Bassam Zawadi has produced a reply
(*)
to my article where I show that the Quran contradicts itself in that there are verses
Allah says that he has chosen or preferred some prophets/messengers over some others
whereas another passage says that he makes no distinction between them whatsoever
(*).
Zawadi says,
Shamoun throughout his entire article sets out to attempt proving that
the verse does not clearly indicate that it is the believers who are speaking in Surah
2:285. However, Shamoun fails to realize that he hasn't even clearly shown that it
cannot be the believers who are supposed to be uttering that statement in Surah 2:285.
He hasn't shown that it definitely has to be Allah who is speaking in the first
person.
For instance, Shamoun says:
For instance, right after this sentence the author(s) insert(s) the
words "they say" (qaloo) in order to indicate that he is quoting the words of
the Muslims, but doesn't/don't include this term for what comes beforehand.
This is not a strong argument. Imam Tabari in his commentary
explains why the word qaaloo is not there before the first statement from a
linguistic perspective and also appeals to Surah 13:23-24 as an example by showing that it
is clearly the angels who are saying "Peace unto you for that ye persevered in
patience! Now how excellent is the final home!", yet the words "they say"
are not put there before the statement.
Here is the particular text in question in order to see just how weak Zawadi’s case is,
Gardens of Eden which they shall enter; and those who were righteous of
their fathers, and their wives, and their seed, shall enter them, and the angels shall
enter unto them from every gate: ‘Peace be upon you, for that you were patient.’
Fair is the Ultimate Abode. S. 13:23-24
There are two main objections to Zawadi’s appeal to this citation. First, how does
Zawadi know for certain that the words within quotations are that of the angels? How does
he know that this isn’t simply the author(s) of the Quran, who is supposed to be
Allah, speaking as he addresses those who enter into Paradise at the last day?
This leads to the second problem. Citing an example where words are omitted doesn’t
solve the problem but only compounds the issue since it further proves that the Quran
is an incoherent mess. It is not the linguistic masterpiece that Muslims like Zawadi claim.
In fact, this example substantiates the conclusions of the late Iranian Islamic scholar
Ali Dashti who wrote that,
"The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible
without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words
used with other than the normal meaning; adjectives and verbs inflected without observance
of the concords of gender and number; illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns
which sometimes have no referent; and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote
from the subjects. These and other such aberrations in the language have given
scope to critics who deny the Qor'an's eloquence. The problem also occupied the minds
of devout Moslems. It forced the commentators to search for explanations and was
probably one of the causes of disagreement over readings." (Dashti, Twenty-Three
Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, translated from Persian by F.R.C.
Bagley [Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA 1994], pp. 48-49; underline emphasis ours)
And:
"To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the normal rules and
structure of Arabic have been noted. Needless to say, the commentators strove to find
explanations and justifications for these irregularities.
"Among them was the great commentator and philologist Mahmud oz-Zamakhshari
(467/1075-538/1144), of whom a Moorish author wrote: ‘This grammar-obsessed pedant
has committed a shocking error. Our task is not to make the readings conform to Arabic
grammar, but to take the whole of the Qor'an as it is and make the Arabic grammar
conform to the Qor'an.’
"Up to a point this argument is justifiable. A nation's great speakers and writers
respect the rules of its language in so far as they avoid modes of expression which are
not generally understood and popularly accepted, though they may occasionally find
themselves obliged to take liberties. Among the pre-Islamic Arabs, rhetoric and poetry
were well developed and grammatical conventions were already established. The Qor'an,
being in the belief of Moslems superior to all previous products of the rhetorical genius,
must contain the fewest irregularities.
"Yet the Moorish author's censure of Zamakhshari is open to criticism on the
ground that it reverses the usual argument. This is that the Qor'an is God's word because
it has a sublime eloquence which no human being can match, and that the man who uttered it
was therefore a prophet. The Moorish author maintained that the Qor'an is faultless
because it is God's word and that the problem of the grammatical errors in it must be
solved by changing the rules of Arabic grammar. In other words, while most Moslems answer
deniers by citing the Qor'an's eloquence as proof of Mohammad's prophethood, the Moorish
author, having taken the Qor'an's divine origin and Mohammad's prophethood for granted,
held all discussion of the Qor'an's wording and contents to be inadmissible."
