosome and is a contraction of the phrase "haploid genotype". A haplogroup is a large group of haplotypes. In human genetics, the haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups, both of which can be used to define genetic populations. Both these haplogroups have their distinct advantages. The Y-chromosome has the advantage of being passed solely along the patrilineal line (i.e., only via father), while mtDNA is passed solely on the matrilineal line (i.e., only via mother). Hence these haplogroups can be used to study the lineage especially of those groups/sects who marry within their own groups/sects.
The haplogroups were used to study cohanim who are descended from Aaron. According to biblical tradition, after the Jewish exodus from Egypt, Moses' brother Aaron was selected as the first cohen. The designation was bestowed upon his sons, providing the basis for a firmly entrenched Jewish tradition in which a male cohen bestows the status upon his children. A daughter of a cohen can become a priest, but she cannot pass on the honour. The Y-chromosome passes solely from father to son, akin to the cohen status. If all modern cohanim were indeed descendants of Aaron, or a relative of him, their Y-chromosomes should have an ancient common origin. Skorecki and his colleagues have found that the cohanim indeed have some Y-chromosome features distinct from other Jews, implying that the cohanim do share some common ancestry.[51] This shared genetic material comes from an ancestor who lived several thousand years ago, roughly the time estimated for the beginning of the Jewish priesthood. This led to the development of a set of Y-chromosomal markers called the "Cohen modal haplotype" that might have been shared by Aaron. A similar study was used to support the claim of the Lemba clan, an endogamous group from southern Africa, that they were a tribe of Jews. One of the Lemba clans carries a particular Y-chromosome which is "Cohen modal haplotype," at a very high frequency, which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of Judaic origin.[52]
What about the Samaritans? As we have noted earlier, the Samaritans have the highest inbreeding coefficient as they have an endogamous marriage system that is practised not only within the limits of the community but also within the limits of the lineage. The Samaritans claim that they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. If this is true, it should be reflected in their Y-chromosome haplogroup and it should have close relationship with the "Cohen modal haplotype". This is precisely what has been observed. Shen et al. concluded from Y-chromosome analysis that Samaritans descended from the Israelites; and mtDNA analysis shows descent from the foreign women. This effectively has validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans. Shen et al. say:
Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.[53]
Furthermore, the authors say:
This study confirms the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture... [T]he data ... indicate that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a much greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their longtime geographical neighbors, the Palestinians. However, this is not the case for the mtDNA haplotypes. In fact, Table 4 shows that distances of Samaritans to Jews and Palestinians for mtDNA are about the same. Further, the low mitochondrial haplotype diversity suggests that the rate of maternal gene flow into the Samaritan community has not been very high despite their tradition to regard children of male Samaritans born to females from outside as Samaritan... Based on the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype, we speculate that the Samaritan M304 Y-chromosome lineages present a subgroup of the original Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, but married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities. This is in line with biblical texts that emphasize a common heritage of Jews and Samaritans, but also record the negative attitude of Jews towards the Samaritans because of their association with people that were not Jewish. Such a scenario could explain why Samaritan Y-chromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Y-lineages..., while their mitochondrial lineages are closest to Iraqi Jewish and Palestinian mtDNA sequences... Finally, the high degree of homogeneity in each of the four male Samaritan lineages, which holds with two exceptions even over 13 microsatellite loci..., underscores the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture that has effectively limited any male-driven gene flow between the four families.[54]
It is worthwhile adding that this scientific study only establishes the common ancestry of Jews and Samaritans patrilineages; it can't say when the split between them happened, although the authors of this study have speculated that it could have happened during the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel. We now know that this is not true as modern scholars have conclusively rejected II Kings 17 as a source for the origins of Samaritan and clearly not in "line with biblical texts" as Shen et al. have claimed. Despite this error, the scientific study clearly establishes the common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. As for the mitochondrial lineages of Samaritans, a different historical explanation needs to be sought.
Vargo did not like this evidence and he tried to dismiss it by saying:
All humans on this planet are descendents of people who were alive during the time of the Exodus, however, all of the ethno-religious groups, which developed over time, cannot/do not seriously claim to have been present at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses was receiving the law! Another problem is that there are many other groups which carry the Cohen modal haplotype. Among the Bantu speaking Lemba of southern Africa nearly fifty-two percent of males carry the Cohen modal haplotype! The Cohen Modal haplotype is also found in significant numbers among Italians and Kurds.
Obviously, the missionary has not taken the opportunity to read the paper carefully enough. The paper clearly says that the Samaritan Y-chromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Y-lineages, the reason being the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype. The issue is not about just having the Cohen modal haplotype, it is about how closely the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes relates with the Cohen modal haplotype. Similarly, the Lemba tribe from sub-Saharan Africa carries a particular Y-chromosome which is a Cohen modal haplotype, at a very high frequency. This suggests a close genetic relationship between the cohanim and the Lemba tribe. The Cohen modal haplotype is also found in Kurds and Italians. Why should this be surprising? There was a Jewish Kingdom of Adiabene in ancient Kurdistan, where the royals and some of the common people converted to Judaism. Nebel et al. have studied the genetic landscape of the Middle East. Concerning the Kurds, they concluded that:
The dominant haplotype of the Muslim Kurds (haplotype 114) was only one microsatellite-mutation step apart from the CMH [Cohen modal haplotype]... The acceptance of Judaism by the rulers and inhabitants of the Kurdish Kingdom of Adiabene in the first century of the Common Era resulted in the assimilation of non-Jews into the community (Brauer 1993). This recorded conversion does not appear to have had a considerable effect on the Y chromosome pool of the Kurdish Jews.[55]
Perhaps Vargo is under the illusion that genetic information disappears if a Jew, who had a long illustrious lineage, converts to either Islam or Christianity. If this person marries with people from a different genetic stock, there will be some genetic changes but not profound. It is only when there is a lack of endogamy over a few generations, the genetic information slowly gets diluted. The case of the cohanim, the Samaritans and the Lemba clan in sub-Saharan Africa is different from the Kurds. Unlike Kurds, the cohanim, the Samaritans and the Lemba clan are tightly knit groups and marriages are usually endogamous (especially the last two groups) and hence the genetic information is preserved, from which one can make reasonable conclusions about their ancestry.
In other words, the conclusion of this study is that the origins of an endogamous community of Samaritans can be traced back to a common ancestor in the cohen or the Jewish priestly family which was paternally inherited. This study establishes a common ancestry for both Jews and Samaritans, the mixed descent of Samaritans which could be due to marriages with foreign women and corroborates the Samaritan claims of Israelite origins.
6. Conclusions
Until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722 BCE). In a similar vein, the Christian missionaries and apologists have claimed that the Samaritans as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE. Based solely on the evidence of II Kings 17, the missionaries and apologists claim the Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) during the time of Moses is a historical contradiction.
Contrary to the claims of the missionaries and apologists, specialists in Samaritan studies have noted that the use of the term shomronim in II Kings 17 tells us nothing about the origins of the Samaritans. Shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. Furthermore, the narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 claiming that the population of Israel in its totality was deported by Assyrians and exchanged to an alien population is unsupported by archaeology. This historical discrepancy severely undermines the veracity of the biblical claim concerning Samaritan origins. Consequently, modern scholars have conclusively rejected II Kings 17 as a source for the origins of Samaritans.
In recent years, research based on a more careful study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. Specifically, with the publication of the Samaritan Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available. A historical analysis of this chronicle reveals that the Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. The common ancestry of both the Jews and Samaritans was also established by recent genetic studies, going back to cohen or the Jewish priestly family. This study also validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans.
The missionaries and apologists, ignorant of the Samaritans' own version of their history as well as recent scholarly investigation and critical analysis, content themselves with repeating the claim made by William St. Clair Tisdall. Unfortunately, Tisdall was also not fully cognizant with the Chronicles of the Samaritans or the extant archaeological evidence; consequently, the missionaries and apologists make claims contrary to recent historical investigation. As we observed in this study, the Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as "the Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) is consistent with modern investigations into the origins of the Samaritan sect.
Here you have it all, great work by the brothers from Islamic Awareness site. My sincere thanks to them for helping me dunk the following slam:
# 8
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Mon 13 Jun, 2016 4:48 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Sat 17 May, 2008 8:15 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam All
As I stated in my previous comment that ignorant tristhseeker2 presented two arguments in one, here is his crap again:
truthseeker2 wrote:
The Golden Calf
Surah 20:90-100 says a Samaritan helped the Israelites build the golden calf, and it mooed after coming out of the fire.
But & this is real good & I look forward to the explanation.
Obviously he is lying, he is not looking for an explanation rather he is looking forward to mock, this is evident from the masses of allegations he is copying and pasting at once, if he is really an honest man who is looking for an explanation, he wold have presented his question on its own not accompany it with masses of lies, ignorance and stupidity
Anyway, I�?????�????�???�??�?�¢??m going to also leave it to the brothers from Islamic Awareness to slam dunk his stupidity:
1. Introduction
Christian missionaries have claimed that the Qur'an contains a historically impossible narration when it mentions the name al-Samiri which some translate as the "Samaritan" (Qur'an 20: 85, 87 and 95). They claim that:
The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.
We have already discussed the origins of the Samaritans in the paper The "Samaritan" Error in the Qur'an. We had mentioned that until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722 BCE). In recent years however, new research based on a more careful study of the Samaritan Chronicle has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. The Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas.
The Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as the "Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) is entirely consistent with modern investigations into the origin of the Samaritan sect.
This paper responds to a different allegation, that the Qur'anic story mentioned in surah 20: 85-95 was in fact based on Jewish myths and fables.
The Christian missionary Tisdall attempts to explain the origin of the "Samaritan" story in his book The Original Sources Of The Qur'an:
This legend also comes from the Jews, as is evident from the following extract which we translate from Pirq�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�ªy Rabbi Eli'ezer, �??????�?????�????�???�??�?�§ 45, "And this calf came out lowing [the sound uttered by cattle; moo], and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Yeh�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�»dah says that Samma�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�ªl was hidden in its interior, and was lowing in order that he might deceive Israel." The idea that the calf was able to low must come from the supposition that, though made of gold (Exodus 32. 4), it was alive, since it "came out" (5. 24) of the fire. Here, again, we see that the figurative expression, when taken literally, led to the growth of a myth to explain it. The Muhammadan commentator in explaining the words "a calf in body" in the Qur'an as signifying that it had "flesh and blood" has only gone a step further, and he does this to explain how it was that the animal could low. Muhammad seems to have understood most of the Jewish legend correctly, but the word Samma�??????�?????�????�???�??�?�ªl puzzled him. Not understanding that this is the Jewish name of the Angel of Death, and perhaps misled as to the pronunciation, he mistook the word for the somewhat similar "Samiri", which means "Samaritan." Of course he made this mistake because he knew that the Jews were enemies of Samaritans, and he fancied that they attributed the making of the calf to one of the latter. He was doubtless confirmed in his belief by some indistinct recollection of having heard that Jeroboam, king of what was afterwards called Samaria, had "made Israel to sin" by leading them to worship the calves which he made and placed in Dan and Beth-el (I Kings 12. 28, 29). But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years later after Moses' death, the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur.[1]
He believes that the story is entirely Jewish in origin, and furthermore, he also mentions the "amusing anachronism" in the Qur'an concerning the mistaken usage of the term "Samaritan". This "amusing anachronism" has already been refuted.
Now, concerning the Jewish origins of the story, Tisdall would like us to believe that Muhammad(P) lifted this material from a Rabbinical source called Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer. Tisdall presumably used Abraham Geiger's book, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? as his source.[2] Concerning the golden calf Abraham Geiger writes:
Muhammad says that the calf lowed as it come forth. With this is to be compared the Rabbinical statement: "There came forth this calf lowing and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Jehuda says that Samael entered into it and lowed in order to mislead Israel." In the Qur'an it is said that among the people of Moses there was a tribe which kept the truth. This seems to refer to the tribe of Levi and especially to their behaviour about the calf, although possibly it may refer also to their belief in Moses' mission to Pharaoh of which we have spoken before. In the biblical accounts a statement is made, which is explained by the Rabbis as follows: "From Exodus 32. 26, it is clear that the tribe of Levi was not implicated in the matter of the golden calf."[3]
Not surprisingly, Geiger also uses the rabbinical source called Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer[4] to support his theory that Muhammad(P) copied this story (or 'legend' as Tisdall prefers to call it) from Jewish sources. Similar claims have been made by Robert Morey[5] and N. A. Newman.[6]
Thus, Tisdall proposes that Muhammad(P) used the source Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer to compose the account found in surah 20:85-95.
2. The Case Against Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer
But Tisdall's explanation is probably the most inaccurate and inexcusable suggestion he has yet put forward. An examination of the another contemporary source of Tisdall's time reveals the answer. The Jewish Encyclopaedia published in 1905, in the same year as the publication of Tisdall's book, states under "Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer":
Josh was the first to point out that in the thirtieth chapter, in which at the end the author distinctly alludes to the three stages of the Mohammadan conquest, that of Arabia, of Spain, and of Rome, the names of Fatima and Ayesha occur beside that of Ishmael, leading to the conclusion that the book originated in the time when Islam was predominant in Asia Minor. As in ch. 36, two brothers reigning simultaneously are mentioned, after whose reign the Messiah shall come, the work might be ascribed to the beginning of the ninth century, for about that time the two sons of Harun al-Rasid, El-Amin and El-Mamun, were ruling over Islamic realm.[7]
Thus, according to Tisdall, Muhammad(P) composed the account found in surah 20: 85-95 using a source that had not yet been compiled until hundreds of years after his death! Long before Tisdall wrote The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, Jewish scholars had already mentioned that Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer post-dated Islam. But surprisingly the famous Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall was oblivious to this fact!
Abraham Geiger's book Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? has also been subject to recent criticisms by scholars such as Norman Stillman:
... it did tend to give exaggerated view of the Jewish contribution to the Qur'an. Many of the traditions that he cites are in oriental Christian as well as talmudic and haggadic literature. Our chronology of rabbanic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The Pirqe de Rabbi Eli'ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally redacted after the advent of Islam.[8]
This view of late compilation of Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer (as well as Midrash Tanhuma!) is also echoed in Encyclopedia Of Islam:
Regardless of how the story [of al-Samiri] came about, the Kur'an appears to present the earliest record of this midrashic development; aspects of it which are found in the Jewish sources (e.g., Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer and Tanhuma) would seem to date from after the rise of Islam.[9]
Since Tisdall lifted most of his material from his master Abraham Geiger, it is not at all surprising to find that Tisdall's sense of poor chronology matches greatly with Geiger's. Other examples of Tisdall's poor and embarrassing scholarship are exposed in his discussions concerning the Prophet's(P) wives teaching him stories from the Bible, Salman the Persian and the story of Cain & Abel as possible Judeo-Christian sources of the Qur'an.
Finally, Stillman advises us in his conclusion:
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that one should be extremely cautious about assigning specific origins to the story discussed here - or for that matter, any other story in the Qur'an.[10]
Christian missionaries would of course choose to ignore this advice as "The Promotion Of Christian Knowledge" by any means is sometimes more important than accuracy and truth!
3. To Moo Or Not To Moo?
The Christian missionaries seem to also have a problem with the golden calf: Did the golden calf moo? They write:
Has Allah given a miracle to this false idol even though idolatery is so detested by him?
We will simply reply by saying that Christians themselves report the idols or statues of Virgin Mary performing "miracles" for believers. This has been reported in both Europe and Latin America. Does that now mean that their (Trinitarian) god has given these idols the power to perform miracles, even though idolatry is so much detested by God?
It is quite clear in the Qur'an that God will test people:
Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, "We believe", and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, and Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false. [Qur'an 29:2-3]
Some of these trials will expose the hypocrisy and falsehoods in the hearts of those who claim to believe; and for others it will strengthen their faith and resolve - for they are indeed the true believers. This whole life is but a test for the true believer. Just as the Children of Israel were tested, other nations were also tested. The people of Thamud for example were tested by the she-camel.
There's no such thing as a free ticket to Paradise!
What a slam
# 9
Posted:
Sat 17 May, 2008 8:36 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Good morning all
Let's have a look at the next argument in truthseeker2 copy/paste job:
truthseeker2 wrote:
Musa and the Injil
Jesus was born more than 1,000 years after Musa, but in Sura 7:157 Allah speaks to Musa about what is written in the Injil (the book given to Jesus)
Please note, because I finished the draft translation of sura 7, I will use Free-Islam translation, obviously the source where truthseeker2 copied his crap from is only picking one verse that never mentioned Musa, then he tells us that the verses is talking to Musa, let's see if they are truthful, I have to bring the adjacent verses so we can follow the context, but before I start, it seems to me that the enemy of Islam lack the knowledge of something that is used in the Quran intensively, it is called Iltifat, known as a method of Balagha in Arabic, simply it means chang8ing the speech to another perspective all of a sudden, however they will be words in the new sentence(s) that must indicate that the speech has been changed, the purpose of it is to say the least amount of words while still having maximum message, something that is seen in numerous verses in the Quran, it can even happen within the same verse, i.e. the first half of the verse is talking about something from some perspective, then the second half changes all of a sudden to talk about the same thing or something else from another perspective, this must cause the kafir enemy of Islam a lot of confusion, and I believe it is designed and implemented by Allah this way to make the kafirs who reject or fight His message more blind to the message and consequently they increase in their Kufr.
