Abularub has some more stuff to say about Jesus genealogies:
Two Possibilities
Yet, even if the two genealogies of Jesus as recorded by Matthew and
Luke were perfectly identical, which they are not, then the fact that
they appear in the Bible baffles the mind and indicates one of two conclusions, as
follows.
Either the god of the Bible forgot to inspire the writers of the two
Gospels popularly known as the Gospels of Matthew and Luke to firstly write their
true names and to secondly state this otherwise utter Shirk: "Here
is the genealogy of Jesus: Jesus, son of Mary; Mary had Jesus with God Himself."
The god of the Bible as described therein- may forget these things. However,
Allah, the One and Only True Lord of all that exists, Who did not beget a son nor was He
begotten, Who has revealed the original copies of the Torah and the Gospel which the
Christians and Jews corrupted, never forgets; He always called Jesus by this:
{Is (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary)}.
Or, the Bible contains mistakes and was written by fallible humans
who committed manifest errors, contradicted each other and never revealed their true
identities.
ANSWER:
As far as the alleged errors within Jesus genealogies are concerned, we recommend
the following articles:
We will allow the readers to decide for themselves if we Christians are only following
mere conjectures.
Furthermore Abularub assumes that unless the writers specifically presented
Jesus' genealogy and relationship to God in the manner he proposes, there must
therefore be a contradiction and that the true God, unlike his false nonexistent
god, forgets (that pretty much explains why his god doesn't forget since he
doesn't exist so as to be able to forget!). As we saw in the first part of our rebuttal,
the writers stated both these truths, i.e. that Jesus is Mary's Son and God's Son.
Note again the following passages:
"And the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found
favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear
a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will
be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him
the throne of HIS FATHER DAVID, and he will reign over the house of
Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.'" Luke 1:30-34
Mary is to have a Son who is also the Son of God, and whose ancestor is David!
"But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son,
born of woman, born under the law," Galatians 4:4
God sent forth his Son to born from a woman. You can't really get any more explicit than this.
The final comment we would like to make regarding the genealogies is
how this serves as further vindication of the NTs veracity and textual integrity.
If the Church simply made up these genealogies, then why did she not attempt
to harmonize them? Why didnt she produce genealogies that were uniform
and didnt seem to conflict with one another? In fact, why didnt she
simply reject one of the Gospels as opposed to keeping both? The answer is simple.
The Church wasnt fabricating genealogies, but tried to faithfully pass down
what she had received from her Lord through his spokespersons. If the alleged
discrepancies prove anything, they prove that the Church would not try to
willfully tamper and corrupt what she believed to be Gods Word but did
her best to preserve it as best as she could (obviously by Gods grace,
of course), even if this made it harder to defend the belief in the inerrancy
of the Holy Bible.
We now turn our attention to Abualrubs claim that the Gospel writers
are anonymous. But first, we want to quote the following claims by Abualrub
regarding the composition of the New Testament:
[34] [Log onto:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament).
If one reads the article mentioned here aiming to reach a direct answer to the question
of, "who wrote the New Testament", one will end up with the same confusion as
started with. The problem facing Christians is multi-fold: they lack verifiable
chains of narration leading to any author of any book contained in the New Testament; they
cannot agree on the original language of many parts of the New Testament or when they were
compiled; they cannot agree on a simple answer as to, "Who wrote the New
Testament?" As for the Torah, its predicament is more profound than the
predicament of the New Testament.] (The Prophet of Mercy, Chapter Two,
source)
When we do go to the link given by Abualrub, here is what we find:
The New Testament was written by many different people. The TRADITIONAL
belief is that all the books were written by the apostles
or their followers (e.g. Mark and Luke). MODERN SCHOLARS now largely discount this
assumption aside from seven of Paul's letters. Except for Hebrews, NO SERIOUS
QUESTION ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP OF ANY OF THE BOOKS as listed above WAS RAISED IN THE CHURCH
BEFORE THE 18TH CENTURY, when critical inquiry into the New Testament
began
The exact authorship of most other books has not been agreed upon by
any measure. The issue of authorship is somewhat different for the gospels, because they
are all technically anonymous so the question becomes whether THE TRADITIONAL ATTRIBUTIONS
(to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are correct. The Johannine writings, particularly the
Gospel and the first epistle, have been accepted as coming from circles around John
the Evangelist, and the main authorship
question there is whether Revelation is ascribed to the same John or to another John.
Of key concern IS THE ROLE PRESUPPOSITIONS in Biblical scholarship,
especially gospel and historical Jesus studies. It is now WIDELY RECOGNIZED that every
individual comes to historical study WITH THEIR OWN EXPERIENCES, RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND
PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS, and that these factors can play a defining role in the final
product that any particular scholar produces. In the case of the gospels, modern
research has been approached from a number of perspectives: Jewish, feminist, Protestant,
Roman Catholic, agnostic, materialist, historical, and social-scientific, to name just a
few. A prime example of this diversity of opinion is represented in the numerous, often
contradictory, "historical Jesus" books published in the past 25 years (compare,
for example, the work of the Jesus Seminar,
B. Mack, J. Dominic Crossan with that of John P. Meier, James Dunn, and N. T. Wright).
This has often had the effect of creating reconstructions of Jesus IN THE IMAGES OF THE
PARTICULAR AUTHORS, AS OPPOSED TO NARRATING WHO JESUS REALLY WAS, WHAT HE DID, AND WHAT HE
TAUGHT. Nevertheless, most scholars are of the opinion that this process of often heated
debate has produced viable results
According to tradition, the earliest of the books were the letters of Paul, and the
last books to be written are those attributed to John, who is traditionally said to have
lived to a very old age, perhaps dying as late as 100, although evidence for this
tradition is generally not convincing. Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185, stated that the Gospels
of Matthew and Mark were written while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome, which would
be in the 60s, and Luke was written some time later. Evangelical and Traditionalist
scholars continue to support this dating.
Some other modern critical scholars concur with the dating of the majority of the New
Testament, except for the epistles and books that they consider to be pseudepigraphical
(i.e. those thought not to be written by their traditional authors). Some do not. For the
Gospels, they tend to date Mark no earlier than 65, and Matthew some time between 70-85.
Luke is usually placed in the 80-95 time frame. The earliest of the books of the New
Testament was 1 Thessalonians, an epistle of Paul, written probably 51, or possibly
Galatians in 49 according to one of two theories of its writing. Of the pseudepigraphical
epistles, Christian scholars tend to place them somewhere between 70 and 150, with 2 Peter
usually being the latest.
However, John A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (1976), proposed
that all of the New Testament was completed before 70, the year the temple at
Jerusalem was destroyed. Robinson argued that because the destruction of the temple was
prophesied by Jesus in Matthew 24:15-21 and Luke 23:28-31, the authors of these and
other New Testament books would not have failed to point out the fulfillment of this
prophecy. Robinson's position is popular among some Evangelicals.
In the 1830s, German scholars of the Tubingen school dated the books as late as the
third century, but the discovery of some New Testament manuscripts, not
including some of the later writings, dating as far back as 125 has called such late
dating into question. Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the
name of Clement of Rome in 95,quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New
Testament, and a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in 120 quotes
from 16 books. Therefore some of the books of the New Testament were at least in a
first draft stage, although others were probably not completed until later, while editing,
some minor, some major, continued until the present day. (bold, underline and capital
emphasis ours)
It should be noted that John Robinson was a liberal scholar, not a conservative, and
did not hold to the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures.
Pay careful attention to what is being said here. The Encyclopedia clearly states that
the traditional, historical position has been that all the NT books were written by the
Apostles or their immediate associates. The Encyclopedia is referring to the early witness of
the Church, the testimony of the very disciples of the Apostles, and their followers after them,
whose writings are still extant. The writings of men such as Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus,
Tertullian etc., provide an unbroken chain of evidence for the apostolicity and historical
veracity of most of the NT, especially that of the four Gospels. Abualrub wants to simply
brush aside and discount all this historical evidence supporting the NT Scriptures.
This is precisely why the Encyclopedias statement regarding ones
presuppositions impacting how one reads the data is so crucial here. It is not the
historical data which leads Abualrub to question the veracity of the NT, but his
presupposition that the Quran is the word of God. Abualrub attacks the integrity of the NT
books since these writings falsify the Quran, proving that Muhammad was a false prophet,
which Abualrub cannot accept even though the massive weight of the historical evidence is
in support of the Bible.
His claim that the Gospel writers are anonymous is an outdated one and is no longer
tenable on historical grounds. As the following Evangelical writers state:
"It is frequently asserted that the gospel designated as Matthews, like the
other three canonical gospels, is anonymous. That is formally correct, if the standard
comparison is, say Pauls epistle to the Romans, where the opening lines of the
agreed text designate both the author and the initial readers. There is nothing comparable
in Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Nevertheless, we have no evidence that these gospels ever
circulated without an appropriate designation, (kata Matthaion,
"according to Matthew") or the like. How early are these titles?
Until recently, most scholars tacitly assumed that the four gospels first circulated
anonymously and that the present titles were first attached to them about A.D. 125. There
is little evidence to support this date as the decisive turning point; it is little more
than an educated guess, based only on the presupposition that the Gospels were originally
entirely anonymous and on the fact that by about 140, and perhaps earlier, the traditional
attributions were widely known, without significant variation. Now, however, this
consensus has been vigorously challenged by Martin Hengel. Hengel examines the practice of
book distribution in the ancient world, where titles were necessary to identify a work to
which any reference was made. In this context he studies the manner in which
second-century authors refer to the Gospels, calling to mind, among other things,
Tertullians criticism of Marcion for publishing his own gospel (a highly truncated
version of Luke) without the authors name. Tertullian contends that a "work
ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect which gives no promise
of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author."
Hengel argues that as soon as two or more gospels were publicly read in any one church - a
phenomenon that certainly occurred, he thinks, not later than A.D. 100 - it would have
been necessary to distinguish between them by some such device as a title. The unanimity
of the attributions in the second century cannot be explained by anything other than the
assumption that the titles were part of the works from the beginning. It is inconceivable,
he argues, that the Gospels could circulate anonymously for up to sixty years, and then in
the second century suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors. If they had
originally been anonymous, then surely there would have been some variation in
second-century attributions (as was the case with some of the second-century apocryphal
gospels). Hengel concludes that the four canonical gospels were never even formally
anonymous.
Objections have been raised against this proposal in four areas.
Some of Hengels arguments are of the "what must have been the case"
variety. That is a fair charge. Even so, "what must have been the case" in the
churchs reference to the gospels that were circulating is based on demonstrable
second-century practices. Certainly Hengels reconstruction makes more sense than any
other theory that seeks to explain the unanimity of second-century attribution.
Hengels arguments are no defense against pseudonymity. Again, that is correct.
But most scholars think of the four canonical gospels as anonymous, not pseudonymous. In
any case, not only was pseudonymity in the first century largely if not entirely
restricted to apocalyptic works, but as soon as the church began to discuss the issue,
there was unanimity in rejecting the authority of any work that fell under the suspicion
of being pseudonymous composition.
