Debate: The Qur’an’s view of the Previous Scriptures, Shabir Ally vs. David Wood

Besides the very clear presentation by David Wood that the Qur’an:

  1. Affirms/confirms مصدق the inspiration of the previous Scriptures – Surah 3:84, 2:136; 3:3-4
  2. Affirms/confirms مصدق the preservation of the previous Scriptures – Surah 5:47; 10:94 (between the hands – بین یدیه = what they have at the time of Muhammad)
  3. Affirms/confirms the authority of the previous Scriptures – 5:43 – why do they come to you when they have the Torah?

5:47 – let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed therein –

5:68 – O people of the Scripture, اهل الکتاب you have no standing unless you observe/uphold/ hold fast to / do / obey the Torah and the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.”

“Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.”  Qur’an Surah 5:68, Sahih International translation

10:94 – Gospel and Torah authoritative for Muhammad also. Resort to the previous Scriptures; Ask the people of the book.

and since none can change the words of Allah – Surah 6:114-5 (or 116 depending on different English translation/numbering system) and 18:27; (see also 6:34, 10:65)

therefore, the previous Scriptures were not corrupted.

also, David Wood also shows why the Qur’an understands itself on why it was revealed:

Surah 46:12 and 42:7 and 6:155-157 – revealed in Arabic because the Arabs did not have a book from God and were ignorant of God’s truth and revelation, and so that they have no excuse on judgement day.

Besides these points,

David Wood Also devastated Shabir’s arguments by several other points:

Context of Surah 2:75-79

Shabir tries to say 2:79 means the Torah was completely corrupted.

  1. Surah 2:75 – “a party/sect/group from among them” ( the Jews) ” فریق منهم , who used to hear the words of Allah and distort / change (the Torah) after they had understood it.

This goes with Surah 3:78 – منهم لفریقا – “from among them there is a party/group” – a party among them who distort the Scriptures with their tongues

Surah 7:159 – a faithful party / group of the Jews.

Surah 3:113-115 – a faithful party of the Jews who stayed up late at night reciting the Scriptures.

One party cannot totally corrupt all of the Scriptures because there are so many other copies globally of the Scriptures.

So, it cannot mean that all of the original Torah was corrupted or lost.

  1. Keep reading to 2:85 – condemns people who don’t accept ALL of the Word of God. (in context, meaning The Torah or Tanakh)

The context of 2:75-79 points to some parts that people were making up and going apart and saying “this is from Allah”, but it could not effect all the other Scriptures all over the world.

I would add that 2:78 shows that this group is:
a. Uneducated / illiterate
b. Don’t know the Scriptures
c. Only going by what they hear

so this group of 2:79 are uneducated and illiterate and don’t know the Scriptures and only going by what they hear.

This is seems to be what Muhammad did – he is just hearing things, doesn’t have the Scriptures in Arabic, and cannot read Hebrew or Greek, so he doesn’t know everything about the previous Scriptures and is just assuming that he understands them and approves of them, and assumes the Christians and Jews are teaching wrong things.

  1. Shabir tried to say that Jesus said John the Baptist is greater than Him, and that there was another one coming after John the Baptist who will be greater than him, and Shabir claimed that is Muhammad, since Jesus said “no one born of woman is greater than John the Baptist”.

 

John 1:26-31 – John the Baptist said “this is the one I am speaking about who is higher than me and I am not worthy to untie his sandals”, etc. (Jesus, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world; the one who stands among you whom I will baptize in water”, etc. )

Even Matthew 3:11 – John the Baptist clearly says that the one who is greater than him whom he is not worthy to remove his sandals, this is the one who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. (also in Mark 1:7-8; Luke 3:16-17)

So, Shabir’s argument only from Synoptics is defeated, nuked, destroyed, shish kebab-ed.

  1. Shabir’s argument about the Paraclete being Muhammad was very weak, since there are no textual variants of the original Greek of those passages in John 14 and 16; and Greek writes vowels; and 14:16-17 says “the Spirit of truth” and “will be with you forever”; and “He will be in you”, etc. Also, John 16:7 Jesus says “I will send Him”, “the Helper” (paracletos), “the Spirit of Truth” (verse 13) – that argument would make Jesus into Allah, since only Allah can send prophets, an argument which Muslims would not want to do.
  1. The quote from Abdullah Saeed, professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne, was devastating to Shabir Ally’s argument. Boom!

 

“Since the “authorized” scriptures of Jews and Christians remain very
much today as they existed at the time of the Prophet, it is difficult to argue
that the Qur’anic references to Tawrat and Injeel were only to the “pure”
Tawrat and Injeel as existed at the time of Moses and Jesus, respectively. If the
texts have remained more or less as they were in the seventh century CE, the
reverence the Qur’än has shown them at the time should be retained even
today. Many interpreters of the Qur’an, from Tabari to Râzï to Ibn Taymiyya
and even Qutb, appear to be inclined to share this view. The wholesale
dismissive attitude held by many Muslims in the modern period towards
the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity do not seem have the support of
either the Qur’an or the major figures of tafsir.”

Abdullah Saeed, professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne

THE CHARGE OF DISTORTION OF JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, page 434-435

  1. The Torah is also called Furqan فرقان (“criterion”) – Surah 2:53 and 21:48. (answering 3:3-4 which adds the Furqan to Torah and Gospel. (maybe Qur’an or maybe other OT books like Zobur or prophets.)

The only strong point that Shabir had was the Hadith of Al Bukhari of Ibn Abbas, (which Paul Williams quoted above), which contradicts Sunan Abu Dawood 4449 and Jami’ Al-Tirmidhi 2653, which said that “Muhammad said “The Torah and the Gospel are with the Jews and the Christians”. Ibn Abbas implies that they should not ask the people of the Scripture since the Qur’an comes later, etc. But Shabir admitted that other narrations/sources on Ibn Abbas are contradictory.

David Wood had a great rebuttal to that: “Don’t make Ibn Abbas’ word over-rule Allah’s word (in Qur’an) and Muhammad’s words.”

see interaction here at Paul Williams blog.

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Bible is not corrupted, Islam, Muslims, Paul Bilal Williams, Shabir Ally. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Debate: The Qur’an’s view of the Previous Scriptures, Shabir Ally vs. David Wood

  1. θ says:

    The place where we can read Arabic version of the so-called Yuhannis Injil is a source written by Arab Historian Ibn Ishaq.
    In the book “Life of Muhammad”, Guillaume has reconstructed Ishaq’s book Sirat Rasul Allah and translated Arabic book into English. In page titled “the word to the apostle of God in the Gospel”, Guillaume mentions Ishaq’s record of Yuhannis Injil.
    In other book, “Version of the Gospels Used in Medina”, Guillaume makes some commentaries concerning the unique use of Arabic wordings of:
    -“Yuhannis” for John,
    -“Ruh al-Qist” for Holy Spirit,
    -“Munahhemana” for Comforter.

    No one of the words is ever used in either Aramaic or Syriac Gospel.

    What makes this all the more damaging to Christians’ criticism is that the oldest extant document on Prophet Muhammad’s life proves discrepancy, unreliability, corruption, and variant reading of the very Gospel of John in Greek compared to Arabic Injil of Yuhannis.
    (i) The word “My Father” in Greek Gospel is replaced with “the Lord” in Injil.
    (ii) Passage “Whom I will send” is replaced with “Whom God will send” in Injil.
    (iii) Passage “From the Father” is replaced with “From the Lord’s presence” in Injil.
    (iv) “Even the Spirit” is replaced with “And the Spirit”.
    (v) “Proceedeth from the Father” is replaced with “will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence”.
    (vi) “Not be offended” is replaced with “not be in doubt”.

    Ata Ibn Yasar narrated: “I met Abdullah bin Umar bin Amr bin Al-As and asked him: ‘Tell me about the description of Allah’s Apostle (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) which is mentioned in the Torah (i.e. Old Testament).’ He replied: ‘Yes, By Allah, he is described in the Torah with some of the qualities attributed to him in the Qur’an.’”[3] I was told the story of Abdullah bin Salam, a learned rabbi, by one of his family. He said: “When I heard about the apostle I knew by his description, name, and the time at which he appeared that he was the one we were waiting for, and I rejoiced greatly thereat. . . . I emerged and said: ‘O Jews, fear God and accept what He has sent you. For by God you know that he is the apostle of God. You will find him described in your Torah and even named.’”[4] Among the things which have reached me about what Jesus the Son of Mary stated in the Gospel which he received from God for the followers of the Gospel, in applying a term to describe the apostle of God, is the following. It is extracted * from what John the Apostle set down for them when he wrote the Gospel for them from the Testament of Jesus Son of Mary *: “He that hateth me hath hated the Lord. And if I had not done in their presence works which none other before me did, they had not had sin: but from now they are puffed up with pride and think that they will overcome me and also the Lord. But the word that is in the law must be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without a cause’ (i.e. without reason). But when the Comforter has come whom God will send to you from the Lord’s presence, and the spirit of truth which will have gone forth from the Lord’s presence he (shall bear) witness of me and ye also, because ye have been with me from the beginning. I have spoken unto you about this that ye should not be in doubt.”

    What makes Ibn Ishaq’s witness all the more important is that the citation of Ibn Ishaq of Arabic Injil is left intact at the hands of Ibn Hisham in the ninth century AD. Ibn Hisham maintains Ibn Ishaq’s testimony concerning variation of John’s Gospel in Arabic, which implies that it met his demands for authenticity.

    Now if any Christian apologist still wants to defend the belief in incorruptible John’s Gospel – on the grounds that it is referred by Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham – or that it contains more explicit statements from Jesus concerning promise and identity of Comforter not found in the Synoptic Gospels, in addition to tens of thousands of variant writings contradictory one and another, then wouldn’t the consistency and the integrity demand that he also reject the flawed insistence on the New Testament being God’s words entirely seeing that it totally opposes the differing portrait of the Father, Christ, Spirit, and Comforter found in the Arabic Injil?

    Hopefully, any Christian apologist will prove to be a man of integrity and do the honest thing by rejecting his stance on incorruptible Gospel. After all, if he is going to consistently apply his own criticisms of the Bible to the Qur’an then he has no choice but to abandon Christianity and stop being a Christian. He just has no other choice.

  2. θ says:

    Be consoled, getting textually corrupted isn’t enough for Moslems to invalidate the Bible. We Moslems also have Hadith with similar inerrancies.

  3. θ says:

    In Islamic belief, It is the words (Logoi) of God not the writing (graphe) that are incorruptible. Writing is translatable, scattered in missing pieces, textually differs in variants due to scribal errors.

  4. Sam Shamoun says:

    Ken, I wrote this for you to hope you deal with Faiz: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2016/05/how-will-muslim-be-saved-according-to.html

    Lord willing, I have another lengthy multi-part article dealing with the rest of his nonsense nearly finished. Will send you links to them when they are done by God’s grace.

  5. Sam Shamoun says:

    These links also address the rest of Faiz’s sham pieces. Here is one on whether it was Isaac or Ishmael that Abraham offered up: http://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/sacrifice.htm

  6. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is a 2 part reply that deals with the Muslim nonsense concerning the story of Adam and Eve:

    http://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ally/adam_bq1.html

    The link to pt. 2 is found at the end of the first par.

  7. Sam Shamoun says:

    This article hihglights some of the major sins that the Quran attributes to prophets, and mentions how the Quran agrees with the Bible that Lot was willing to have his daughters raped by a mob in order to save his guests, a fact which Muslims never bother to mention: http://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/sins_of_prophets.htm

  8. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is more help for you Ken. This is how the Targums interpret Genesis 3:15:

    And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha.

    [JERUSALEM. And it shall be when the sons of the woman consider the law, and perform (its) instructions, they will be prepared to smite thee on thy head to kill thee; and when the sons of the woman forsake the commandment of the law, and perform not (its) instructions, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel, and hurt them. Nevertheless there shall be a medicine for the sons of the woman, but for thee, serpent, there shall be no medicine: but it is to be that for these there shall be a remedy for the heel in the days of the king Meshiha.] (The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee, by J. W. Etheridge, M.A., First Published 1862: http://targum.info/pj/pjgen1-6.htm)

    • Ken Temple says:

      Sam,
      Thanks for all the articles and links !!

      It may take me a while to digest it all.