Let me walk you briefly through the verses starting from verse 7:155
And Musa chose from his people seventy men for Our appointment; so when the earthquake overtook them, he said: My Lord! If You had willed, You could have destroyed them before and myself (too); Would You destroy us for what the fools among us have done? It is not but Your trial, You misguide with it whom You will and guide whom You will, You are our Guardian therefore forgive us and grant us mercy and You are the best of the forgivers. [Al Quran ; 7:155]
وَاخْتَارَ مُوسَى قَوْمَهُ سَبْعِينَ رَجُلاً لِّمِيقَاتِنَا فَلَمَّا أَخَذَتْهُمُ الرَّجْفَةُ قَالَ رَبِّ لَوْ شِئْتَ أَهْلَكْتَهُم مِّن قَبْلُ وَإِيَّايَ أَتُهْلِكُنَا بِمَا فَعَلَ السُّفَهَاء مِنَّا إِنْ هِيَ إِلاَّ فِتْنَتُكَ تُضِلُّ بِهَا مَن تَشَاء وَتَهْدِي مَن تَشَاء أَنتَ وَلِيُّنَا فَاغْفِرْ لَنَا وَارْحَمْنَا وَأَنتَ خَيْرُ الْغَافِرِينَ (155)
-> Clear from the above verse that it is talking about a story that happened sometime to prophet Musa, in the above verse the perspective of speech changed once, it starts by Allah is telling the story: And Musa chose from his people seventy men for Our appointment; so when the earthquake overtook them,, then Allah changed the perspective all of a sudden to Musa perspective: he said: My Lord! If You had willed, You could have destroyed them before and myself (too); Would You destroy us for what the fools among us have done? It is not but Your trial, You misguide with it whom You will and guide whom You will, You are our Guardian therefore forgive us and grant us mercy and You are the best of the forgivers..
And write for us in this world good and in the hereafter, indeed we are guided to You. He (Allah) said: My torture, I will strike with it whom I will, and My mercy encompasses everything; therefore I will write it for those who fear (Me) and pay the poor-due, and those who in Our sings believe. [Al Quran ; 7:156]
وَاكْتُبْ لَنَا فِي هَذِهِ الدُّنْيَا حَسَنَةً وَفِي الآخِرَةِ إِنَّا هُدْنَا إِلَيْكَ قَالَ عَذَابِي أُصِيبُ بِهِ مَنْ أَشَاء وَرَحْمَتِي وَسِعَتْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ فَسَأَكْتُبُهَا لِلَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَالَّذِينَ هُم بِآيَاتِنَا يُؤْمِنُونَ (156)
-> The story from Musa perspective continued in this verse as follow: And write for us in this world good and in the hereafter, indeed we are guided to You., then the perspective changed all of a sudden to be from Allah perspective: He (Allah) said: My torture, I will strike with it whom I will, and My mercy encompasses everything; therefore I will write it for those who fear (Me) and pay the poor-due, and those who in Our sings believe., actually the word (Allah) is not in the Arabic text that is why I put it in brackets in my translation, so those who are not familiar with the Arabic Balagha Iltifat can follow the story through without being confused who is talking at such moment or without the need to think who is talking at such moment. Now, despite when the speech changed to Allah perspective, the verse never said Qal Allah, i.e. Allah said, rather Qal., ie Said, same when Musa was speaking in the previous verse, it was said Qal, i.e Said, and not Qal Musa, i.e. Musa said for the listeners, to know who is the speaker now as they read the story in the Quran, they should look for keywords to what is about to be said, in the previous verse it was clear that it had to Musa because in the following words we read My Lord, and in this verse it has to be Allah because we read in the following words about the mercy and the punishment and His signs, here it is again without the word (Allah): Said: My torture, I will strike with it whom I will, and My mercy encompasses everything; therefore I will write it for those who fear and pay the poor-due, and those who in Our sings believe., see how easy it is to identify who is the one talking without the verse telling us who is talking,
Now in the next verse the perspective changed BACK to where it started in verse 7:155, i.e. back to Allah telling us something as He did in the start of verse 7:155, let me remind with its start again: 7:155 is talking about a story that happened sometime to prophet Musa, in the above verse the perspective of speech changed once, it starts by Allah is telling the story: And Musa chose from his people seventy men for Our appointment; so when the earthquake overtook them,
And here is how the speech changed back:
Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel, he (the messenger) enjoins them with what is lawful and forbids them what is evil, and makes lawful for them the good and makes unlawful for the bad, and relieves them from their burden and the shackles which were upon them. And those who have believed in him and have honoured him and have helped him, and have followed the light which has been sent down with him, it is those who are the successful. [Al Quran ; 7:157]
الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنْجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَآئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالأَغْلاَلَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُواْ النُّورَ الَّذِيَ أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ أُوْلَئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ (157)
-> Clearly the verse above is talking about prophet Mohammed and not prophet Musa, this is because Musa was not Ummi, but Mohammed was, see how the verses started from the perspective of Allah, i..e. Allah is telling us: Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered prophet,, i.e. prophet Mohammed, who is also mentioned in Ahl Alkitab scriptures, Injeel and Taurat, see what else is said by Allah about Mohammed: whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel, he (the messenger) enjoins them with what is lawful and forbids them what is evil, and makes lawful for them the good and makes unlawful for the bad, and relieves them from their burden and the shackles which were upon them. And those who have believed in him and have honoured him and have helped him, and have followed the light which has been sent down with him, it is those who are the successful., Musa has absolutely nothing to do with the above verse, however I do understand that an ignorant copier/paster like truthseeker2 may understand it such way, now consider that he is a clear enemy of Islam too, then he must be locked on his ignorance
The next verse changed the perspective again, in the previous verse, it was Allah talking to all Quran readers, in the following verse, it is Allah talking to Mohammed alone and telling him what to say to other people, let's have a look:
Say: O people! Indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you all, to Whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, there is no god but He; He gives life and causes death therefore believe in Allah and His messenger, the unlettered prophet who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may be guided. [Al Quran ; 7:158]
قُلْ يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ اللّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ جَمِيعًا الَّذِي لَهُ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ لا إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ يُحْيِي وَيُمِيتُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ النَّبِيِّ الأُمِّيِّ الَّذِي يُؤْمِنُ بِاللّهِ وَكَلِمَاتِهِ وَاتَّبِعُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَهْتَدُونَ (158)
-> See how the perspective changed again to direct speech by Allah to Mohammed only: Say: O people! Indeed I am the messenger of Allah to you all, to Whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, there is no god but He; He gives life and causes death therefore believe in Allah and His messenger, the unlettered prophet who believes in Allah and His words, and follow him so that you may be guided.