Anonymity was surely less threatening than Hengel intimates. Was not the epistle to
the Hebrews, say, written anonymously? Certainly Tertullian overstates the argument.
Nevertheless, the epistle to the Hebrews is distinguished from other epistles by a title,
namely, its (assume) addresses; and its adoption by the church into the canon was
constrained in part by doubts as to the identity of its author. It is not an accident that
it was first accepted in the East, where tradition associated it with the apostle Paul.
Hengel himself has discussed this question at length.
Hengels interpretation assumes that (kata Matthaion,
"according to Matthew") is an attribution of authorship, whereas parallels show
that the phrase "according to" serves other purposes. For example, in the titles
"Gospel According to the Hebrews" and "Gospel According to the
Egyptians," the prepositional expression does not indicate authorship. Plummer says
it "implies conformity to a type, and need not mean more than drawn up
according to the teaching of." Plummer and others acknowledge that by the time
of Papias, (kata, "according to") is understood to indicate
authorship, but they insist that the expression does not necessarily bear that weight.
Hengel agrees that kata plus the accusative is not itself a necessary
indication of authorship and indeed is only rarely used in that way in contemporary Greek
literature. But he draws attention to a telling analogy. In the Greek fathers, the one
Old Testament is referred to as "according to the Seventy" or "according to
Aquila" or "according to Symmachus," where the prepositional expression is
used to introduce the person or group thought to be responsible for producing the version
concerned. In the same way, the one gospel early circulated in four distinct forms,
"according to Matthew," "according to Mark," and so forth, where the
prepositional expression introduces the person understood to be the author.
In short, the argument that Matthew was understood to be the author of the first gospel
long before Papias wrote his difficult words affirming such a connection seems very
strong, even if not unassailable.
In any case, not only was pseudonymity in the first century largely if not entirely
restricted to apocalyptic works, but as soon as the church began to discuss the issue,
there was unanimity in rejecting the authority of any work that fell under the suspicion
of being a pseudonymous composition." (D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, and Leon Morris, An
Introduction to the New Testament [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House,
1992], pp. 66-67)
Even the very names of some of the Gospels point in the direction of authenticity,
demonstrating the extreme care and honesty of the early Church. Many forgers and false
witnesses, such as the Gnostic groups, would forge documents in the name of the Apostles
of Christ, i.e. Gospel of Thomas, Apocryphon Gospel of John etc. These groups realized
that by so doing there was a greater chance that their forgeries would be accepted if
they could convince their audiences that the Apostles themselves personally penned these
writings. Yet, in the case of the four Gospels two of them are attributed to disciples of
the Apostles as opposed to the Apostles themselves, i.e. Mark and Luke. Now if the Church
was simply making these names up it would have been more convenient for her to have
attributed these Gospels to Apostles like Peter and Thomas rather than to their immediate
followers. Thus, the very names of the canonical Gospels are strong support for both their
authenticity and the Churchs honesty in trying to accurately preserve their own
religious history.
We highly recommend that our readers get Martin Hengels book, The Four
Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press
International, 2000). Hengel is not a conservative, evangelical Scholar and does not hold
to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. His work is based solely on analyzing
the historical data regarding the composition of the four Gospels. He demonstrates
that the historical evidence conclusively shows that the Gospels never circulated
anonymously but with the names of the authors attached to them. For a helpful review
of the book please see
this review.
And for more on the composition and canonization of the NT books, we recommend the
following links:
We now would like to turn the tables on Abularub and use his own arguments against
the Quran. To begin with, Abualrub approvingly cited the Wikipedias online Encyclopedia
regarding the NT books. Therefore, he surely must agree with their assessment of the Quranic text:
According to later tradition, the first complete compilation of the Qur'an in one
volume was thought made in the first caliph Abu Bakrs time by Zayd ibn Thabit, who
"gathered the Qur'an from various parchments and pieces of bone, and from the chests
(ie memories) of men." However, this account is deemed disingenuous by some
scholars as an attempt to further the history of the Qur'an back to the time of Muhammad.
Accordingly, this copy was kept in Hafsa bint Umars house. During the caliphate of
Uthman ibn Affan, A DISPUTE developed about the use of various dialects (ahruf) that
the Qur'an was being recited in. Some were also ALARMED by reported divergences in the
recitation of the revelation, especially among new Muslims. In response, Uthman
decided to codify and standardize the text. According to some Islamic traditions, Uthman
commissioned a committee, that included Zayd and several prominent members of Quraysh, to
produce a standard copy of the text, based on the compilation in the keeping of
Hafsa
Higher biblical criticism revolutionized Judaism and Christianity by calling into
question long-held assumptions about the origins of the Bible; some ambitious
textual critics are doing the same for the Qur'an. They say that parts of the
Qur'an are based on stories of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), the New Testament of the
Christian Bible, and other non-canonical Christian works; differences of the biblical to
the Qur'anic versions suggest to some scholars that these stories were not taken directly
from written texts but seem rather to have been part of the oral traditions of the Arab
peninsula at Muhammad's time. To Muslims, however, this explanation is topsy-turvy: the
"non-canonical" Jewish and Christian stories are simply further textual
corruptions of an otherwise nearly lost divine original reflected in the Qur'an.
These critics also seek to find evidence of TEXT EVOLUTION AND TRANSCRIPTION DISPUTES
in early Islam; the results have been meager, but some have expressed hopes that recent
discoveries of "Qur'an Graveyards" in Yemen will throw more light on the
subject. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran;
bold, underline and capital emphasis ours)
Furthermore, Abualrub has been complaining about the Bibles
genealogies, but has no problem with the fact that the Quran fails to provide a genealogy
for Muhammad. This is especially intriguing since Abualrub believes that Muhammad was the
fulfillment of the prayers of Abraham and Ishmael:
And when Abraham, and Ishmael with him, raised up the foundations of the House:
'Our Lord, receive this from us; Thou art the All-hearing, the All-knowing; and
our Lord, make us submissive to Thee, and of our seed a nation submissive to Thee;
and show us our holy rites, and turn towards us; surely Thou turnest, and art
All-compassionate; and, our Lord, do Thou send among them a Messenger, one of them,
who shall recite to them Thy signs, and teach them the Book and the Wisdom, and purify
them; Thou art the All-mighty, the All-wise.' S. 2:129
The above citation is understood by Muslims to be fulfilled in the advent of Muhammad,
but the Quran utterly fails to provide a genealogy tracing Muhammad back to Ishmael.
Therefore, a person has no way of determining whether Muhammad was of the seed of Ishmael.
This is unlike the Lord Jesus whose life accounts which list his genealogies were written during
the life of the first generation of his followers.
It is indeed true that Ibn Ishaq, in his sirah, provides such a
genealogy. But the problem with appealing to Ibn Ishaq is that it is written over 100
years after Muhammad's death (d. 632 A.D.), dating to roughly 750 A.D. More importantly,
we do not even have Ishaq's original sirah but an edited and expurgated version by
Ibn Hisham (died 834 A.D.) from the nineth century A.D., or roughly two hundreds after
Muhammad's death!
Besides, Abualrub has discounted his sirah and casts great doubt
on its authenticity. After citing some scholars who classified Ishaqs narrations
as being reliable, Abualrub then quotes a host of others who call his integrity into
question:
The scholars who collected Maghazi also include Imam Musa Ibn Uqbah (died 141/758), the
first to collect a book on Maghazi, according to Imam adh-Dhahabi in, Siyaru A`lami
an-Nubalaa. When Imam Malik Ibn Anas was asked about which book of Maghazi should
be studied, he recommended Musa Ibn Uqbah's. Malik said on another occasion, "Musa
Ibn Uqbah did not collect numerous narrations as others did." Imam adh-Dhahabi
commented, "Malik meant Ibn Is`haq by these words. There is no doubt that Ibn
Is`haq wrote a lengthy book and mentioned numerous genealogies, which should have been
summarized, and collected many unnecessary poems, which should have been omitted, as well
as, collecting unreliable narrations. In addition, Ibn Is`haq failed to collect many
authentic narrations he did not hear of. Therefore, his book needs to be edited and
corrected in addition to adding the narrations he failed to include." Adh-Dhahabi
added that al-Bukhari and Muslim collected the narrations of Musa Ibn Uqbah in the core of
their Hadeeth collections. In comparison, and as adh-Dhahabi stated, al-Bukhari only
mentioned Ibn Is`haq's narrations as a way of supporting other narrations (and without
Sanad, i.e., in the form of Ta`liqat); Muslim mentioned Ibn Is`haq's narrations coupled
with other narrators narrating the same reports. Musa Ibn Uqbah died in the Hijri year of
one hundred and forty-one (758 CE), nine years before Ibn Is`haq died. May Allah honor
both of them.
3 Adh-Dhahabi also listed some of the major scholars of Islam
who refuted Ibn Is`haq's reliability in Hadeeth narrations. Imam Malik, for
instance, called Ibn Is`haq a liar and Yahya Ibn Sa`eed al-Ansari, as well as, al-A`mash
refuted one of Ibn Is`haq's narrations by saying that he lied. As a general
statement, Yahya Ibn Sa`eed graded Ibn Ishaq as being weak in Hadeeth narration.
Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal discounted the reliability of Ibn Ishaq if he alone narrates a
Hadeeth. Also, Imams Yahya Ibn Ma`een (in another narration from him), an-Nasaii and
ad-Daraqutni stated that Ibn Ishaq was weak in Hadeeth. The great Imam of Sunnah,
Imam A`hmad Ibn Hanbal, also added that Ibn Is`haq's narrations are not accepted if they
are about the Sunan (Pl. for
Sunnah; [yet, Craig Ibn Winn claims that Ibn
Is`haq's Seerah is a Sunnah book!]), stating
that even [in the rare occasions] where Ibn Is`haq clearly stated that he heard a Hadeeth
from his teacher, he would often contradict other narrators. Therefore, and as Imam
A`hmad stated, if Ibn Is`haq alone reports a Hadeeth, then that narration is not
accepted. Adh-Dhahabi also stated that if a narration that Ibn Is`haq reports
contradicts other [more established] narrators, then Ibn Is`haq's narration is rejected.
4 Adh-Dhahabi listed some of the reasons why Ibn Is`haq was
considered weak regarding Hadeeth narration, as follows.
A Imam A`hmad Ibn Hanbal stated that Ibn Is`haq was a Mudallis, and in another
occasion, he said that Ibn Ishaq's Tadlees (v. for Mudallis) was substantial. Imam
A`hmad also said that Ibn Is`haq did not care from whom he collected Hadeeth.
B Imam Ibn Numair said that Ibn Is`haq reported false Hadeeths
from unknown narrators.
C Adh-Dhahabi concluded by saying that among the worst errors
made by Ibn Is`haq is that he used to record narrations he collected from anyone, and
thus, did not have Wara` in this regard, may Allah forgive him.
5 How Ibn Is`haq's narration should be treated is summarized in
this statement from Imam Ibn Numair, "If he narrates a Hadeeth from teachers he
directly heard from and who are known to be truthful, then his Hadeeth is from the grade
Hasan because he is truthful." Yet, Imam A`hmad stated that if Ibn Is`haq is
the only narrator of that Hadeeth, then his narration is discounted. And the key
words to look for here, for Ibn Ishaq's narration not to be dismissed outright, are,
"If Ibn Is`haq says, So and so narrated to me', then he did hear that
narration.' Otherwise, if he says, So and so said', then the narration is
rejected.'" Meaning, Ibn Is`haq would not lie; if he states that he heard
the Hadeeth from his teacher, then his assertion is accepted.
(Source)
And:
A Summary of How Muslim Scholars Treated
Ibn Is`haq's Hadeeth Narration
For a Hadeeth reported by Ibn
Is`haq to be accepted as a Hasan Hadeeth, which is the lesser grade of authentic Hadeeths,
Ibn Is`haq must declare that he heard the narration directly from his teacher, provide a
reliable chain of narrators throughout the chain of narration until it reaches the
companion or the Prophet, and then his narration cannot contradict a narration reported by
a more established narrator or group of narrators. Imam A`hmad added that Ibn Is`haq
should not be the only narrator for a Hadeeth, otherwise, his narration is rejected.
(Source)
Regarding the meaning of Mudalis, Abualrub notes:
[30] [Ibn Is`haq often started his narrations by saying, "Those
whom I trust narrated to me", or "Some men from this city told me",
etc. He also would collect Hadeeths from unreliable narrators and hide the name of
his teacher by saying, "So and So said", meaning the teacher of his teacher, who
may be trustworthy, so that the Hadeeth narration is not rejected if the name of his own
teacher is specified. However, whenever Ibn Is`haq said, "So and so said to
me", he would not lie.]
(Source)
Finally:
If Hadeeth Established Through Weak
Isnad (Chain of Narration) is Rejected in Islam, Then What About Stories that Have No
Isnad?
Winn agrees with Muslims that the collection of Hadeeth by Imam Muslim is among the most
respected books in Islam. In the introduction to his collection of authentic
Hadeeths, Imam Muslim restated, and agreed with, the established methodology that scholars
of Hadeeth use pertaining to rejecting weak and unsubstantiated Hadeeths and only
accepting authentic, well known Hadeeths reported by reliable, trustworthy and truthful
narrators. Imam Ibn Taimiyyah concurred, by saying (Fatawa 1:250), "It is
not allowed to rely on weak Hadeeths, i.e. that are neither Sahih nor Hasan in grade, in
matters pertaining to Sharee`ah." Sharee`ah', pertains to aspects of
Sunnah and Islamic Law, which Imam A`hmad stated should not be taken from Ibn Is`haq, a
known Mudallis. (Source)
The genealogy presented by Ibn Ishaq fails to meet the criteria
proposed by Abualrub. Ishaq gives no chain for his genealogy, nor do other genealogists
concur with Ishaqs lineage for Muhammad. In fact, the Muslims gave various
genealogies, all of which contradict each other. Some went so far as to call anyone a liar
who tried to trace Muhammads lineage beyond Adnan or al-Nather ibn Kinanah:
Muhammadgenealogized himself regarding his ancestors until he
reached al-Nather ibn Kinanah, then he said, "anyone who claimed otherwise or
added further ancestors, has lied." (As-Sirah al-Halabiyah, volume I, p. 36)
And:
There is no question of Adnan being of the line of Ishmael, son of Abraham, upon
both of whom be peace. What dispute there is relates to the number of forebears there were
from Adnan to Ishmael according to the various sources.
At one end of the spectrum, there s the extreme view that considers there to have been
FORTY; this is the view of Christians and Jews who adopted it from the writings of
Rakhiya, the clerk of Armiya (Jeremy) b. Halqiya, as we will relate.
Some authorities maintain there THIRTY, others TWENTY, yet more FIFTEEN, TEN, NINE, or
SEVEN.
It has been said that the lowest estimate given is for FOUR, according to the account
given by Musa b. Yaqub, on the authority of Abd Allah b. Wahb b. Zuma
al-Zumai from his aunt, and then from Umm Salama who stated that the Prophet (SAAS)
said that the line was: "Maad b. Adnan b. Adab b. Zand b. al-Tara b.
Araq al-Thara".
According to Umm Salam this Zanad was al-Hamaysa, al-Yara was Nabit, while
Araq al-Thara was Ishmael. This was implied because he was Abraham's son; for
Abraham was not consumed by hell-fire, since fire does not consume moist earth, the
meaning of al-thara.
Al-Daraqatni stated that he knew of no "Zand" except the one in this
tradition, and Zand b. al-Jawn, who was Abu Dalama the poet.
Abu al-Qasim al-Suhayli and other Imams stated that the time lapse between Adnan
and Ishmael was too great for there to have been only FOUR, TEN, or even TWENTY
generations between them. That, they said, was because the age of Maad son of
Adnan was twelve at the time of Bukhtunassar (Nebuchadnezzar).
Abu Jafar al-Tabari and others related that Almighty God sent a revelation at
that time to Armiya b. Halqiya telling him to go to Bukhtunassar to inform him that
God had given him rule over the Arabs. And God commanded to Armiya to carry
Maad b. Adnan on the horse al-Buraq so that they would not bear him any rancour
saying, "For I shall draw forth from his loins a noble Prophet by whom I shall seal
the prophets."
Armiya did that, bearing Maad on al-Buraq to the land of Syria where he
grew up among the Jews who remained there following the destruction of the temple at
Jerusalem. There he married a woman named Maana, daughter of Jawshin unrest had
quietened [sic] down and accord prevailed in the Arabian peninsula. Rakhiya,
Armiyas scribe, wrote his master's genealogy down in a document he had there which
was to go into Armiyas library; and he similarly preserved the genealogy of
Maad. But God knows best.
And this is why Malik, God bless him, DID NOT ENTHUSE OVER THE ATTEMPT AT TRACING
GENEALOGY BACK TO BEFORE ADNAN.
Al-Suhayli commented further, "We have merely discussed tracing back these lines
to accord with the school of thought of those scholars who favour and do not disapprove of
it, men such as Ibn Ishaq, al-Bukhari, al-Zubayr b. Bakkar, al-Tabari, and others."
As for Malik, God have mercy on him, he expressed disapproval when asked about someone
tracing his descent back to Adam and commented: "WHENCE COMES TO HIM KNOWLEDGE OF
THAT?" When he was asked about tracing back to Ishmael, he expressed similar
disapproval, asking, "WHO COULD PROVIDE SUCH AN INFORMATION?" Malik also
disliked tracing the genealogy of the prophets, such as saying, "Abraham son of
so-and-so". Al-Muayti stated this in his book.
Al-Suhayli commented also that Malik's viewpoint was analogous to what was related of
Urwa b. al-Zubayr who is reported to have said, "WE HAVE FOUND NO ONE WHO KNOWS
THE LINE BETWEEN ADNAN AND ISHMAEL."
It is reported that Ibn Abbas said, "Between Adnan and Ishmael there
were 30 ancestors WHO ARE UNKNOWN."
Ibn Abbas is also reputed to have said when he traced back lines of descent as
far as Adnan: "The genealogists have LIED. TWICE OR THRICE." And that
(scepticism) is even more characteristic of Ibn Masud, whose (attitude) was like
that of Ibn Abbas.
Umar b. al-Khattab stated, "We carry back the genealogy ONLY AS FAR AS
ADNAN."
Abu Umar b. Abd al-Barr stated in his book Al-Anba fi
Marifat Qabail al-Ruwah (Facts Concerning Knowledge of the Tribes of
the Transmitters) that Ibn Lahia related from Abu al-Aswad that he heard
Urwa b. al-Zubayr say, "WE NEVER FOUND ANYONE WHO KNEW [sic] GENEALOGY
BACK PAST ADNAN, NOR PAST QAHTAN, UNLESS THEY WERE USING CONJECTURE."
Abu al-Aswad stated that he had heard Abu Bakr Sulayman b. Abu Khaytham, one of the
very most knowledgeable men of the poetry and the genealogy of Quraysh, say, "WE
NEVER KNEW ANYONE WITH INFORMATION GOING BACK BEYOND MAAD B. ADNAN, whether
relating poetry or other knowledge."
Abu Umar said that there was a group of the predecessors including Abd
Allah b. Masud, Amr b. Maymun al-Azdi, and Muhammad b. Kab al-Quradhi
who, when they recited the verse from the Quran "and those after them who no
one but God knows" (surat Ibrahim, XIV, v. 9) would comment, "THE
GENEALOGISTS LIED."
Abu Umar, God have mercy on him, stated, "We hold the meaning of this to
differ from their interpretation. What is implied is that regarding those who claim to
enumerate Adam's descendants, no one knows them except God who created them. But as for
the lines of descent of the Arabs, the scholars conversant with their history and
genealogy were aware of and learned by heart about the people and the major tribes,
DIFFERING IN SOME DETAILS OF THAT." (The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira
al-Nabawiyya), Volume I, translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr.
Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS,
UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 1998], pp. 50-52; bold and capital
emphasis ours)
The problem is compounded when we realize that there is no pre-Islamic
evidence that the Meccan Arabs are descendants of Ishmael:
... Ishmael is considered the progenitor of the Arabs. Dagon (1981) has
shown that this idea is an Islamic construction AND THAT NO CONNECTION BETWEEN ISHMAEL
AND THE ARABS HAD EVER BEEN MADE IN THE PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD. Already in the first
Islamic century, however, Ishmael came to symbolize the Islamic Umma, and biblical
passages about Ishmael were taken to refer to Muhammad, the Arabs, or the Muslim
community. (Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism & the Hebrew Bible from Ibn Rabban
to Ibn Hazm, p. 147, fn. 37: E.J. Brill Academic Publishers; August 1997
ISBN: 9004100342; bold and capital emphasis ours)
Former Muslim turned to atheist Ibn Warraq writes:
We are told that [Abraham] was born in Chaldea, and that he was the son of a poor
potter who earned his living by making little clay idols. It is scarcely credible that the
son of this potter went to Mecca, 300 leagues away in the tropics, by way of impassable
deserts. If he was a conqueror he no doubt aimed at the fine country of Assyria; and if he
was only a poor man, as he is depicted, he founded no kingdoms in foreign parts.
Voltaire
For the historian, the Arabs are no more the descendents of Ishmael, son of Abraham,
than the French are of Francus, son of Hector. Maxime Rodinson
It is virtually certain that Abraham never reached Mecca. Montgomery Watt
The essential point ... is that, where objective fact has been established by sound
historical methods, it must be accepted. Montgomery Watt
According to Muslim tradition, Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba, the cube-like
structure in the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. But outside these traditions there is
absolutely no evidence for this claim - whether epigraphic, archaeological, or
documentary. Indeed Snouck Hurgronje has shown that Muhammad invented the story to
give his religion an Arabian origin and setting; with this brilliant improvisation
Muhammad established the independence of his religion, at the same time incorporating into
Islam the Kaaba with all its historical and religious associations for the Arabs. (Ibn
Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY 1995], p. 131; bold
emphasis ours)
It gets even worse for Abualrub. In the endnotes to the second chapter of his "response"
(*)
to Craig Winn's book, The Prophet of Doom
(http://www.prophetofdoom.net/toc.html),
Abualrub presents the dates for the extant hadith books which he lists in a descending
order of prestige and authenticity:
[19] by Imam Muhammad Ibn Isma`eel al-Bukhari (194-256 AH/809-869 CE)]
[20] [by Imam Muslim Ibn al-`Hajjaj Ibn Wird Ibn Kushadh al-Qushairi (204-261 AH/819-874 CE)]
[21] [by Imam Abu Dawood Sulaiman Ibn al-Ash`ath as-Sujustani (202-275 AH/817-888 CE)]
[22] [by Imam Muhammad Ibn `Eesa at-Tirmidhi (210-279 AH/825-892 CE)]
[23] [by Imam Ahmad Ibn Shu`aib an-Nasaii (215-303 AH/830-915 CE)]
[24] [by Imam Abu Abdullah Muhammad Ibn Yazid Ibn Majah (209-273 AH/824-886 CE)]
[25] [by Imam Malik Ibn Anas (93-179 AH/711-795 CE)]
[26] [by Imam Ahmad Ibn `Hanbal (164-241 AH/780-855 CE)]
As one can see, none of these sources are contemporary, eyewitness accounts from the
time of Muhammad or his companions. This opens the door for these sources to contain
legendary and fanciful stories, as well as for gross distortion of historical events
and facts.
Abualrub tries to circumvent the obvious problem the late dating of these sources
poses for Islam's credibility, and commits a classic textbook case of circular reasoning
in the process:
However, these are by no means the earliest Sunnah collections.
In, Holy WarsCrusadesJihad, Pg., 27-8, is the following:
"Collecting `Hadiths started during the lifetime of the Prophet, peace be upon him.
Some of his companions, like the family of `Hazm, Abdullah Ibn `Amr Ibn al-`Aas, to name a
few, recorded the Prophet's statements, with his permission. Many more companions
memorized and reached an excellent standard in memorizing `Hadith verbatimThe Arabs
were largely an unlettered nation that depended on memory to preserve its traditions,
history and poems, in order to transfer them from one generation to the nextA large
number of companions excelled in memorizing `Hadith, such as Abu Hurairah, `Aishah (the
Prophet's wife), Jabir Ibn Abdullah, Abdullah Ibn `Umar, Abdullah Ibn `Amr, Abdullah Ibn
Abbas, Abdullah Ibn az-Zubair, among many others. Even when literacy became widespread in
the Muslim World, scholars of early and successive Muslim generations relied on memory to
preserve `Hadith narrations, as well as, compiling `Hadith on a massive professional
scale."
Also, there is this segment in, Holy
WarsCrusadesJihad, Pg., 29-30,: "There were many other
Collectors of `Hadith who came before and after the mentioned scholars, such as Abu
Zur`ah `Ubaidillah ar-Razi (200-264 AH/815-877 CE), Abu `Hatim Muhammad Ibn Idris ar-Razi
(195-277/810-890) and his son Abdul-Ra`hman Ibn Abi `Hatim (240-327/854-938), Muhammad Ibn
Nasr al-Marwazi (202-294/817-906), Ayyub as-Sikhtiyani (68-131/687-748), Abdullah Ibn
al-Mubarak (118-181/736-797), Muhammad Ibn al-`Hasan ash-Shaibani (131-189/748-804), Abu
Dawood at-Tayalisi (124-204/741-819), Abdul Razzaq Ibn Hammam (126-211/743-826), Muhammad
Ibn Sa`d (168-230/784-844), Abu `Hatim Ibn `Hibban (270-354/883-965), at-Tabarani
(260-360/873-970), to name a few."
(Source)
The first problem with Abualrubs claim is that the sources which
he lists are not contemporary documents, but texts written well over one hundred years
after Muhammads time. They, therefore, do not qualify as eyewitness accounts. The
second problem is that his belief that there were hadiths written by Muhammads
companions is not based on any contemporary textual data from that time, but on the
hadiths which were written centuries later. Abualrub is presupposing that the hadith
records that mention that Muhammads companions wrote down narrations are reliable
enough to be trusted, despite their being written centuries after these events occurred!
In other words, Abualrub has provided us with a textbook case of the fallacy of begging
the question or circular reasoning.
Besides, the historical data is, at best, contradictory since there is evidence
showing that Muhammad's so-called sunnah and hadiths were not even given
any major prominence in relation to Islamic jurisprudence or conduct.
As Wakas Mohammed, while commenting on Daniel Brown's book,
Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought, writes:
The word sunna predates the rise of Islam and is well attested in
pre-Islamic sources. The word sunna was likely to be applied to
Muhammad even during his lifetime (p8).
The Quran never mentions sunna-al-nabi (sunna of the Prophet).
The application of the term sunna is likely to be post-Quranic, especially when
applied exclusively to Muhammad.
Early muslims did not give precedence of Muhammad's sunna
over other sunnas, such as the sunna of the early caliphs or
early companions. The sunna term was not exclusive to Muhammad.
There were no rigid distinctions about sources of religious law, i.e. it wasn't
concrete that Muhammad's sunna could be used as a source of law.
Shafi was born in 204 AH (193 years after Prophet Muhammad's death).
He was THE FIRST to argue the Prophet's sunna as a source of law,
identified to authentic prophetic hadith, and give it an equal footing to
The Quran. Different attitudes to sunna existed during Shafi, al-kalam
(a particular group or school of thought) REJECTED THE HADITH ALTOGETHER
in favour of The Quran alone. Shafi's view was also oppossed early by schools
of jurisprudence in Hijaz, Iraq and Syria, who applied the term sunna
to Muhammad, his companions and the early caliphs as well.
AFTER Shafi, it is rare to find the term sunna applied to other than
Muhammad. Al-kalam argued the sunna of Muhammad SHOULD NEVER
BE ALLOWED TO RULE ON THE QURAN and described the science of hadith
(as in the methods used to collect hadith) AS ARBITRARY. Evidence of this was
the hadith was FILLED with contradictory, blasphemous and absurd traditions.
(Source;
bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)
What the foregoing basically means is that Abualrub has no pre-Islamic
evidence, not even any contemporary records from the time of Muhammad, to prove to us that
Muhammad and his tribe were actual descendants of Ishmael!
If, in spite of all this, Abualrub still feels that these sources are reliable enough
regarding Muhammad's genealogies, despite the contradictions between the various lists,
then on what grounds does he even dare question the reliability of the Gospels' genealogies
seeing that they were written within the very first generation of believers?
We therefore issue the following additional challenges to Abualrub:
We challenge you to present pre-Islamic data documenting that the
Meccans, specifically Muhammads tribe the Banu Hashim, were believed to be
Ishmaels descendants.
We further challenge you to produce a source from Muhammads time,
not sources which are removed by over one hundred years, which provide a genealogy of
Muhammad that traces him to Ishmael.
For more on this issue please consult the following articles
(1,
2, 3).
Now Abualrub may try to get disingenuous and appeal to the Bible to prove that Ishmael
settled in Mecca, a claim refuted in the above links. In case he does, this would only
further expose his hypocrisy and lack of "scientific investigative" abilities,
since his aim in this paper, and elsewhere, is to discredit the Biblical record. To,
therefore, appeal to this very record to prove Islam is inconsistent and hypocritical.
Even more astonishing is the complaint of Abualrub regarding the alleged anonymity
of the Bible writers in light of the failure of the Quran to specify its exact length
or the names of its chapters. There is not a single verse in the entire Quran which says
that all of it is from Allah, nor does it indicate what all of it is, i.e. there are
no references indicating how many chapters and verses make up the Quran. Here are
a few chapters which never once claim to have come down from Allah:
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate Praise belongs to God,
the Lord of all Being, the All-merciful, the All-compassionate, the Master of the Day
of Doom. Thee only we serve; to Thee alone we pray for succour. Guide us in the straight
path, the path of those whom Thou hast blessed, not of those against whom Thou art
wrathful, nor of those who are astray. S. 1:1-7
As anyone reading this chapter can easily see, this is a prayer offered
to God not Gods words revealed to man.
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate The Clatterer! What
is the Clatterer? And what shall teach thee what is the Clatterer? The day that men shall
be like scattered moths, and the mountains shall be like plucked wool-tufts. Then he whose
deeds weigh heavy in the Balance shall inherit a pleasing life, but he whose deeds weigh
light in the Balance shall plunge in the womb of the Pit. And what shall teach thee what
is the Pit? A blazing Fire! S. 101:1-9
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate Gross rivalry
diverts you, even till you visit the tombs. No indeed; but soon you shall know. Again, no
indeed; but soon you shall know. No indeed; did you know with the knowledge of certainty,
you shall surely see Hell; Again, you shall surely see it with the eye of certainty then
you shall be questioned that day concerning true bliss. S. 102:1-8
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate By the afternoon!
Surely Man is in the way of loss, save those who believe, and do righteous deeds, and
counsel each other unto the truth, and counsel each other to be steadfast. S. 103:1-3
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate Woe unto every
backbiter, slanderer, who has gathered riches and counted them over thinking his riches
have made him immortal! No indeed; he shall be thrust into the Crusher; and what shall
teach thee what is the Crusher; The Fire of God kindled roaring over the hearts covered
down upon them, in columns outstretched. S. 104:1-9
In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, Perish the hands
of Abu Lahab, and perish he! His wealth avails him not, neither what he has earned; he
shall roast at a flaming fire and his wife, the carrier of the firewood, upon her neck
a rope of palm-fibre. Surah 111:1-5
As far as we can tell, these chapters are the prayers, curses, threats, or poems of
some unnamed individuals which were combined together in a book claiming to be from God,
despite these chapters never claiming this for themselves.
To make matters worse, the Quran even fails to provide the specific names of the chapters!
Since Abualrub has basically discounted all of Christian history, the testimony of
the early Church fathers, the witness of the very disciples of the Apostles, we therefore
challenge him to prove to us from the Quran ALONE that these chapters are from Allah and
that they do belong in the Quran. We further challenge him to tell us who this Abu Lahab
was without any recourse to Islamic history and narrations that are removed from Muhammads
time by over a hundred years, if not more.
Mankind Desperately Needs the Holy Bible, Gods True Word, Not the Lies of Satan.
In this post I will share some of the biblical evidences, which led the first Christians to the conclusion that the one true God is Triune by nature.
One True God
The Bible is clear that there is only one uncreated God who created and sustains all creation. The name
”Accepting James White’s Challenge to Provide an Exegesis of 1 John 5:1"
The following is Dr. David W. Allen's refutation to internet reformed apologist James R. White's butchering of 1 John 5:1 for the purpose of forcing his calvinistic misreading into it.