      I appreciate you noticing this and pointing me to other articles and sources.

      I knew about the fact that Muslim scholars have disagreed over which son it was, Isaac or Ishmael, and that it is not dogmatic that one has to take it as Ishmael; and there seems to be more evidence in Islamic sources that it was Isaac.

      But I will need to review the details more.

  9. θ says:

    “Sam Shamoun says: and mentions how the Quran agrees with the Bible that Lot was willing to have his daughters raped by a mob in order to save his guests, ”

    Firstly, Lot introduces the angels to the Sodomites. Then he introduces his daughters to them for the pure relation, that is marriage.
    Q.15, v.68. [Lot] said, Indeed, these are my guests, so do not humiliate.
    Q.15, v.71. [Lot] said, These are my daughters, only if ye would be the right doers.

    Fa’ilin means the right doers. The word Fa’ilin just happens six times:
    Q.12, v.10
    Q.15, v.71
    Q.21, v.17
    Q.21, v.68
    Q.21, v.79
    Q.21, v.104
    In fact, Qur’an defends Lot’s integrity, that even though being distressful Lot keeps hoping they would prefer his pure daughters into Allah’s way of marriage.
    Q.11, v.78. And his people came unto him, running towards him, and before then they used to commit abominations. [Lot] said: O my people, Here are my daughters. They are purer for you so be law-abiding of Allah. And degrade me not in my guests. Is there not among you any intellect male?

    Lot does not offer his pure daughters for the Sodomite to mass rape, but rather to a relation of marriage, by being the Law-abiding people.
    Moreover, Qur’an praises Lot’s integrity, that under a great pressure of mobs, yet Lot doesn’t fall to be a fatalist loser, he just gets determined more to serve the angels, because it is the day of trial to punish the Sodomites.
    Q.11, v.77. And when Our messengers came unto Lot, he was concerned of them, and made determined by them. He said: This is a trial day.

    On other hand, the Bible have the story that indicates Lot never introduced angels to the Sodomites, let alone to remind them to be the Law-abiding people thru marriage.
    Gen 19:8
    Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

  10. θ says:

    “Sam Shamoun says: Here is one on whether it was Isaac or Ishmael that Abraham offered up: http://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/sacrifice.htm

    We Moslems do not know of the Burnt Offering. The cattle in Eid al-Qurban is to be eaten altogether, not to be immolated into fire.

  11. θ says:

    “Sam Shamoun says: http://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/ally/adam_bq1.html …Now if Allah had truly forgiven Adam why didn’t he bring him back to the garden or allow him to remain there? What kind of forgiveness is this when the punishment was still administered to Adam since both he and Eve were thrown out of paradise?”

    Nowhere does Qur’an or Hadith or tradition indicate Adam and his sons (such as Enoch or Cain) can’t return again to Eden after being forgiven.
    The Bible says Enoch was ascending up to heaven again. Cain departed to the eastern side of Eden. Humans remain on the earth because we don’t have the merit to know the names of everything that pleased God.

    A Moslem tradition says that there is an unknown history between the time of Adam’s forgiveness and the time of Adam’s death. The Bible doesn’t record it.
    After Adam was forgiven on the earth, Allah accepted him again into His presence. Before the death of Adam on the earth, he under Allah’s dictation built the original Ka’bah by taking a particular pearl or ruby which with he used to wipe his tears during the time of repentance. The original Ka’bah was made of pearl. Adam built the Ka’bah by taking example of Allah’s Throne above the heaven and the celestial water. Eventually the body of Adam was reduced to be sixty cubits.

    Tabari, History I,
    293. According to al-Hasan b. Yalyi – Qatidah: God founded the House [earthy Ka’bah] together with Adam. Adam’s head was in heaven, while his feet were upon earth. The angels were in awe of him. So his size was reduced to sixty cubits (30 meters). Adam was sad because he missed the voices and praise giving of the angels. He complained about it to God, and God said: Adam, I have cast down a house for you to circumambulate, as one circumambulates My Throne, and to pray at it as one prays at My Throne. Adam left and went off. His steps were lengthened, and the interval between each (two) steps became a desert. These deserts continued to exist afterwards. Adam came to the House, and he and the prophets after him circumambulated it.
    301. Then, as has been mentioned, He commanded Adam to go to the Sacred House which was cast down to earth for him, and to circumambulate it, just as he used to see the angels circumambulate God’s Throne. (The Sacred House) was a single jewel (ruby) or pearl, as I was told by al-Hasan b. Yahya – Aban. The House was cast down being a single jewel (ruby) or pearl. Eventually, when God drowned the people of Noah, He lifted it up, but its foundation remained. God established it as a residence for Abraham, who rebuilt it (in its later form).
    303. According to Abu Hammam: When we were sitting in the mosque, Mujahid said to me: Do you see this? I replied: Abu al-Hajjaj, (you mean) the Stone [Hajar Aswad] ? He said: You call it a stone? I said: Is it not a stone? He said: Indeed, I was told by ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbas that it was a white jewel that Adam took out of Paradise and used to wipe his tears, for after he left Paradise, his tears did not stop for two thousand years, until he returned to it and Iblis was no longer able to do anything to him.

  12. θ says:

    “Sam Shamoun says: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2016/05/how-will-muslim-be-saved-according-to.html

    Empty things would add nothing to the empty things.
    Hollow plus hollow means hollow.

    (i) First of all, Concerning the Hadith of substitution between Non-Moslems and Moslems in the Aterlife, it is just an allegory, it is just a proverb (figurative speech) to comfort Moslems.
    Prov 21:18
    The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright.
    Prov 11:8
    The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead.

    (ii) What shall be made transferred between two persons (Non-Moslem and Moslem) is essentially nothing, a fata morgana or mirage.
    That’s why at other occasion Qur’an uses a specific word “burden” (Athqal), not sin (Khatay), per Q.29 v.13 when illustrating the sharing of condemnation.

    (iii) What differentiates the penalty is the “category” of sins committed along the worldly days. Hypocrites shall plunge directly into a bottomless pit of hell, whereas the polytheists shall get the most hottest painful fire of hell.

  13. θ says:

    Some simple reasons why Comforter “Paraclete” can’t be Spirit:
    (i) Jesus is called “Paraclete” in 1 John 2:1, and he is not a spirit.
    Hence the Another Comforter (Allos Paracletos) must be a human as well, lest Jesus is a spirit of Gnosticism heresy.
    1Jn 2:1
    My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate (Paracletos) with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

    (ii) In Rabbinical sources, Paraclete is human adviser.
    Mishnah Tractate Avot, Chapter 4, 13.
    Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob used to say: He who performs one commandment acquires for himself one advocate, (paraklit) while he who commits one transgression has gotten for himself one accuser. Penitence and good deeds are as a shield against punishment.

    (iii) Holy Spirit is Spirit of Truth (Ruh al-Quds).
    Holy Spirit doesn’t give comfort to Paul in every cities:
    Acts 20:23
    Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Jesus is an advocate, helper, lawyer, mediator in 1 John 2:1; yes, that is true.

      But in the context of John 14, 15 and 16, the paracletos is a spirit, the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit.

      Different contexts; therefore you ( θ ) don’t have a good argument.

      • Sam Shamoun says:

        Ken, keep hammering the fact that if Muhammad is the Paraclete then the Father and the Son are both Allah, Muhammad’s God, because they send the Paraclete. Note the logic behind this:

        A. Father and Son send the Paraclete from the Father in the name of the Son to glorify the Son.

        B. Muhammad is that Paraclete.

        C. Allah sent Muhammad in the name of Allah to glorify Allah.

        D. Therefore, the Father and Son must be Allah, the One who sent Muhammad a.k.a. Paraclete.

        This in turn proves that the Muslims corrupted the Quran after Muhammad’s death because they twisted his message to deny that Allah is the Father or the Son, even though Muhammad would have never taught such a thing since, as the Paraclete, he surely knew and worshiped the Father and Son as his God Allah.

        Don’t let them get away from dealing with these facts.

      • Ken Temple says:

        that’s a good point !!

  14. Sam Shamoun says:

    Ken, here is more for you.

    Sunan Ibn Majah

    The Chapters on Sacrifices

    It was narrated from ’Aishah that the Prophet said: “The son of Adam does not do any deed on the Day of Sacrifice that is dearer to Allah than shedding blood. It will come on the Day of Resurrection with its horns and cloven hoofs and hair. Its blood is accepted by Allah before it reaches the ground. So be content when you do it.”

    Grade: Da’if (Darussalam)

    English reference: Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3126

    Arabic reference: Book 26, Hadith 3246 (Sunnah.com http://sunnah.com/urn/1272290; italic and underline emphasis ours)

    Note the emphasis on the blood.

    A Muslim may interject at this point and argue that the hadith from Ibn Majah is classified as Da’if, meaning weak, and therefore cannot be used to affirm the importance that blood sacrifices play in procuring forgiveness of sins. The Muslim who would raise this objection is either exposing his dishonesty or his ignorance of the consensus of Islamic scholarly opinion concerning the use of so-called “weak” narrations.

    In the first place a narrative deemed to weak means that it actually passed the test, being deemed reliable enough to be included within the Islamic corpus. For a more detailed discussion we recommend viewing the following discussion by noted Muslim scholar Hamza Yusuf, “The hadith is weak (daief) brother! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COrxzfd5d2k.”

    Secondly, the majority of Muslim scholars agreed that weak narrations can be employed to encourage good deeds and good behavior, but not used to establish legal rulings (though not all hadith scholars accepted this last point):

    a) From the Epilogue of hafiz al-Sakhawi’s
    “al-Qawl al-badi` fi al-salat `ala al-habib al-shafi`”

    [The Admirable Doctrine Concerning the Invocation upon the Beloved Intercessor]

    Shaykh al-Islam Abu Zakariyya al-Nawawi (rad.ia-LLahu `anhu) said in the ‘Adhkar’:

    “The ulama among the experts in hadith and the experts in law and others have said: it is permissible and (also) recommended that the religious practice (al-`amal) concerning good deeds and good character (al-fadâ’il), encouragement to good and discouragement from evil (al-targhib wa al-tarhib) be based (even) on weak hadith (bi al-hadith al- da`îf) as long as it is not forged (mawdu`)…

    As for legal rulings (ahkâm) such as what is permitted and what is forbidden, or the modalities of trade, marriage, divorce and other than that: one’s practice is not based upon anything other than sound (sahih) or fair (hasan) hadith, except as a precaution in some matter related to one of the above, for example, if a weak hadith was cited about the reprehensibility (karahat) of certain kinds of sales or marriages. In such cases what is recommended (al-mustahabb) is to avoid such sales and marriages, but it is not obligatory (la yajib).”

    I say: It has been reported from Imam Ahmad that one may practice on the basis of the weak hadith if there is no other hadith to that effect and also if there is no hadith that contradicts it. In one narration he is reported to say: “I like weak hadith better than men’s opinions.”

    Ibn Hazm has similarly mentioned that all Hanafi scholars unanimously agree that the school of Abu Hanifah (rad.ia-LLahu `anhu) holds that weak hadith is preferable to opinion (ra’y) and analogy (qiyâs). Ahmad was asked about someone finding himself in a country with, on the one hand, a memorizer of hadith (sâhib hadîth) who does not know the sound from the unsound, and, on the other, an authority in opinion (sâhib ra’y): who should he consult? He replied: “Let him consult the memorizer of hadith sâhib hadîth and not the authority in opinion (sâhib ra’y).”…

    Abu `Abd Allah Ibn Mandah reported from Abu Dawud, the author of the ‘Sunan’ and a student of Imam Ahmad, that Abu Dawud used to cite the chain of transmission of a weak hadith if he did not find other than it under that particular heading (bâb), and that he considered it stronger evidence than authorized opinion (ra’y al-rijâl).

    What emerges from this is that there are three diverging views:

    – No practice is based on weak hadith whatsoever (mutlaqan);
    – Practice is categorically (mutlaqan) based upon it if no other evidence is found under the same heading;
    – The majority of the scholars (al-jumhur) hold that it can be used as basis for practicing good deeds and achieving good character (yu`malu bihi fi al-fadâ’il) but not for legal rulings (dûna al-ahkâm). And God is the Granter of success.

    b) Translated from Muhammad Zaki Ibrahim in “Usul al-wusul”
    (Cairo: Azhar, 1984):

    If not proven to be forged, in which case there is absolutely no truth in it, the hadith da`îf (weak), although the pillars of veracity in it are not complete, nevertheless retains a part of truth.

    Imam Nawawi said:

    “The ulama among the muhaddithun…” [as quoted by Sakhawi above].

    I say: This is the principle adopted by the hadith master (hafiz) Ibn al-Salah, as well as what we know of the imams of hadith science among the early generations (salaf) such as Sufyan al-Thawri, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ibn `Uyaynah, Ibn al- Mubarak, Ibn Mahdi, and Ibn Ma`în… Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi devoted a chapter to that topic in his ‘Kifayah’.

    End of translated excerpts…

    I recapitulate the list of hadith masters who accept the use of hadeeth da`îf at the very least for religious practice related to ethics (fada’il al-a`mal) and in some cases even for legal rulings (Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and the entire Hanafi school), according to the above three sources (Sakhawi, Ibrahim, Keller):

    1- Nawawi
    2- Ibn al-Salah
    3- Sufyan al-Thawri
    4- Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
    5- Ibn `Uyaynah
    6- Ibn al-Mubarak
    7- Ibn Mahdi
    8- Ibn Ma`een (forgery specialist)
    9- al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in ‘al-Kifayah’, chapter entitled:
    “strictness with regard to ahadith pertaining to rulings
    and leniency with regard to those pertaining to virtuous actions”
    10- Bukhari as proven by his use of them in ‘al-Adab al- mufrad’
    11- Ali al-Qari (forgery specialist)
    12- Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.
    13- Ibn Abd al-Barr in ‘al-Isaba’.
    14- Ibn al-Qayyim in ‘I`lam al-muwaqqi`een’.
    15- Sakhawi
    16- Abu Sa`eed al-`Ala’i (forgery specialist).
    17- Abu Dawud.
    18- Hanafi school…

    It is the Consensus of the Ulema that weak hadiths can be narrated and put into practice in Islam according to al-Bayhaqî, Ibn `Abd al-Barr, al-Nawawî, Ibn Taymiyya, al-Qârî, and `Alawî ibn `Abbâs al-Mâlikî in his manual al-Manhal al-Lat.îf fî Ma`rifat al-H.adîth, provided certain conditions are met.[4] Ibn al-Sâlah, al-Nawawî and al-`Irâqî’s sole conditions were that

    (1) the hadith be related to good deeds (fad.â’il al-a`mâl)
    without bearing on legal rulings and doctrine and

    (2) the hadith not be forged…

    The dissents reported from Imâm Muslim, Ibn Hazm, and Ibn al-`Arabî are inaccurate. The correct position of Imâm Muslim in the introduction to his Sahîh. is that he forbade the use of forgers and other abandoned narrators, not of truthful weak ones, in conformity with the position of Ahmad and the rest of the Salaf.[7]

    Muslim also says: “The sound reports from the trustworthy (thiqât) narrators and those whose reliability is convincing are more than that we should be forced to transmit reports from those who are not trustworthy and whose reliability is not convincing.” The difference is clear between saying we are not forced to use weak narrators and saying that one absolutely cannot transmit from them.

    A proof of this is his use of the weak narration from `Â’isha: “Treat people according to their ranks” and the fact that his strictness in narrators drops a notch or two in the hadîths of raqâ’iq or fadâ’il al-a`mâl in the Sahîh, as in the case of Shaddâd ibn Sa`îd Abû Talhâ al-Râsibî or al-Walîd ibn Abî Walîd.[8]

    The correct position of Ibn al-`Arabî is as he states himself regarding a certain weak hadîth: “Its chain is unknown, but it is preferable to put it into practice…”[9] As for Ibn Hazm’s statement against the use of weak narrations in absolute terms:[10] he elsewhere states preferring the use of weak hadîth over the use of juridical opinion (ra’î), as does Ibn al-`Arabî himself.[11] (GF Haddad and Muhammad Sarkisian, Validity Of Weak Hadith)

  15. Sam Shamoun says:

    Ken,

    Here is a hadith on the centrality of blood sacrifices:

    Sunan Ibn Majah

    The Chapters on Sacrifices

    It was narrated from ’Aishah that the Prophet said: “The son of Adam does not do any deed on the Day of Sacrifice that is dearer to Allah than shedding blood. It will come on the Day of Resurrection with its horns and cloven hoofs and hair. Its blood is accepted by Allah before it reaches the ground. So be content when you do it.”

    Grade: Da’if (Darussalam)

    English reference: Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3126

    Arabic reference: Book 26, Hadith 3246 (Sunnah.com http://sunnah.com/urn/1272290; italic and underline emphasis ours)

    • Sam Shamoun says:

      Ken, a Muslim may interject at this point and argue that the hadith from Ibn Majah is classified as Da’if, meaning weak, and therefore cannot be used to affirm the importance that blood sacrifices play in procuring forgiveness of sins. Therefore here is the answer just in case someone does use this canard.

      The Muslim who would raise this objection is either exposing his dishonesty or his ignorance of the consensus of Islamic scholarly opinion concerning the use of so-called “weak” narrations.

      In the first place a narrative deemed to weak means that it actually passed the test, being deemed reliable enough to be included within the Islamic corpus. For a more detailed discussion we recommend viewing the following discussion by noted Muslim scholar Hamza Yusuf, “The hadith is weak (daief) brother! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COrxzfd5d2k.”

      Secondly, the majority of Muslim scholars agreed that weak narrations can be employed to encourage good deeds and good behavior, but not used to establish legal rulings (though not all hadith scholars accepted this last point):

      a) From the Epilogue of hafiz al-Sakhawi’s
      “al-Qawl al-badi` fi al-salat `ala al-habib al-shafi`”

      [The Admirable Doctrine Concerning the Invocation upon the Beloved Intercessor]

      Shaykh al-Islam Abu Zakariyya al-Nawawi (rad.ia-LLahu `anhu) said in the ‘Adhkar’:

      “The ulama among the experts in hadith and the experts in law and others have said: it is permissible and (also) recommended that the religious practice (al-`amal) concerning good deeds and good character (al-fadâ’il), encouragement to good and discouragement from evil (al-targhib wa al-tarhib) be based (even) on weak hadith (bi al-hadith al- da`îf) as long as it is not forged (mawdu`)…

      As for legal rulings (ahkâm) such as what is permitted and what is forbidden, or the modalities of trade, marriage, divorce and other than that: one’s practice is not based upon anything other than sound (sahih) or fair (hasan) hadith, except as a precaution in some matter related to one of the above, for example, if a weak hadith was cited about the reprehensibility (karahat) of certain kinds of sales or marriages. In such cases what is recommended (al-mustahabb) is to avoid such sales and marriages, but it is not obligatory (la yajib).”

      I say: It has been reported from Imam Ahmad that one may practice on the basis of the weak hadith if there is no other hadith to that effect and also if there is no hadith that contradicts it. In one narration he is reported to say: “I like weak hadith better than men’s opinions.”

      Ibn Hazm has similarly mentioned that all Hanafi scholars unanimously agree that the school of Abu Hanifah (rad.ia-LLahu `anhu) holds that weak hadith is preferable to opinion (ra’y) and analogy (qiyâs). Ahmad was asked about someone finding himself in a country with, on the one hand, a memorizer of hadith (sâhib hadîth) who does not know the sound from the unsound, and, on the other, an authority in opinion (sâhib ra’y): who should he consult? He replied: “Let him consult the memorizer of hadith sâhib hadîth and not the authority in opinion (sâhib ra’y).”…

      Abu `Abd Allah Ibn Mandah reported from Abu Dawud, the author of the ‘Sunan’ and a student of Imam Ahmad, that Abu Dawud used to cite the chain of transmission of a weak hadith if he did not find other than it under that particular heading (bâb), and that he considered it stronger evidence than authorized opinion (ra’y al-rijâl).

      What emerges from this is that there are three diverging views:

      – No practice is based on weak hadith whatsoever (mutlaqan);
      – Practice is categorically (mutlaqan) based upon it if no other evidence is found under the same heading;
      – The majority of the scholars (al-jumhur) hold that it can be used as basis for practicing good deeds and achieving good character (yu`malu bihi fi al-fadâ’il) but not for legal rulings (dûna al-ahkâm). And God is the Granter of success.

      b) Translated from Muhammad Zaki Ibrahim in “Usul al-wusul”
      (Cairo: Azhar, 1984):

      If not proven to be forged, in which case there is absolutely no truth in it, the hadith da`îf (weak), although the pillars of veracity in it are not complete, nevertheless retains a part of truth.

      Imam Nawawi said:

      “The ulama among the muhaddithun…” [as quoted by Sakhawi above].

      I say: This is the principle adopted by the hadith master (hafiz) Ibn al-Salah, as well as what we know of the imams of hadith science among the early generations (salaf) such as Sufyan al-Thawri, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ibn `Uyaynah, Ibn al- Mubarak, Ibn Mahdi, and Ibn Ma`în… Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi devoted a chapter to that topic in his ‘Kifayah’.

      End of translated excerpts…

      I recapitulate the list of hadith masters who accept the use of hadeeth da`îf at the very least for religious practice related to ethics (fada’il al-a`mal) and in some cases even for legal rulings (Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and the entire Hanafi school), according to the above three sources (Sakhawi, Ibrahim, Keller):

      1- Nawawi
      2- Ibn al-Salah
      3- Sufyan al-Thawri
      4- Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
      5- Ibn `Uyaynah
      6- Ibn al-Mubarak
      7- Ibn Mahdi
      8- Ibn Ma`een (forgery specialist)
      9- al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in ‘al-Kifayah’, chapter entitled:
      “strictness with regard to ahadith pertaining to rulings
      and leniency with regard to those pertaining to virtuous actions”
      10- Bukhari as proven by his use of them in ‘al-Adab al- mufrad’
      11- Ali al-Qari (forgery specialist)
      12- Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.
      13- Ibn Abd al-Barr in ‘al-Isaba’.
      14- Ibn al-Qayyim in ‘I`lam al-muwaqqi`een’.
      15- Sakhawi
      16- Abu Sa`eed al-`Ala’i (forgery specialist).
      17- Abu Dawud.
      18- Hanafi school…

      It is the Consensus of the Ulema that weak hadiths can be narrated and put into practice in Islam according to al-Bayhaqî, Ibn `Abd al-Barr, al-Nawawî, Ibn Taymiyya, al-Qârî, and `Alawî ibn `Abbâs al-Mâlikî in his manual al-Manhal al-Lat.îf fî Ma`rifat al-H.adîth, provided certain conditions are met.[4] Ibn al-Sâlah, al-Nawawî and al-`Irâqî’s sole conditions were that

      (1) the hadith be related to good deeds (fad.â’il al-a`mâl)
      without bearing on legal rulings and doctrine and

      (2) the hadith not be forged…

      The dissents reported from Imâm Muslim, Ibn Hazm, and Ibn al-`Arabî are inaccurate. The correct position of Imâm Muslim in the introduction to his Sahîh. is that he forbade the use of forgers and other abandoned narrators, not of truthful weak ones, in conformity with the position of Ahmad and the rest of the Salaf.[7]

      Muslim also says: “The sound reports from the trustworthy (thiqât) narrators and those whose reliability is convincing are more than that we should be forced to transmit reports from those who are not trustworthy and whose reliability is not convincing.” The difference is clear between saying we are not forced to use weak narrators and saying that one absolutely cannot transmit from them.

      A proof of this is his use of the weak narration from `Â’isha: “Treat people according to their ranks” and the fact that his strictness in narrators drops a notch or two in the hadîths of raqâ’iq or fadâ’il al-a`mâl in the Sahîh, as in the case of Shaddâd ibn Sa`îd Abû Talhâ al-Râsibî or al-Walîd ibn Abî Walîd.[8]

      The correct position of Ibn al-`Arabî is as he states himself regarding a certain weak hadîth: “Its chain is unknown, but it is preferable to put it into practice…”[9] As for Ibn Hazm’s statement against the use of weak narrations in absolute terms:[10] he elsewhere states preferring the use of weak hadîth over the use of juridical opinion (ra’î), as does Ibn al-`Arabî himself.[11] (GF Haddad and Muhammad Sarkisian, Validity Of Weak Hadith)

  16. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says:Jesus is an advocate, helper, lawyer, mediator in 1 John 2:1; yes, that is true.But in the context of John 14, 15 and 16, the paracletos is a spirit, the Spirit of truth, the Holy Spirit.Different contexts; therefore you ( θ ) don’t have a good argument.”