In the next verse, the perspective changed again to Allah talking to all Quran readers, telling them about Musa and his people again:
And among the people of Musa is a nation who guides (others) with the truth, and by it they establish justice. [Al Quran ; 7:159]
وَمِن قَوْمِ مُوسَى أُمَّةٌ يَهْدُونَ بِالْحَقِّ وَبِهِ يَعْدِلُونَ (159)
And the next verse continued as the previous verse, the same perspective, Allah is tellong all Quran readers about Musa and his people:
And We divided them into twelve tribes, nations; and We revealed to Musa when his people implored him for water: Strike the rock with your staff, so gushed forth from it twelve springs; each tribe knew its drinking place; and We shaded them with the clouds, and We sent to them manna and quails: Eat of the good of what We have provided you. And they did not do Us unjust but they did injustice to themselves. [Al Quran ; 7:160]
وَقَطَّعْنَاهُمُ اثْنَتَيْ عَشْرَةَ أَسْبَاطًا أُمَمًا وَأَوْحَيْنَا إِلَى مُوسَى إِذِ اسْتَسْقَاهُ قَوْمُهُ أَنِ اضْرِب بِّعَصَاكَ الْحَجَرَ فَانبَجَسَتْ مِنْهُ اثْنَتَا عَشْرَةَ عَيْنًا قَدْ عَلِمَ كُلُّ أُنَاسٍ مَّشْرَبَهُمْ وَظَلَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِمُ الْغَمَامَ وَأَنزَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمُ الْمَنَّ وَالسَّلْوَى كُلُواْ مِن طَيِّبَاتِ مَا رَزَقْنَاكُمْ وَمَا ظَلَمُونَا وَلَكِن كَانُواْ أَنفُسَهُمْ يَظْلِمُونَ (160)
This should conclude the slam as well takes our slam tally to double digits:
# 10
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Mon 13 Jun, 2016 5:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Sun 18 May, 2008 6:51 am
Windsor Pawn
Status: Age: 39 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Nov 25, 2007
Posts: 69 Location: Canada
Post subject:
Nice Work brother.
But I think you skipped few charges by the arrogant Christian.
Posted:
Thu 03 Jul, 2008 1:41 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Windsor wrote:
Nice Work brother.
But I think you skipped few charges by the arrogant Christian.
Salam mate
I did not actually skip it, this thread was posted on FFI and I told them that due to the masses of their argument, i will look for the ones that I have a reply ready for it on my laptop, the rest will be refuted later on inshalllah when I come back to Australia in about 6 weeks time
cheers
Posted:
Thu 03 Jul, 2008 3:52 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam All,
It has been a very long time since I wrote last in this thread, and as I promised that I will continue later inshaallah when I have enough time, I still do not have such time but I feel that I should continue regardless, therefore here is my 11th slam dunk
truthseeker2 wrote:
Does Allah forgive shirk?
Sura 4:48, 116, No
then we get
Sura 4:153, 25:68-71, Yes
The confusion of the FFI goons is the result of how ignorant they are to what Allah said about Himself in the Quran
Let me first bring the verses they are referring to, in here:
Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, and He forgives what is less than that to whomsoever He desires; and whoever associates partners with Allah, indeed he forged a great sin. [Al Quran ; 4:48]
إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاء وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدِ افْتَرَى إِثْمًا عَظِيمًا (48)
-> In the above verse, Allah is telling us: إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ , Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him,
As well in the next verse, He said the exact same:
Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him, and He forgives what is less than that to whomsoever He desires; and whoever associates partners with Allah, he indeed strayed into a distant misguidance. [Al Quran ; 4:116]
إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ وَيَغْفِرُ مَا دُونَ ذَلِكَ لِمَن يَشَاء وَمَن يُشْرِكْ بِاللّهِ فَقَدْ ضَلَّ ضَلاَلاً بَعِيدًا (
116)
-> In the above verse, Allah is telling us: إِنَّ اللّهَ لاَ يَغْفِرُ أَن يُشْرَكَ بِهِ , Indeed, Allah does not forgive that partners be associated with Him,
I wonder why the goon truthseeker2 posted two references to the same exact saying by Allah in regards to His saying that He will never forgive that partners be associated with Him. Possibly the goon trying to tell us by Allah repeating it twice it means that it is a stress of His upcoming action regarding Al Mushrikoon. Hmmmm, fine mister goon, I accept that understanding which is: When a sentence is being repeated then it has to be a stress of what is going to happen that is stated in such sentence, therefore the more it is repeated the more the stress increase
Let's now look at the verses that suppose to contradict the above two verses:
The people of the Book ask you to bring down to them a book from the sky; indeed they asked of Musa a greater thing than that, as they said: Show us Allah publicly; therefore the lightning took them due to their injustice, then they took the calf after the clear signs had come to them, but We pardoned this; and We gave Musa a clear authority. [Al Quran ; 4:153]
يَسْأَلُكَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ أَن تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ كِتَابًا مِّنَ السَّمَاء فَقَدْ سَأَلُواْ مُوسَى أَكْبَرَ مِن ذَلِكَ فَقَالُواْ أَرِنَا اللّهِ جَهْرَةً فَأَخَذَتْهُمُ الصَّاعِقَةُ بِظُلْمِهِمْ ثُمَّ اتَّخَذُواْ الْعِجْلَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَاتُ فَعَفَوْنَا عَن ذَلِكَ وَآتَيْنَا مُوسَى سُلْطَانًا مُّبِينًا (153)
-> Hmmmm, here is where the confusion of the goon comes clear, the verse above never said that Allah forgives shirk, IT NEVER DID, the verse above is talking about PUNISHMENT ON EARTH, you stupid
Well, the verse above is talking about the confused Jews who took the calf as a god (they shirked by committing one of the types of shirk) and Allah decided to give them another chance ON EARTH, yet they failed such chance, therefore those who failed when they have died, their SHIRK WILL NEVER BE FORGIVEN according to what Allah stated twice in 4:48 and 4:116
In fact what Allah did with the Jews (by giving them another chance or more) , who have shirked IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH MANY MUSHRIKOON WHO ARE LIVING WITH US NOWDAYS, like the cow worshippers in India, or the Hindus who sometimes worship elephants (again in India, sounds like India is a good place to breed Mushrikoon), or the devil worshippers, etc etc, we do not see the punishment of Allah coming down upon them the moment they shirked, this means they are still given chances to return to the path to which He is calling them, and the game will be over when everyone dies, only then Allah will never forgive your shirk, if you die a Mushrik
Let's look at the second verse that suppose to tell us that Allah will forgive shirk on the J Day:
68: And they who do not call upon another god with Allah and do not slay the soul, which Allah has forbidden except in the requirements of justice, and (who) do not commit fornication and he who does this shall find a requital of sin;
69: The punishment shall be doubled to him on the day of resurrection, and he shall abide therein in abasement;
70: Except him who repents and believes and does a good deed; so these are they of whom Allah changes the evil deeds to good ones; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
71: And whoever repents and does good, he surely turns to Allah a (goodly) turning. [The Quran ; 25:68-71]
وَالَّذِينَ لَا يَدْعُونَ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلَٰهًا آخَرَ وَلَا يَقْتُلُونَ النَّفْسَ الَّتِي حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَلَا يَزْنُونَ ۚ وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذَٰلِكَ يَلْقَ أَثَامًا (68)
يُضَاعَفْ لَهُ الْعَذَابُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَيَخْلُدْ فِيهِ مُهَانًا (69)
إِلَّا مَنْ تَابَ وَآمَنَ وَعَمِلَ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا فَأُولَٰئِكَ يُبَدِّلُ اللَّهُ سَيِّئَاتِهِمْ حَسَنَاتٍ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا (70)
وَمَنْ تَابَ وَعَمِلَ صَالِحًا فَإِنَّهُ يَتُوبُ إِلَى اللَّهِ مَتَابًا (71)
-> See how stupid and illogical the goons of FFI are, the above verses confirmed without a doubt what I said regarding 4:153 above, which is, Allah is giving more chances to the people He chose not to die YET as Mushrikoon, but if they failed such chances given and died while shirking, then this is what will happen to them as 25:69 above is CLEARLY telling us: يُضَاعَفْ لَهُ الْعَذَابُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ وَيَخْلُدْ فِيهِ مُهَانًا , The punishment shall be doubled to him on the day of resurrection, and he shall abide therein in abasement; , but if any Mushrik who calls upon another god with Allah, managed to repent then his past shirk will be forgiven, because when he/she died, they were not Mushrikoon: and that is exactly what 25:70-71 are telling us: , Except him who repents and believes and does a good deed; so these are they of whom Allah changes the evil deeds to good ones; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And whoever repents and does good, he surely turns to Allah a (goodly) turning.
Obviously the confused goon slam dunked himself, which should be enough to constitute slam dunk # 11:
# 11
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Mon 13 Jun, 2016 5:02 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted:
Fri 10 Oct, 2008 4:49 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
truthseeker2 wrote:
Alexander the Great
Surah 18:89-98 says Alexander the Great was a devout Muslim and lived to a ripe old age.
But?
Historical records show that Alexander the Great died young at 33 years of age. He believed he was divine and forced others to recognize him as such. In India on the Hyphasis River Alexander erected twelve altars to twelve Olympian gods.
A few years back, I collected one of the best refutation to such Tom and Jerry alleged contradiction, I could not remember the people who wrote such great refute, I thought it was by the brothers of Islamic Awareness but after searching their web site, could not find it, I also thought to be by the brothers of faithfreedom.com ( a web site that was created to reply to faithfreedom.org) but again could not find it, therefore I won't be able to confirm the source, but if that is an issue for the goons to reject it, then consider that the source is myself:
Why Zul-Qarnain of the Quran is not Alexander the great
Popular opinion amongst the Muslims and quite recently, within the mainstream evangelical Christians identify Zul-Qarnian (of the Quran) with Alexander the great. This claim, in the light of history needs to be analysed while keeping in view the sublime story of Zul-Qarnain found in chapter 18 of the Quran. Before we initiate a point-by-point examination of whatever data available on hand, we must bear in mind that Quran does not mention the title "Alexander the great," but rather Zul-Qarnain (two-horned one) which may also mean "period or century." (1) In addition, "who was he? In what age and where did he live? The Quran gives us no material on which we can base a positive answer." (2)
Evidence 1:
The story of Zul-Qarnain begins in the Quran with:
"And they ask you about Zul-Qarnain. Say: 'I shall recite to you something of his story.' Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything." [The Quran ; 18:83-84]
وَيَسْأَلُونَكَ عَنْ ذِي الْقَرْنَيْنِ ۖ قُلْ سَأَتْلُو عَلَيْكُمْ مِنْهُ ذِكْرًا (83)
The most important point made in verse 84 is that Allah endowed upon Zul-Qarnain the worldly power and prestige to enable him to rule justly. If a man of God is under the divine protection, then naturally, under no circumstances, the forces of evil can overpower him. Let us now see if, from the following historical record of Alexander the great, we recognise Zul-Qarnain of the Quran, Encyclopaedia Americana teel us under the name Alexander:
Alexander: "Hearing of the river Indus, ...drove the army eastward across the Hindu Kush (327 B.C.). His army had understood the need to consolidate all the Persian dominion, but believed this new venture to be a madman's act. Actually, Alexander thought that he was entering the last peninsula of the earth: that beyond it lay the Ocean of the East. He reached the Indus with a growing following, a moving state of allied peoples and their families, while his remaining Macedonians laid down pontoon bridges, shored up roads over immense ranges, and fought battles when necessary. Passing from the friendly country around Taxila (near Attock), they encountered the hostile Paurava rajah at the Jhelum River where the Macedonian infantry had to fight against armoured elephants for the first time. Alexander and his spearhead could not approach the elephants, which terrified the horses. This shook the Macedonian veterans who mutinied en masse at the river Ravi. Deeply angered, because he believed the end of the land lay not far off, at Ocean, Alexander was obliged to retreat (326 B.C.)." (3)
From the above narrative, we can easily observe that Alexander's army considered this new venture to be a madman's act and running away from the battleground upon seeing elephants in the enemy's army. Both of these acts are in clear opposition to the verse 84 where Zul-Qarnain is given the utmost power:
"Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything." [The Quran ; 18:84]
إِنَّا مَكَّنَّا لَهُ فِي الْأَرْضِ وَآتَيْنَاهُ مِنْ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ سَبَبًا (84)
When a man of God is given the power to rule justly upon the earth, he's also sustained by his followers who are ready and willing to follow their leader, and sacrifice themselves for the sake of God. No hardship, calamity or force can play any role against them. But, unfortunately, Alexander's cowardly actions, such as becoming angry just because he was unable to fight Paurava Raja's ((a Rajah) belonging to, or descended from Puru, a king of Lunar Dynasty) (4) army which consisted of elephants do not match that of a man of God.
Evidence 2: Zul-Qarnain was indeed a believer in monotheism. In one of his voyages, as described in the Quran, he found some people, and said to them:
"as for him who believes in (Allah's Oneness) and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward (Paradise), and we (Zul-Qarnain) shall speak unto him mild words." [The Quran ; 18:87]
قَالَ أَمَّا مَنْ ظَلَمَ فَسَوْفَ نُعَذِّبُهُ ثُمَّ يُرَدُّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّهِ فَيُعَذِّبُهُ عَذَابًا نُكْرًا (87)
On the other hand, we do not find Alexander being a believer in the Oneness of God, as the following record demonstrates it:
"Alexander eagerly assimilated the religious mysticism of the Nile and of Magian Persia. Not only did he protect these religions, but also as a sole ruler, he necessarily assumed the semidivine aspect of an Asian despot, wearing Persian attire at ceremonies and accepting prostration in his presence."(5) Furthermore, "Alexander's greatest work was the spread of Greek influence..." (6)
The comparison so clearly separates Alexander from Zul-Qarnain that no further explanation is needed.
Evidence 3:
In Zul-Qarnain's third voyage, he found a habitation between two mountains whose people asked for his help against the aggression of Gog and Magog - for which they were going to pay him a tribute. And in the words of the Quran, Zul-Qarnain replied to them:
"(the power) in which My Lord has established me Is better (than tribute.)" [The Quran ; 18:95]
قَالَ مَا مَكَّنِّي فِيهِ رَبِّي خَيْرٌ فَأَعِينُونِي بِقُوَّةٍ أَجْعَلْ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ رَدْمًا (95)
The manner in which Zul-Qarnain responded, is a testimony in itself that he had no interest in the material gain of this world. His mission endorsed by God was to be just and kind to oppressed, and harsh with those who inflict hardship upon the helpless. In contrast, when we analyse Alexander in similar capacity, we get a picture opposite to what has been cited above for Zul-Qarnain:
"In Susa and Persepolis his (Alexander's) headlong pursuit won him the imperial treasure of some 180,000 talents in bullion and coin - so fabulous an amount that he demonetised the gold to equate it with the smaller Graeco-Macedonian silver coinage," (7) and "at Damascus the Persian army's treasure and supply train were captured, giving Alexander wealth for the first time." (8)
From these two historical records, can we picture Zul-Qarnain as he is depicted in the above Quranic verse? Obviously not!
Evidence 4:
So far, it has been established that Zul-Qarnain of the Quran was a believer in the Oneness of God. In the case of Alexander the great, following few historical accounts further confirm that he was not a monotheist:
"In the spring of 331 Alexander made a pilgrimage to the great temple and oracle of Amon-Ra, Egyptian god of the sun, whom the Greeks identified with Zeus. The earlier Egyptian pharaohs were believed to be sons of Amon-Ra; and Alexander, the new ruler of Egypt, wanted the god to acknowledge him as his son. The pilgrimage apparently was successful, and it may have confirmed in him a belief in his own divine origin."
"Shortly before he died, Alexander ordered the Greek cities to worship him as a god. Although he probably gave the order for political reasons, he was, in his own view and that of his contemporaries, of divine birth." (9)
Conclusion:
In the days gone by, access and availability to social, academic and scientific knowledge was either limited or non-existent. People of learning used to base their opinions on whatever information was on hand. There were also those who accepted matters as conclusive without having first analysed it from all the different angles. In the case of those Muslim commentators on the Holy Quran who identify Zul-Qarnain with Alexander the great, we simply cannot blame them for their erroneous interpretation. The time-domain they lived in and the resources available to them, they, accordingly, explained the Quranic text to the best of their ability. Despite the fact that they were all sincere and good hearted scholars, they were bound to incorporate within their work certain cultural elements of which they were part of:
"no other man has been claimed - in legends - by so many nations. Egyptian fable makes him god. Arabo-Persian tradition represents Is-kander as a hero-saint." (10)
The only common factor on which these scholars based their opinions is the expeditions carried by Alexander and Zul_Qarnain. Other than this, there are hardly any other characteristics that are common in both.
References:
1. Cyril Classe, The Concise Encyclopaedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p_32
2. Yusuf Ali, The Holy Quran, note 2428
3. Encyclopaedia Americana, Volume 1, p_540
4. Margaret & James Stutly, A dictionary of Hinduism, Ronledge & Kegan Paul, 1977
5. Encyclopaedia Americana, Volume 1, p_540
6. Encyclopaedia of Religion & Ethics, Volume 1, p_307
Apparantly, Alexander the Great was also a queer, which means, he could have never been a man of God: Alexander the Great is a queer
And this should take us to the 12th slam:
# 12
Last edited by AhmedBahgat on Mon 13 Jun, 2016 5:03 am; edited 4 times in total
Posted:
Sat 11 Oct, 2008 5:29 pm
AhmedBahgat Site Admin
Status: Age: 59 Faith: Islam Gender:
Zodiac: Joined: Oct 16, 2006
Posts: 3236 Location: Australia
Post subject:
Salam all,
A goon of FFI tried to dispute slam dunk # 11, this is how he looks like in there and what he had to say in reply to slam dunk # 11:
Islamis__Tashit of FFI
Islamis__Tashit of FFI said:
This whole seal on the heart thing has to make any thinking mind wonder why God would block someone from returning to the true path. One might say that God already knows that one will never return to the true path and therefore applies the seal, but if that's the case, then why even bother to apply the seal? Why take even the smallest extra step if it is completely unnecessary? See how goofy this entire concept is? I think Muhammad made it up to explain to the converted pagans why they were converting, but the Christian and Jews, who's religion Muhammad supposedly came to complete, were not converting. So Muhammad had to make up the seal on the heart excuse and it was a really stupid goof on his part. He just didn't think this one through very well, just like BagHat never thinks things through very well, just like the majority of Muslims don't think things through very well. Seems like logic and reasoning to Muslims is like garlic is to a vampire.[/quote]
And this is how I replied to the Ugly:
Let me educate Ugly by giving him a Quran lesson:
Let's have a look at the following verse:
And a soul shall not die except with the permission of Allah, an appointed book; and whoever desires the reward of this world, We shall give him of it, and whoever desires the reward of the hereafter We shall give him of it, and We will reward the grateful. [Al Quran ; 3:145]
وَمَا كَانَ لِنَفْسٍ أَنْ تَمُوتَ إِلَّا بِإِذْنِ اللَّهِ كِتَابًا مُؤَجَّلًا ۗ وَمَنْ يُرِدْ ثَوَابَ الدُّنْيَا نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا وَمَنْ يُرِدْ ثَوَابَ الْآخِرَةِ نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا ۚ وَسَنَجْزِي الشَّاكِرِينَ (145)
-> See mister Ugly, وَمَنْ يُرِدْ ثَوَابَ الدُّنْيَا نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا وَمَنْ يُرِدْ ثَوَابَ الْآخِرَةِ نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا, i.e. and whoever desires the reward of this world, We shall give him of it, and whoever desires the reward of the hereafter We shall give him of it,
I.e. those Mushrikoon, and btw you are a Mushrik too, this is because Allah told you to believe while Satan told you the opposite (not to believe) and as you know you chose to serve Satan after hearing both, i.e. you have Shirked, therefore a Mushrik like you wants the life of this world, and certainly you may have possibly done a few good deeds in the life of this world (I am sure though that most of your deeds are evil) anyway, for your good deeds that you did in this life while you are desiring this life only, you must be rewarded for such deeds using what you love and desire which is the life of this world, see again: and whoever desires the reward of this world, We shall give him of it,, and that must be you and the likes of you
However, you will have a serious problem after the life of this world finishes and I am sure that even an Ugly dumb bum like you knows that the life of this world must finish (death), your serious problem is as follow:
Whoever desires the reward of the hereafter, We will give him more of that reward; and whoever desires the reward of this world, We give him of it, and in the hereafter he has no portion. [Al Quran ; 42:20]
مَنْ كَانَ يُرِيدُ حَرْثَ الْآخِرَةِ نَزِدْ لَهُ فِي حَرْثِهِ ۖ وَمَنْ كَانَ يُرِيدُ حَرْثَ الدُّنْيَا نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا وَمَا لَهُ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنْ نَصِيبٍ (20)
-> See your serious problem: وَمَنْ كَانَ يُرِيدُ حَرْثَ الدُّنْيَا نُؤْتِهِ مِنْهَا وَمَا لَهُ فِي الْآخِرَةِ مِنْ نَصِيبٍ, i.e. and whoever desires the reward of this world, We give him of it, and in the hereafter he has no portion., i.e. the Mushrikoon like you, who desires the reward of this life, are still alive so Allah fulfil His words which is to reward ya from it while you are still covered by the seal btw, then when you die, your Shirk will never be forgiven, i.e. in the hereafter he has no portion.
And as you know that on the hearafter, it's showtime
And that was the start of the second dozen of slam dunks:
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Ported for PHP-Nuke by nukemods.com
appears and is usually translated into English as "Samaritans" (underlined in the Hebrew text below).
, that is "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah.[13] The Samaritans themselves make a clear distinction between their own ancestors and the inhabitants of Samaria. For example, in the part of the Samaritan Chronicle II which corresponds to I Kings 16 of the Hebrew Bible, the biblical account of the founding of Samaria by Omri is followed by a note which explains that the inhabitants of Samaria and its nearby cities were called "Shomronim after the name Shomron".[14] Thus the distinction between the people of Samaria and the Samaritans is clearly maintained in the Samaritan Chronicle II. Put simply, shomronim means the "inhabitants of Samaria" and it has nothing to do with shamerin, "keepers" or "observers" of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. In fact, a long line of Samaritan scholarship has already pointed out this fact, which, unfortunately, is ignored by the missionaries at their own peril. For example, about 100 years ago James Montgomery pointed out that the Samaritans:
