Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AhmadFarooq

Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 [21]
Unfortunately I can't say I've got much knowledge about Christian scripture. Regarding its preservation most of what I know is derived from the debate of well-known Christian scripture and textual scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman.

"Bart Ehrman & Daniel Wallace Debate Original NT Lost"

According to Bart Ehrman:
No complete manuscripts of the Bible from the first, second and third centuries exist.
From early second century only 1 manuscript of the Bible, which has a few verses written on it, has survived.
5,500 manuscripts of the Bible survive, of which 94 % are from the 9th century.

In short what Daniel Wallace said (similar to what you are affirming here) was that due to the vast number of manuscripts that are present and the hundreds of thousands of variances (most are insignificant) in them is a proof that we can reach the original New Testament text.

However, Bart Ehrman is skeptical of this concept or even convinced against it. He seems to believe that the probability of the loss of the original New Testament text is very high by giving an example that it would have taken only a single inaccurate or malicious copier of the New Testament in the first century to corrupt all the manuscripts that are presently available.

I completely agree that hundreds of thousands of the differences in the manuscripts are mostly spelling mistakes and such, as Bart Ehrman admits but according to him some of these differences are significant enough to question core Christian concepts.

In another debate that I was once listening to, the example of 1 John 5:7-8 was given. According to my limited knowledge, this was the verse which most explicitly confirmed trinity in the King James version of the Bible; but, according to new information obtained, in the 1980s its words had to be changed and the present version doesn't appear to be affirming trinity.

It is possible that the present version of the Bible might be the accurate one, I say this because of the "Christian Vs. Muslim" debates that I've listened to, both debaters use the Bible as a source of information. Christians interpret a particular verse a certain way, Muslims another, which is something Muslims apparently have common with nontrinitarian sects of Christianity.

However, as Bart Ehrman argues there is no way of knowing that. There is a reason that textual criticism is still going on, because there is still some work left. Maybe in the future we will be able to obtain the original words of the Bible and even prove that but presently (according to Bart Ehrman) we cannot be sure.


To make the point more clear.

Just because Allah allowed humans to change the message which was taken to be as His word on Earth, doesn't mean that Allah was powerless to stop that.
It is the same as like when God allows all the suffering in the world, it doesn't mean that He is powerless to end it. It is according to His plan for humans.

The truthfulness of whether a particular alleged God is the actual God, depends on testing the promises that He makes. As far as I know, Allah never promised that all the divinely inspired books, in the hands of humans, will remain corruption-free till the end of time. Therefore, if such happens, it cannot be used as an argument for His refutation. This is according to, what is apparently, His plan for the humans.



From what I've read the best explanation that reconciles the apparently contradicting understandings of various Qur'an verses and Ahadeeth is that Islam allows the ruler of the Islamic state (or the government in today's context) to apply the capital punishment for apostasy in the event they are the cause of enough harm to the community.

The case when a man at Madina apparently apostated and the Prophet didn't order any punishment for him (mentioned in the next link) along-with the time when on the request of one of his companions the Prophet allowed one of the apostates to live, supports the above explanation (repeatedly alluded to, by Dr. Zakir Naik in his lectures).

In addition to the '' article linked above, another article by Dr. Jamal Badawi is of interest regarding this matter.

He discusses some of the Hadeeth that are used by the proponents of the capital punishment.

One interesting Hadeeth he points out, which is very similar to the one used by the proponents, is:
‘Aisha said “The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: a married man who commits adultery; he is to be stoned and a man who went out fighting against God and his Messenger; he is to be killed or crucified or exiled from the land and a man who murders another person; he is to be killed on account of it”
(Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 4, hadith 4353, P. 126)

Fighting all Disbelievers:

There have been numerous articles written on this matter, which repeatedly mention how these narrations were during the times of fighting. But another very important point that I want to include is the following sayings of Caliph Umar:

I wish there was a wall of fire between us and the Romans, so that nor we can cross into their land neither they could in ours.

I wish that between the Suwad and the Persian hills there were walls which would prevent them from getting to us, and prevent us from getting to them. The fertile Suwad is sufficient for us; and I prefer the safety of the Muslims to the spoils of war.

Caliph Umar is also known to have initially rejected the proposal for the conquest of Egypt and went deeper into Persia only as a result of Persian raids.

If Caliph Umar knew that Islam required fighting all disbelievers until all of them came under Muslim rule, which a man in his position would have, why did he make such statements and decisions?