    The strength of argument is illustrated by explanation, not by circular dictation “it is because it is”.
    The Bible uses the particular words “Another Comforter” (Allos Paracletos) whom the Father shall give because Jesus needs to pray to God for him, hence he is a higher than Jesus, whereas the Spirit of Truth is under Jesus’ name, and already proceeds from the Father without needing Jesus to pray for him.
    Jn 14:16
    And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

    Notice two different tenses in John 15:26: Shall (future time) for the Comforter, and “proceedeth” (past time) for the Spirit.
    Jn 15:26
    But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

    The Comforter whom Jesus shall pray for must be someone that is very special, better and higher than (at least equal with) Jesus, not a lower spirit is under his name.
    There are two different beings. Another Comforter is a man better than (or equal with) Jesus, that is Al-Amin (Prophet Muhammad), and the Spirit is Ruh al-Amin (Gabriel) that is under Jesus’ name during his life.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Every argument by Muslims who are trying to find Muhammad in John 14, 15 and 16 is so weak and unreasonable, it is amazing that any Muslim would continue to try and make that case. All your arguments have been demolished on that issue.

      It cannot be about Muhammad because it is about the Holy Spirit, who is not human, who will be with the disciples in a few weeks, and with them forever, and live inside of them spiritually. John 7:37-39; Acts chapters 1-2.

      A human who comes about 600 years later cannot be the parakleatos. παρακλητος

      • Sam Shamoun says:

        Ken, keep hammering the fact if Muhammad is the Paraclete then the Father and the Son are both Allah, Muhammad’s God, because they send the Paraclete. Note the logic behind this:

        A. Father and Son send the Paraclete from the Father in the name of the Son to glorify the Son.

        B. Muhammad is that Paraclete.

        C. Allah sent Muhammad in the name of Allah to glorify Allah.

        D. Therefore, the Father and Son must be Allah, the One who sent Muhammad a.k.a. Paraclete.

        This in turn proves that the Muslims corrupted the Quran after Muhammad’s death because they twisted his message to deny that Allah is the Father or the Son, even though Muhammad would have never taught such a thing since, as the Paraclete, he surely knew and worshiped the Father and Son as his God Allah.

        Don’t let them get away from dealing with these facts.

  17. θ says:

    “Sam Shamoun says: … Its blood is accepted by Allah before it reaches the ground. So be content when you do it ”

    The content of Hadith is quite careless by having apparent contradiction to Qur’an since neither blood nor flesh can reach Allah in light of Q.22, v.37, let alone the smoke of burned fats.

    We Moslems do not know of the Sin Offering or the Burnt Offering that need to be immolated in fire for the sin atonement. Of course we have to shed the blood of the cattle before eating its flesh, it has nothing to do with (similar to the Thank Offering)..

  18. Sam Shamoun says:

    Ken, here is my latest article which quotes from the Study Quran: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2016/05/let-study-quran-speak-pt-2.html

    This should prove helpful because I quote the writers/editors of the Study candidly acknowledge that the Quran affirm the textual authority and validity of the Holy Bible, and that the Muslim scripture further teaches that they don’t need Muhammad since they have all they need in their Scriptures!

  19. θ says:

    “Sam Shamoun says: the Muslim scripture further teaches that they don’t need Muhammad since they have all they need in their Scriptures!”

    Qur’an is tolerating a Common Ground, but not pluralism. Qur’an would not tolerate a compulsion on everyone to convert under the impossible “New World Order” against the human nature to differ. Diversities are united in a Common Ground, i.e. good works, not in a syncretism of Faith. It is some sort of pseudo-secularism though (separation between Faith and State) but with religious sense, that is precisely a separation between Faith and Common Ground.
    Prophet Muhammad gives example for a righteous Common Ground with Jews, Christians, even heathens in light of Q.9, v.6.
    Q.5, v.48. To every one of you We have appointed a right way and an open road. If God had willed, He would have made you one nation; but that He may try you in what has come to you. So be you forward in good works;

  20. θ says:

    It is fact that the word “Pluralism” is euphemism for freedom to have a heresy from the established religions.

  21. Sam Shamoun says:

    And make sure to check this link out to see what Rashi says: http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16492#showrashi=true

  22. θ says:

    Son vs. servant: How the Bible is Islamic.
    Paul explains the meaning behind the word “child” in the Bible as a servant.
    Gal 4:1
    Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all;2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.

    What the Bible called as son of God in heaven and on the earth is God’s servant.
    Q.19, v.93. There is none in the heavens and the earth but cometh unto the Beneficent as a servant.

    What the Gospel called as Sons and daughters of God are the honored servants.
    Q.21, v.26 And they say: The Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a son. Be He Glorified, Nay, but they are honoured servants.

  23. θ says:

    Rashi’s commentary on Daniel 9:27 is contrary to what Jesus did: Jesus does a sacrifice, not abolish sacrifice.
    Rashi’s Dan 9:27 And he will strengthen a covenant for the princes for one week, and half the week he will abolish sacrifice and meal- offering, and on high, among abominations, will be the dumb one, and until destruction and extermination befall the dumb one.

    Jesus does a sacrifice, not abolish sacrifice.
    Heb 7:27
    Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

    Moreover, early Jewish Christians such as James and disciples approved Moses’ Law (rite of Purification and sacrifice for each observers), and in heaven the daily Burnt Offering still goes on.
    Rev 8
    3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Both – Jesus by voluntarily offering Himself up, as the last and final sacrifice, then abolished all animal sacrifices in the temple as valid or efficacious after that.

      Then, God ordained the Romans to destroy the temple in 70 AD, and there has truly been no animal sacrifices that are valid since that time.

      So, Jesus fulfilled all of Daniel 9:24-27.

  24. θ says:

    For sure Jesus offered sacrifice, whereas Daniel 9:27 says otherwise. Moreover there’s no any verse where Jesus may indicate to abolish the Law. In fact he says numerous times (Jn 7:23, Jn 10:35, Mt 23:23, Lk 11:42, Jn 7:19) that the Scripture can’t be undone or broken.

    How can Jesus abolish animal sacrifices of Daniel 9:27 if he says it can’t be unless both heaven and earth pass.
    Lk 16:17
    And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the Law to fail.

    How can Jesus abolish animal sacrifices if early Jewish Christians such as James and disciples sided with Jews by approving Law (rite of Purification) for Paul to keep:
    Acts 21
    24 Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.

    How can Jesus abolish animal sacrifices if early Jewish Christians such as James and disciples approved Law of sacrifice for Paul to do:
    Acts 21
    26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

    How can Jesus abolish animal sacrifices if in heaven the daily Burnt Offering still goes on even after he ascends up there.
    Rev 8
    3 And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne.4 And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand.

  25. θ says:

    “Ken Temple says: A human who comes about 600 years later cannot be the parakleatos.παρακλυτος”

    Paracletos is a human because Jesus is a paracletos too, not some sort of Gnostic spirit, as in 1 John 2:1.

    “Sam Shamoun says: Note the logic behind this:A. Father and Son send the Paraclete from the Father in the name of the Son to glorify the Son.”

    Logic? Thereis no logical argument in a circular dictation of “it is because it is”.
    The strength of Moslem’s argument is illustrated by at least two main explanations.
    (1) Pray.
    The Bible uses the particular words “Another Comforter” (Allos Paracletos) whom the Father shall give because Jesus needs to pray to God for him, hence he is a “higher” person than Jesus, whereas the Spirit of Truth is under Jesus’ name, and already proceeds from the Father without needing Jesus to pray for him.
    Jn 14:16
    And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

    The only person whom Jesus has to pray God for in the Gospels is that Another Comforter.

    (2) Timeline of coming.
    Notice two different tenses in John 15:26: Shall, will (future time) for the Comforter, and “proceedeth” (past time) for the Spirit.
    Jn 15:26
    But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

    Conclusion:
    Another Comforter whom Jesus shall pray for must be someone very special, better and higher than (at least equal with) Jesus, not a lower spirit under his name.
    There are two different beings. Another Comforter is a man better than (or equal with) Jesus, that is Al-Amin (Prophet Muhammad), and the Spirit is Ruh al-Amin (Gabriel) that is under Jesus’ name during his life.

  26. θ says:

    “Sam Shamoun says: You will love this one since the Study Quran admits that Allah repents! http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2016/05/let-study-quran-speak-pt-3-allah-does.html

    Arabic word Tawwab or Tawbah means inclining toward or leaning, whereas Arabic for returning back is Ruju’. The specific Arabic word for coming back spiritually in the context of sin (repentance) is Hitah in Q.2, v.58 and Q.7, v.161.

    Inclining and leaning of God in the Bible:
    Ps 17:6
    I have called upon thee, for thou wilt hear me, O God: incline thine ear unto me, and hear my speech.
    Isa 37:17
    Incline thine ear, O LORD, and hear; open thine eyes, O LORD, and see: and hear all the words of Sennacherib, which hath sent to reproach the living God.

  27. Sam Shamoun says:

    Ken, this older, lengthy article is a must read since it deals with the issue of the Quran and blood atonement which refute Faiz’s nonsense. Study this, use it in your witness and pass it on to others: http://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/bloodatonement.htm

    I am almost done with a 3 part reply to Faiz’s lies and distortions concerning this issue which I am writing to help you share the truth and refute the Muslim lies. Lord willing, I will send you the links to them when I am thru.

  28. θ says:

    “Sam Shamoun says: this older, lengthy article is a must read since it deals with the issue of the Quran and blood atonement ”

    Trinitarian apologists are incapable of articulating the doctrine of abrogation of Law. Certainly it is a proof that it is not quite substantial for them, otherwise they could have easily explained with a very simple argument why early Jewish Christians such as James and disciples sided with Jews by approving Law (rite of Purification) for Paul to keep, as well as offering for everyone, and the continuous daily Burnt Offering in heaven.
    The doctrine of abrogation of Law is not substantial for Trinitarians, even they don’t care about it much.

  29. Sam Shamoun says:

    Not surprisingly Williams has disabled my comments. Oh well.

    • Ken Temple says:

      Is he keeping the door open with this?

      “Sam we are still waiting for your reply to my article. Try and keep it focused on the issues discussed there. Let’s see if you can avoid foul language as the NT says you should…”

      If you stick to just issues and facts, he may let you comment more. You don’t need the little barbs and jabs you add. 😉 If you have a less aggressiveness, he may let you comment more often and longer. 😉

      The articles you wrote at Reformed Apologetics were excellent since they were factual and didn’t have any of that extra
      edgy snarkiness.

  30. Sam Shamoun says:

    Brother Ken, is the first part of a 3 part rebuttal I did to obliterate Faiz’s abuse and misuse of Quran 22:37: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2016/05/does-islam-reject-need-for-vicarious.html

    I wrote this primarily to help you refute him. The other two parts are filled with references proving that Muhammad confirmed the Holy Bible, and in so doing ended up confirming the need for blood atonement.

    Hope this helps you brother.
    Sam

  31. θ says:

    Paraclete is indeed an instrument that comes from the Father.

    If it is allowed for Jesus, it is allowed for Montanus, right? It is supposed to be not difficult for Trinitarians to believe in a “multi-nature” of Montanus if they believe in Chalcedonian Jesus with dual nature.
    “I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete,” said Montanus (Didymus, “De Trin.”, III, xli);

    Jesus uses the word “I am” too.
    If it is allowed for Jesus, it is allowed for Montanus. Nothing is more simpler than that.

    Human persons such as Montanus and Maximilla claimed themselves being Paraclete, as well as the promised spirit.
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
    The prophets did not speak as messengers of God: “Thus saith the Lord,” but described themselves as possessed by God and spoke in His Person. “I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete,” said Montanus (Didymus, “De Trin.”, III, xli);

    And again: “I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man”, and “neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come” (Epiphanius, “Hær.”, xlviii, 11).

    And Maximilla said: “I am not a wolf, but I am speech, and spirit, and power.”

    Montanus declared: “The Lord hath sent me as the chooser, the revealer, the interpreter of this labor, this promise, and this covenant, being forced, willingly or unwillingly, to learn the gnosis of God.”

Comments are closed.