(Pp. 50-51; underline emphasis ours)
He further stated that,
"The Qor’an contains many instances of confusion between the two speakers,
God and Mohammad, in the same verse… Among these many passages are some, like the
above, which can be easily explained, but also others which present great difficulty…
The presence of confusions between God and the Prophet in the Qor’an cannot
objectively be disputed. Sometimes God speaks, giving to the Prophet the command
‘say’ (i.e. to the people). Sometimes the sentence structure proves that it is
the Prophet who speaks, expressing devotion to God. The impression conveyed by the
Qor’an is that a hidden voice in Mohammad’s soul or subconscious mind was
continually impelling him to guide the people, restraining him from lapses, and providing
him with solutions to problems." (Pp. 150-151; underline emphasis ours)
And:
"Confusion between God’s and Mohammad’s words is again apparent in
two verses of sura 10 (Yunos). ‘And if your Lord so wished, all
the dwellers on the earth would believe together. Are you going to compel the people
to be believers?’ (verse 99). ‘It is only (possible) for a soul to believe with
God’s permission. And He inflicts vileness on those who are intelligent’ (verse
100). In verse 99 the words are from God and addressed to the Prophet, but in verse 100
the words appear to be Mohammad’s, a sort of self-consolation followed by an
explanation of the obduracy of the polytheists who would not heed his teaching."
(P. 152; underline emphasis ours)
Dashti wasn't the only one who saw that the Quran has considerable linguistic and
structural problems. Even some modern Muslim writers admit that the Quran's grammatical
structure has caused many an exegete and scholar tremendous difficulties in understanding
and interpreting the text. Farid Esack is one such Muslim who candidly admits that,
"… This poses difficulties for those engaged in critical scholarship and
these texts have been invoked in support of the notion that the Qur'an is not entirely the
product if [sic] a single entity. There are also several cases where the speaker
alternates between singular and plural forms adding to the notion that the Qur'an was
compiled in an incoherent manner… Besides God, though, numerous ayat
suggest that the Angels or the Prophet himself are the direct speakers and it is only the
interpolations of translators or the comments of the exegetes that suggest otherwise. Ayat
such as 19:64-65, for example, if read without interpolation of the translator, clearly
suggest that the Angels are the speakers… In a few ayat, such as 27:91, the
obvious speaker seem to be the Prophet and then a sudden switch occurs when he becomes the
one being addressed… The fact that these ayat are often characterized by a
later addition of ‘say’ (qul) suggests that the entire section may have been [in
other words, pure conjecture] preceded by the unarticulated instruction ‘say’.
Muslims have always understood it in this manner. In other words, the fact that they are
the direct words of the Prophet or of the Angels does not detract from the
other-worldliness of the Qur'an. They were merely repeating words that in the first
instance came from God." (Esack, The Qur'an - A Short Introduction [Oneworld
Publications, Oxford 2002] pp. 74-75; statements within brackets and underline emphasis ours)
Certain Islamic scholars like Richard Bell and W. M. Watt view the chaotic structure of
the Quran as proof that it has been altered:
"There are indeed many roughnesses of this kind, and these, it is here claimed,
are fundamental evidence for revision. Besides the points already noticed – hidden
rhymes, and rhyme-phrases not woven into the texture of the passage – there are
the following: abrupt changes of rhyme; repetition of the same rhyme word or rhyme
phrase in adjoining verses; the intrusion of an extraneous subject into a passage
otherwise homogeneous; a differing treatment of the same subject in neighboring verses,
often with repetition of words and phrases; breaks in grammatical construction which raise
difficulties in exegesis; abrupt changes in the length of verses; sudden changes of the
dramatic situation, with changes of pronoun from singular to plural, from second to third
person, and so on; the juxtaposition of apparently contradictory statements; the
juxtaposition of passages of different date, with the intrusion of late phrases into early
verses. In many cases a passage has alternative continuations which follow one another
in the present text. The second of the alternatives is marked by a break in sense and
by a break in grammatical construction, since the connection is not with what immediately
precedes, but with what stands some distance back." (Bell & Watt, Introduction
to the Quran [Edinburgh, 1977], p. 93 - as cited in Ibn Warraq's Why I am not a
Muslim [Prometheus Books; Amherst NY, 1995], pp. 112-113; underline emphasis ours)
Thus, if Zawadi keeps insisting that these are the words of the believers which the
Quran is quoting then he is going to have to accept the conclusion of Islamic scholars
that the Muslim scripture contains grammatical errors and irregularities, omitting key
words at crucial places, thereby causing confusion and leading to misunderstanding among
the various Muslim expositors.
And, just as we stated in our initial article, all of these problems could have been
avoided if the author(s) simply inserted the word qaloo (assuming, of course, that
his intention was to communicate the statements of the believers in Q. 2:285, and not the
words of Allah), just as we find in the following examples:
Yet when the truth came to them 'from Ourselves, they say (qaloo), 'Why has he
not been given the like' of that Moses was given?' But they, did they not disbelieve also
in what Moses was given aforetime? They say (qaloo), 'A pair of sorceries mutually
supporting each other.' And they say (wa qaloo), 'We disbelieve both.' S. 28:48
And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, they say (qaloo), 'This is
naught but a man who desires to bar you from that your fathers served'; and they say (wa
qaloo), 'This is nothing but a forged calumny.' And the unbelievers say to the truth,
when it has come to them, 'This is nothing but manifest sorcery. S. 34:43
They say (qaloo), 'No, it is you who have no welcome; you forwarded it for us;
how evil an establishment!' They say (qaloo), 'Our Lord, whoso forwarded this for
us, give him a double chastisement in the Fire!' And they say (wa qaloo), 'How is
it with us, that we do not see men here that we counted among the wicked? S. 38:60-62
And when the truth came to them, they say (qaloo), 'This is a sorcery, and in it
we are unbelievers.' And they say (wa qaloo), 'Why was this Koran not sent down
upon some man of moment in the two cities?' S. 43:30-31
They say (qaloo), 'Yes indeed, a warner came to us; but we cried lies, saying,
"God has not sent down anything; you are only in great error. And they say (wa
qaloo), 'If we had only heard, or had understood, we would not have been of the
inhabitants of the Blaze.' S. 67:9-10
Yet the failure on the part of the author(s) to include just this one simple word has
led to confusion and contradiction.
Zawadi’s argument goes from bad to worse:
Furthermore, one can easily argue back that when the verse says
"and they say" (wa qaaloo) this means that Allah is saying "and they also
say". So this shows that the previous statement was a quotation of the believers'
statements and Allah is continuing on and letting us know what else the believers are to
say by saying "and they say".
There is nothing in the words wa qaloo that even remotely suggest the
translation "and they also say," just as the following examples
conclusively demonstrate:
And they say (wa qaloo), 'Our hearts are uncircumcised.'
Nay, but God has cursed them for their unbelief; little will they believe. 2:88
And they say (wa qaloo), 'None shall enter Paradise except that they be
Jews or Christians.' Such are their fancies. Say: 'Produce your proof, if you speak
truly.' 2:111
And they say (wa qaloo), 'God has taken to Him a son. Glory be to Him!
Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth; all obey His will -- 2:116
And they say (wa qaloo), 'Be Jews or Christians and you shall be guided.'
Say thou: 'Nay, rather the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith; he was no idolater.'
2:135
This is simply Zawadi’s presupposition which is being read into the text since he
erroneously assumes beforehand that it is the believers who are saying that they make no
distinction between any of the messengers. And because of this erroneous assumption Zawadi
desperately seeks to prove his case with the flimsiest of arguments.
In fact, looking at the statement(s) coming directly before wa qaloo in the above
instances, we see that each time the speaker is Allah (cf. 2:87, 110, 115, 134) and wa
qaloo indicates the switch of the speaker, not the continuation of the same speaker.
Nor am I alone in interpreting Q. 2:285 in this manner since even the following
Muslim scholar sees this as a statement from Allah affirming that, like the Muslims,
he too doesn't distinguish between the prophets:
"It is a tenet of faith in Islam that Muhammad is the final prophet in a long line of
Abrahamic prophets all conveying the same basic message to humanity. Therefore,
a Muslim must necessarily believe in Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and many others
as prophets of the same and one God – all bearing the same essential message
of submission to God. For example, the Qur’an proclaims the following testament of faith:
‘The Prophet believes in what has been revealed to him by his Lord. And so do the faithful
believe in the same. Each one believes in God and His angels, His Books, and the prophets
and We make no distinction between the apostles. They all say, "We hear and obey,
and we seek your forgiveness O Lord, for to You we shall journey in the end."’
As this verse emphasizes, GOD CONSIDERS all the Abrahamic prophets to be equals,
and all the prophets upheld the same core set of beliefs.
"The same idea is made even more explicit in the following Qur’anic revelation
addressed to Muslims: ‘Say, we believe in God, and what has been revealed to us,
and in what has been sent down to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and
their offspring, and what has been revealed to Moses and Jesus and to all other prophets
by their Lord. We make no distinction between them, and we submit to Him and obey.’
In this verse, it is Muslims who are commanded to believe in the Abrahamic prophets
equally and without distinction…" (Khaled Abou El Fadl, The Great Theft –
Wrestling Islam From The Extremists [HarperOne, an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers;
paperback edition 2007], Part Two. Charting the Moderate Versus the Puritan Divide,
Chapter Five: What All Muslims Agree Upon, pp. 115-116; capital and underline emphasis ours)
Zawadi, thus far, has failed to adequately address my points. And we want to personally
thank Zawadi for bringing up this particular argument, since the result of our close examination
of this argument did not only lead to a refutation of it, exposing it as wrong, but provided us
with additional corroboration and further substantiation for our original thesis.
Now let us see how well he does with his second explanation.
There is a second response to this. That is that even if Shamoun is correct and it
really is Allah who is uttering the statement in Surah 2:285 this does not contradict
Surah 2:253 and 17:55.
The statement "we make no distinction between any of His messengers" could
mean that the Messengers are not to be distinguished by negating the Messengership
of some them and affirming it for others.
After quoting some Muslim exegetes to substantiate this interpretation Zawadi then
concludes,
So here we see that when Allah says that the Messengers are not to be distinguished,
that means that they should not be distinguished by the fact that some of them are
Messengers or not just like how the Christians and Jews have done.
Obviously this verse cannot be taken so hyper literally. One can distinguish Muhammad
(peace be upon him) by saying that he is the last messenger of God from Jesus who is
the second last messenger sent by God. Now obviously doing this would not render the verse
to be factually wrong, since this is not what the verse is trying to say. Rather, the
verse is emphasizing the fact that all Messengers must be recognized as Messengers of
Allah. So this does not contradict Surah 2:253 & 17:55 because these verses are only
saying that some of these Prophets have been preferred over one another, yet they are
not distinguished (according to Surah 2:285) by saying that some of them are
Messengers while some of them are not.
What the text could mean and what it actually does mean is not the same
thing. There are several reasons for rejecting Zawadi’s explanation. First, does
Zawadi really want us to believe that Allah is saying that he doesn’t negate the
apostleship of any of his prophets when the Quran itself distinguishes between a prophet
and a messenger?
We sent not ever any Messenger OR Prophet before thee, but that Satan
cast into his fancy, when he was fancying; but God annuls what Satan casts, then God
confirms His signs -- surely God is All-knowing, All-wise -- S. 22:52
This distinction assumes that prophets and messengers are not necessarily interchangeable
terms and that a person can be one without necessarily being the other. In fact, in the Quran
there are prophets who are messengers but not every messenger is a prophet.
And He will teach him [Jesus] the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel, to
be a Messenger to the Children of Israel saying, "I have come to you with a
sign from your Lord. I will create for you out of clay as the likeness of a bird; then I
will breathe into it, and it will be a bird, by the leave of God. I will also heal the
blind and the leper, and bring to life the dead, by the leave of God. I will inform you
too of what things you eat, and what you treasure up in your houses. Surely in that
is a sign for you, if you are believers." S. 3:48-49
He [Jesus] said, ‘Lo, I am God's servant; God has given me the Book, and
made me a Prophet.’ S. 19:30
Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men, but the Messenger of God, and the
Seal of the Prophets; God has knowledge of everything… O Prophet, We have sent thee
as a witness, and good tidings to bear and warning, S. 33:40, 45
And when Jesus son of Mary said, 'Children of Israel, I am indeed the Messenger
of God to you, confirming the Torah that is before me, and giving good tidings of
a Messenger who shall come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad.'
Then, when he brought them the clear signs, they said, 'This is a manifest sorcery.' S. 61:6
To further substantiate that one can be a messenger without being a prophet,
keep in mind that even though the Quran says that angels can be messengers,
Allah chooses messengers from angels and from men,
for Allah is He Who hears and sees (all things). S. 22:75
Praise be to Allah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, Who appointeth the
angels messengers having wings two, three and four. He multiplieth in creation
what He will. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things. S. 35:1
It never calls them prophets. In light of these examples doesn’t this prove that
Allah has actually made a distinction between the messengers by making some of them
prophets?
We therefore challenge Zawadi to produce a single Quranic verse or explicit statements
where the Muslim scripture emphatically says that the reverse is true, i.e. even though
every messenger is a prophet not every prophet is a messenger. We will not accept Quranic
references where he has to read his erroneous presuppositions into them, such as we find
Muslims doing when they try to prove from the Quran that Gabriel is the Holy Spirit,
even though they end up butchering their so-called holy text in order to arrive at
that conclusion (1,
2, 3,
4, 5, 5,
6, 7, 8).
Secondly, does Zawadi mean that Allah does not reject a prophet/messenger and take away
inspiration from him? If so then this only introduces another contradiction since the
Quran says that Allah actually can do this:
And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us
say, 'Bring a Koran other than this, or alter it.' Say: 'It is not for me to alter it of
my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I
should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.' Say: 'Had God
willed I would not have recited it to you, neither would He have taught you it; I abode
among you a lifetime before it -- will you not understand?' S. 10:15-16
Indeed they were near to seducing thee from that We revealed to thee, that thou
mightest forge against Us another, and then they would surely have taken thee as a friend;
and had We not confirmed thee, surely thou wert near to inclining unto them a very little;
then would We have let thee taste the double of life and the double of death; and
then thou wouldst have found none to help thee against Us… If We
willed, We could take away that We have revealed to thee, then thou wouldst find
none thereover to guard thee against Us, excepting by some mercy of thy Lord; surly His
favour to thee is great. S. 17:73-75, 86-87
Had he invented against Us any sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand,
then We would surely have cut his life-vein and not one of you could have defended him.
S. 69:44-47
Or does Zawadi mean that Allah believes that all his messengers whom he has sent were
actually messengers? If so does this even make any sense at all to have Allah saying such
a thing when it is obvious that he believes in the messengership of all his apostles
seeing that he is the one who actually commissioned them to be his emissaries in the first
place? Zawadi basically empties the statement of any meaning, saying: Allah believes that
all of his messengers are messengers. So what? That is a tautology. It only says that
Allah does not deny that his messengers are his messengers. Why should he? What would be
the point of this statement? If he doesn’t want any of them to be messengers, he
would have not sent them in the first place.
Thirdly, the following text also exhorts the believers to make no distinction between
the prophets/messengers:
Say you: 'We believe in God, and in that which has been sent down on us and sent down
on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, and that which was given to Moses
and Jesus and the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them,
and to Him we surrender.' S. 2:136
According to Muhammad, one of the ways to avoid making a distinction among the
prophets/messengers is to refrain from claiming that some of them are greater than others:
XXXV: The words of Allah Almighty, "Yunus too was one of the Messengers -
to His words - The fish devoured him and he was to blame." 37:139-148
Mujahid said that mulîm" means wrong-doing and "mashhûn"
is full.
"Had it not been that he was a man who glorifies..." "We cast
him up onto the beach" on the surface of the earth, "and he was sick, and
We caused a gourd-tree to grow over him," a plant without a stem which includes
gourds and other similar plants. "We sent him to a hundred thousand or more. They
believed, so We gave them enjoyment for a time." 37:142:148
"Do not be like the Companion of the Fish when he called out in absolute
despair." 68:48 "Kathîm" is "in grief"...
3233. It is related that Abu Hurayra said, "While a Jew was offering his goods for
sale, he was offered something for them which he disliked, and he said, 'No, by the One
who chose Musa over mankind.' A man of the Ansar heard him and got up and slapped his
face. He said, 'Do you say, "By the One who chose Musa over mankind," when the
Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us!' So the Jew went to him and
said, 'Abu'l-Qasim! I have protection and a pledge, so what business does so-and-so have
in slapping my face?' He said, 'Did you slap his face?' He mentioned it to him and the
Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, became angry so that it could be seen in
his face. Then he said, 'Do not make preference between the Prophets of Allah.
The Trumpet will be blown, and everyone who is in the heavens and everyone who is the
earth will swoon, except whomever Allah wills. Then it will be blown a second time and I
will be the first to be raised. There Musa will be holding to the Throne. I will not known
whether his swooning on the Day of the Mount was enough or whether he was raised before
me, and I do not say that anyone is better than Yunus ibn Matta.'"
(Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 64. Book of the Prophets;
source)
Another version of the above hadith reads:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Once while a Jew was selling something, he was offered a price that he was not pleased
with. So, he said, "No, by Him Who gave Moses superiority over all human
beings!" Hearing him, an Ansari man got up and slapped him on the face and said,
"You say: By Him Who Gave Moses superiority over all human beings although the
Prophet (Muhammad) is present amongst us!" The Jew went to the Prophet and said,
"O Abu-l-Qasim! I am under the assurance and contract of security, so what right does
so-and-so have to slap me?" The Prophet asked the other, "Why have you
slapped". He told him the whole story. The Prophet became angry, till anger appeared
on his face, and said, "Don't give superiority to any prophet amongst
Allah's Prophets, for when the trumpet will be blown, everyone on the earth
and in the heavens will become unconscious except those whom Allah will exempt. The
trumpet will be blown for the second time and I will be the first to be resurrected to see
Moses holding Allah's Throne. I will not know whether the unconsciousness which Moses
received on the Day of Tur has been sufficient for him, or has he got up before me. And
I do not say that there is anybody who is better than Yunus bin Matta."
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55,
Number 626)
Since this is identical to what Allah says in Q. 2:285, i.e. he makes no distinction
between any of the prophets, this suggests that the meaning would be the same and that
Allah would therefore not prefer some messengers over others and wouldn’t grant
greater honor to some and not to others. Clearly this is not the case since, according to
Q. 2:253 and 17:55, Allah does prefer and choose certain prophets over others.
The contradiction, therefore, remains.
Appendix
Zawadi comes out with another (failed) attempt
(*)
to refute our point that the Quran contradicts itself whether Allah chooses some prophets
over others.
When asked how he knows for certain that the angels are speaking in Q. 13:23-24, Zawadi
replies by saying because all of the Islamic commentators said so! What makes this reply
rather amusing is that this exposes Zawadi’s blatant inconsistent and double standards.
For instance, in several of his "responses" one will find Zawadi accusing me
of committing the fallacy of appealing to authority, even though he has no clue what this
fallacy actually entails or when it is being committed:
My Response:
Shamoun is committing nothing more than the fallacy of appeal to
authority. His quoting of Ibn Attiya does not change the fact that the narration is
still weak. Is Ibn Attiya (546 A.H.) infallible? No. Is it proven that the narration is
not reliable? Yes. So which side should we take? The answer is obvious.
And:
My Response:
Again, Shamoun is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority regarding Ibn
Abbas' narration. (Did Ibn Abbas Believe The Christian and Jewish Scriptures Were
Uncorrupted? A Response to Sam Shamoun;
source)
Again:
My Response:
Here comes Shamoun's second fallacy, which is that of appeal to authority
and his second act of desperation.
One more time:
My Response:
Shamoun in point number 1 commits the fallacy of appeal to authority and turns
a blind eye to the evidence that shows that this narration is doubtful. (Rebuttal to
Sam Shamoun's Article "Did Muhammad Confirm the Torah?: Addressing the Smokescreens
of a Muslim Polemicist";
source)
Yet in this rebuttal he not only commits this very fallacy himself he is also guilty of
the fallacy of ad populum, appealing to the majority or consensus. Amazingly, he tries to
justify his inconsistent methodology and gross logical fallacies in another article:
This is not a matter of appealing to authority [sic]. For they are
a source of religious authority [sic] (as I explain in my article here)
Just as one cannot accuse a
Muslim of appealing to authority if he appeals to the Qur'an or authentic prophetic
traditions, one also cannot do the same if a Muslim appeals to the consensus of the Muslim
scholars on an issue or the Salaf, for they are a source of religious authority in Islam.
(Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "Allah's Promise to Preserve of the
Bible: A Reminder to One Muslim Dawagandist";
source)
Notice all of the unwarranted and unproven assumptions that Zawadi brings to the table.
He assumes that it is necessary to appeal to the supposed authentic prophetic narrations
in order to understand the Quran, which further assumes that these traditions are
consistent with the Muslim scripture as well as with themselves. He also assumes that
the so-called authentic prophetic traditions are actually reliable, even though they were
written down centuries after Muhammad’s death when none of the first generation of
"believers" were present to verify whether these narrations truly came from
Muhammad or not. He further assumes that the reports which narrate the views of the
so-called Salaf are authentic, despite the fact that these narratives were written over
hundred years (at the very least) after their deaths. He then assumes that all Muslims agree
with his presuppositions when they do not, e.g. Shia Muslims do not recognize the absolute
authority and authenticity of the Sunni collection of hadiths, many Muslims reject the
entire hadith literature altogether and only follow the Quran etc.
He further says in the same article:
Ignoramus Shamoun is comparing apples with oranges. The reason why I accused him of
appealing to authority in that situation was because I already provided evidence [sic]
for that narration that he was using to be weak. Yet, instead of providing evidence to
rebut it back he goes and quotes scholars without addressing my arguments. Thus, he has
committed a fallacy.
When I appealed to the major commentators of the Qur'an I did so because usually
Shamoun likes to quote Islamic scholars and the early Muslims to see what they thought
about the Bible. So then I quoted him all the major Qur'anic commentators to show him
that none of them agree with his interpretation.
First, notice the contradiction. Zawadi first stated that the reason he appealed to the
consensus of Islamic commentators is because they are a source of religious authority. He
now says that he did so because I appeal to them! Second, he claims that he provided
evidence to back up his appeal to the majority of Islamic expositors, something he utterly
fails to do here in regards to his understanding of Q. 13:23-24. Such inconsistency is
typical of Zawadi.
Zawadi further argues that it is linguistically possible that angels are speaking in
Q. 13:23-24 which makes it equally possible that it is the believers, not Allah, who is
actually speaking in Q. 2:285. Zawadi again appeals to the consensus and their discussion
of the Arabic to prove his position. The problem with this fallacious appeal to the
consensus is that there is absolutely nothing in the Arabic text, nothing in the grammar,
the syntax etc., which even makes it remotely possible that it is the believers, and not
Allah, who are the speakers in Q. 2:285. We therefore challenge Zawadi to actually produce
the evidence of these scholars so we can examine it for ourselves and see how much weight
their arguments truly carry.
Zawadi does refer to ar-Razi who sources 6:93 and 39:3 to establish his case. Yet
neither of these texts proves Zawadi’s assertion but they provide additional support
for my argument that the Quran is an incoherent piece of babble which often
omits words and phrases leading to chaos and confusion.
Moreover, these particular verses are not at all analogous to Q. 2:285. Here is
what these passages say:
And who does greater evil than he who forges against Allah a lie, or says, 'To me it
has been revealed', when naught has been revealed to him, or he who says, 'I will send
down the like of what Allah has sent down'? If thou couldst only see when the evildoers
are in the agonies of death, and the angels are stretching out their hands: 'Give
up your souls! Today you shall be recompensed with the chastisement of humiliation for
what you said untruly about God, waxing proud against His signs.' S. 6:93
Belongs not sincere religion to Allah? And those who take protectors, apart from Him
-- 'We only serve them that they may bring us nigh in nearness to Allah' -- surely
Allah shall judge between them touching that whereon they are at variance. Surely Allah
guides not him who is a liar, unthankful.’ S. 39:3
It is clear from the context of these passages who the speakers are since all one has
to do is locate the nearest antecedent. Yet this is quite different from what we find in
Q. 2:285 since in that passage the same entity who is narrating the verse goes on to quote
what the believers say by introducing their words with qaloo:
The Messenger believes in what was sent down to him from his Lord, and the believers;
each one believes in God and His angels, and in His Books and His Messengers; We
make no division between any one of His Messengers. They say (qaloo), 'We
hear, and obey. Our Lord, grant us Thy forgiveness; unto Thee is the homecoming.' S. 2:285
As such this text is not at all similar to what we read in Q. 6:93 and 39:3.
So much for Zawadi’s Islamic scholars and their appeal to the Arabic language.
Zawadi then proceeds with ad hominems, attacking me for not knowing Arabic (even though
his Arabic comprehension is rather poor, and he is ignorant of both Biblical Hebrew and NT
Greek), which is an obvious indication that he is rather upset with our responses since
they serve to expose his bluster and gross inability to produce a coherent reply.
Zawadi then claims that there is nothing wrong with Q. 2:285 being a tautology where
Allah says he doesn’t deny the Messengership of his messengers.
He then quotes Q. 64:4 which he thinks is analogous to Q. 2:285 since it too
is supposed to be a tautology:
He knows what is in the heavens and on earth; and He knows what you conceal
and what you reveal: and Allah knows well the secrets of all hearts.
Again, Zawadi’s alleged parallel fails since one can see why the speaker highlights
the extent of Allah’s knowledge, to specifically show that nothing escapes him,
e.g. Allah not only knows what occurs in the entire cosmos, he even knows what a person
does to the point that he fully knows what s/he conceals within his/her heart. Yet to say
that Allah makes no distinction in his messengers means that he doesn’t negate
their Messengership is an unnecessary and needless point to make since it is obvious
that he doesn’t do so otherwise he wouldn’t have commissioned them to be his
spokespersons in the first place!
Interestingly, Zawadi makes a statement (a Freudian slip perhaps?) which actually
proves our point and backfires against him:
This objection doesn't seem to be too strong. What is wrong with believing that Allah
is saying "we don't differentiate between any of the messengers" in order
to emphasize to us that we should be doing the same? That since Allah acknowledges all the
messengers He has mentioned, we must do the same. So Allah's statement is only an
emphasis of this point in order for us to learn. What is wrong with this?
(Emphasis ours)
That is basically what we had stated in our rebuttal, e.g. much like Allah doesn’t
prefer or make distinctions between his messengers neither should the Muslims prefer some
above others. We then cited a narration from Muhammad where he explained how Muslims are
to carry out this injunction, i.e. Muslims cannot say that one prophet is greater than
another. Since according to Zawadi Allah is teaching Muslims by example here this means
that his god will also refrain from preferring some prophets over others or will refuse
to grant some of them greater ranks. But according to Q. 2:253 and 17:55 this is precisely
what Allah has done, namely, chosen prophets over others and raised some of them in rank!
So much for Zawadi’s argument. Zawadi has once again failed to reconcile this
gross contradiction within the Quran. Lord Jesus willing, more rebuttals to follow
shortly.
Here are the instructions that Martin Luther gave his followers in relation to doing the sign of the Cross:
Morning Prayer.
01 In the morning, when you rise, you shall bless yourself with the holy cross and say:
In the name of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.
St. Augustine on the Salvation of all Men
In his work called The Enchiridion, St. Augustine denied that 1 Timothy 2:4 teaches that God desires the salvation of every single human individual. Believing that God’s will is perfect and immutable, and that no one can ever thwart his