Marriage of Lady Aisha (RA)

Some Muslims believe that Lady Aisha (RA) was actually older at the time of marriage, but if you don't accept their reasoning then consider the following explanation:

Prophet Muhammad married and consummated the marriage with a physically, socially and psychologically mature lady; the definition of ‘mature’ being one that was followed in most of the world for at-least up-to the 18th century.
...consider a scenario in which some decades from now, 25 years becomes the age of majority (i.e. the age of psychological maturity), which in fact corresponds to an actual biological threshold unlike the 18 years concept. A couple of centuries from now, people will probably be debating that a 26 years old (or older) male, marrying an 18 year old female in today’s time constituted an example of paedophilia.

The following links provide the best explanation, that I have found on the internet, on this issue using objective scholarly sources and reasoning.


In Islam / Qisas in Relation to Close Relatives
« on: November 22, 2015, 10:45:31 PM »

It is stated that:

Under sharia, neither Qisas nor Tazir applies if a Muslim parent or grandparent kills their child or grandchild, or if the murder victim is a spouse with whom one has surviving children. The culprit can be, however, subject to Diyya (financial compensation) which is payable to the surviving heirs of the victims.

Question#1: Is this correct? How could there not be an application of  Qisas or at the very least Tazir "if the murder victim is a spouse with whom one has surviving children"? Does it not contradict the divine Islamic laws?

Apparently, there is some degree of disagreement among the Sharia schools when the victim is the child:

The four major schools of Sunni sharia have been divided on applicability of Qisas when the victim is a child, and the father is the murderer. The Hanafi, Shafi'i and Hanbali Sunni sharias have ruled that Qisas does not apply, as has the Shia sharia doctrine. The Maliki school, however, has ruled that Qisas may be demanded by the mother if a father kills his son. The Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi'i sharia extend this principle to cases when the victim is a child and the mother or grandparents are the murderers.

If I am not mistaken in my understanding of the above,

Question#2: How could the Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i and Shia schools not apply Qisas when the father is the murderer?
And how could the Maliki school not apply Qisas when "mother or grandparents are the murderers"?

...Historically, sharia did not stipulate any punishment against the accused when the victim is the child or the spouse of the murderer, but in modern times some sharia-based Muslim countries have introduced laws that grant courts the discretion to impose imprisonment of the murderer. However, the victim's heirs have the right to waive Qisas, seek Diyat, or pardon the killer.

Question#3: Why did Sharia in the past not "stipulate any punishment against the accused when the victim is the child or the spouse of the murderer"?
Was this just a deficiency in the written formal law of the time and the jurists of those times failed to give the issue much importance? Or is there some wisdom in such an exemption?
From what I understand the modern Sharia laws stated above are much better in fulfilling the divine Islamic laws than the earlier ones.

Source for above quotes:

I personally believe that the Wikipedia information is probably somewhat inaccurate as there are a few apparent discrepancies in it.



Quran 9:29 -

Quran 2:191 -

A nice compilation of rebuttals for all the so called "violent" verses in the Qur'an:

I personally don't know of any event when the Prophet had Christians killed in Madina, if I am mistaken I ask the more experienced and knowledgeable users on this forum to correct me.

The event you are referring to is most probably the punishment of the Jewish tribe - Banu Quraidah, which is explained in detail here:

or the answering-christianity article here:

Pertinent to this event, I should point out that the figure 800 is generally used by anti-Islamists as the number of Jews killed, which is criticised here:

Whether the above criticism holds weight or not the scholars are, generally speaking, unanimous on the point that the Jews were killed because of their committing treason.


Rebuttals & Polemics / Re: Sun set in muddy water
« on: November 12, 2015, 01:03:48 PM »

In my above reply, by "authentic" I mean "Sahih in chain".
It would be better to update the original rebuttal to include the possible differences between "Sahih in chain" and reliable Hadeeth.
A relevant article on this matter is present here:

Rebuttals & Polemics / Re: Sun set in muddy water
« on: November 12, 2015, 12:16:41 PM »
Thanks for the reply.

I was concerned primarily with the rebuttal here:

Apparently there are two mistakes in that part of the rebuttal.
  • The Hadeeth is actually authentic.
  • Unlike the article suggests, this Hadeeth is present in Sunan Abi Dawud.
Can you clarify these issues? If these are indeed mistakes, then the rebuttal should be updated to prevent other Muslims from making the same mistake as I have seen one such mistake made in the comments section of a YouTube video.


Rebuttals & Polemics / Sun set in muddy water
« on: November 11, 2015, 12:59:21 PM »

In the rebuttal here:
It is written that the following narration is not authentic:
Narrated Abu Dharr:
I was sitting behind the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets ? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water (Hamiyah).
(Sunan Abi Dawud 4002)

But according to it is classified as "Sahih in chain".

Can you explain this apparent contradiction, or whatever is the difference?


Pages: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 [21]

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube