Posted by Mohamed Ghounem on November 12, 1997 at 16:26:28:
In Reply to: Re: Mish'al Abdullah Al-Kadhi's book posted by Christoph Heger on November 11, 1997 at 14:05:54:
Dear Brother Christoph,
I am honored by your response,
I will start where you do;
{ So, why did you?}
I enjoy helping people to the Right Path. For people who refuse and insist on defaming Islam, I enjoy exposing them. Observe:
{What you, Mohamed, apparently don't know: Jesus surely had some command of the Greek language, too. He grew up in a region of rather mixed population, parts of which spoke Greek, the main medium of communication in the Eastern mediterranian of those times.}
The Books collected into the New Testament do not constitute the utterances of Jesus nor of his disciples. Jesus was of Jewish ancestry and so were his disciples. If any of Jesus' utterances were to be found preserved in their original form, they could only be in the Hebrew language.
Same is the case with the utterances of his disciples. But no copy of the New Testament in ancient Hebrew exists in the world. The old copies are all in Greek.
Christian writers try to cover this Grave Defect by saying that in the times of Jesus the language in general use was Greek as you do. This is impossible for more reasons than one.
Nations do not easily give up their language. It is for them as valuable an inheritance as any property or other possession. In Eastern Europe, there are people who for three or four hundred years have lived under Russian rule, but their languages remain intact to this day.
France and Spain have ruled over Morocco and Algeria for a long time. Yet the language of these former subjected people is still Arabic. Two thousand years have passed since the time of Jesus. Yet the Jews have not forgotten their language.
Even today, in parts of Europe and America, Jews speak "Yiddish", a corrupt form of ancient Hebrew. If this long lapse of time spent amongst other peoples has not destroyed the Jewish language, then Roman rule in Palestine which had begun only about 50 years before the advent of Jesus was not long enough for a people to forget their language. But there are other important considerations also to be kept in view:
1. Nations which attain to any importance in history do not give up
their language, and the Jews were a very important people indeed.
2. The religion of the Jews was recorded in Hebrew and for this
reason particularly it was impossible for them to give up their
language.
3. In the scale of civilization and refinement, the Jews did not
regard themselves as inferior to the Romans, rather they felt
Superior and this must have made them proud of their language
and reluctant to give it up.
4. The Jews entertained hopes for the return of their political
power; nations which fear the future become pessimistic and
therefore tend to lose pride in their language. But the Jews in
the time of Jesus were awaiting the advent of their King who
was to re-establish Jewish rule. Looking forward to such a
future, they could not have been so negligent in protecting
their language.
5. Jewish authors of that time wrote in their own language or in
some corrupt form of it. If their language had changed, we
should have had books of the time written in a language other
than Hebrew.
6. The oldest manuscripts of the New Testament are in Greek. But in the time of Jesus, the Roman Empire had not become divided into two halves. The center of the Empire was still Rome. The Roman and Greek languages are very difficult. If Roman influence had at all penetrated Jewish life, it should have resulted in the assimilation of Latin (and not Greek) words into the Hebrew language. Yet the oldest manuscripts of the Gospels are all in Greek. This proves that the Gospels were written down at a time when the Roman Empire had become divided and its eastern possession had become part of the Greek Empire, so that the Greek language had begun to exert its influence on Christianity and its literature.
7. Phrases such as the following which are preserved in the
Gospels in their original form are all Hebrew phrases:
(a) "Hossana" - Matthew 21:9 (b) "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani" - Matthew 27:46 (c) "Rabbi" - John 3:2 (d) "Talitha cumi" - Mark 5:41
From the Acts, it appears that even after the crucifixion Jews spoke Hebrew:
"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold are not all these which speak Galilaeans ? And how hear we, every man in our own tongue, where in we were born ? Parthians and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia,and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and in strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this ? Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine."
(Acts 2:3-13)
It is evident that at this time the language spoken in Palestine was Hebrew. Speaking any other language was extraordinary. Among the names mentioned is Rome, which means that the Roman language was not spoken in Palestine and whoever spoke it seemed a stranger. We are not concerned here with the merits of the narrative but we only wish to point out that this passage from the Acts proves conclusively that even after the crucifixion the language of the Jews was Hebrew. Those who knew other languages were exceptions. When some of the disciples spoke these other languages - among them latin. some people thought they were drunk and talking nonsense. If the country as a whole used Roman or Greek. no such reaction would be possible.
It is clear, therefore, that the language which Jesus and his disciples spoke was Hebrew, not Latin or Greek. So copies of the New Testament written down in Latin or Greek must have been written down long after the time of Jesus, at a time when Christianity had begun to penetrate into Roman territory and Roman imperialist power had become divided into the Italian and Greek Parts. Books of this kind, composed 100 or 200 years after Jesus by unknown authors and attributed by them to Jesus and his disciples, can be of little use to any believer today. It was necessary, therefore, that we should have had another book sent to us from heaven, free from these defects and one which readers could regard with certainty as the very Word of God.
{Please explain: Who accepted the Bible in English -- instead of its original languages - as word of God? }
Every Western church which preaches, and asks for Prayers in English, all.
{In which passages and when the bible was tempered with? Show some paleographic evidence!}
I was going to write out a long list for you, but instead I'll just give you this link, if you answer this particular one, an ex-priest will give you $2,000 Further more, this is if you want to read Christian Scholars admit to the "paleographic evidence"
{Again, my argument was about the nonsense Al-Kadhi wrote about the Greek text in John: 1:1-2. In the meantime I learnt that Al-Kadhi got this nonsense from Ahmad Deedat. That's explanation enough.}
Are you a Christian Bishop, because as the link above shows, Christian Bishops, Scholars, and Priests admitting to the faults, but I guess you know more.
{ I appreciate your sense of humour. My personal favorite amongst the contradictions Jochen displayed in the Qur'an is the mathematics of Qur'anic hereditary rules, where the portions sometimes add up to more than 100 percent.}
I am amused you mention this one:
1. The Koran gives women inheritance rights almost 1,500 years ago, they have the right to inherit property and wealth, God gave this rule centuries before the West adopted it alittle less than a 100 years ago, maybe because the Bible claims only men get to inherit, not women
2. Here is the Claim:
{ The Our'an, Sura 4:82
And it just doesn't add up: Sura 4:11-12 and 4:176 State the Qur'anic inheritance law. If a man dies and leaves three daughters, his two parents and his wife then they will receive the respective shares of 2/3 for the 3 daughters together, 1/3 for the parents together [both according to verse 4:11] and 1/8 for the Wife [4:12] which adds up to more than the estate available_
A second example is, that When a man leaves only his other, his Wife and two sisters, then they receive 1/3 [mother, 4:11 ], 1/4 [wife, 4:12] and 2/3 [the two sisters, 4:176], which again adds up to I 5/12 of the available property.}
The verses dealing with inheritance are not as Jochen may imagine only these couple of verses. There are many other Verses in different locations throughout the Koran dealing with this issue_ They range over the Chapters of AI-Baqarah(2), AI-Nissa(4), AI-Maidah(5), AI-Anfal(8), etc.
3. Jochen tries to take a Biblical yardstick and attempt to force it upon the Koran. For Christians there is only one divine reference; the Bible. In Islam there are two; the Koran and the Sunnah (or Hadeeth). The Koran can not be interpreted by Muslims based upon their personal desires. It has to be done in the light of how the prophet taught it. This is indeed the system which Allah commands us to follow in these verses.
"He who obeys the messenger has indeed obeyed Allah." Koran(4):80
"And We (God) have sent down unto you (Muhammad) the Reminder (Our'an), that you might make clear to mankind that which was sent down unto them and perchance they might reflect" Koran(16)244
"And We (God) have not sent down unto you (Muhammad) the Book (the Qur'an) except that you might make clear to them that in which ~!iey differ, and [as]a guidance and a mercy for a folk who believe" Koran(16):64
"And Whatsoever the Messenger gives you take it, and Whatsoever he forbids you, abstain [from it]. And guard yourselves from Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment" Koran(59):7
"... And if you should differ in anything among yourselves then refer it to Allah and His messenger if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day, That is better for you and best in interpretation" Koran(4):59 etc…
Islamic law is based Upon two references, the Koran (sayings of God) and the Sunnah (sayings and actions of the Prophet). At times the Koran contains a given law, at others the law is found in the Hadeeth. and in still other cases the broad outlines of a given law are presented in the Koran and the details are explained in the Hadeeth.
For example. the Koran only commands Muslims to "pray." The details of how to pray are found in the Hadeeths of the prophet and described by the companions who saw him teach it and were themselves taught by him directly.
If a non-Muslim does not like this system and rejects it then this in no Way makes it any less the law of Islam or the command of God. Indeed this system itself is taught by God in the Koran. Examples of God commanding Muslims to obey the prophet and abide by the laws of the Sunnah and Hadeeth in interpreting the Koran are:
"He who obeys the messenger has indeed obeyed Allah." Koran(4):80
"And We (God) have sent down unto you (Muhammad) the Reminder (Koran), that you might make clear to mankind that which was sent down unto them and perchance they might reflect" Koran(16)244
"And We (God) have not sent down unto you (Muhammad) the Book (the Koran) except that you might make clear to them that in which they differ, and [as]a guidance and a mercy for a folk who believe" Koran(16):64
"And Whatsoever the Messenger gives you take it, and Whatsoever he forbids you, abstain [from it]. And guard yourselves from Allah, verily Allah is severe in punishment" Koran(59):7
"... And if you should differ in anything among yourselves then refer it to Allah and His messenger if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day, That is better for you and best in interpretation" Koran(4):59 etc…
A Messenger of God is not simply a tape recorder that records everything that is spoken into it an then regurgitates it without explanation. Far from it. A Messenger of God is a teacher whose job it is to not only pass out the textbook but to also explain the text itself. teach it. answer the student's questions regarding it, and clarify all passages wherein they find difficulty.
Jochen however, prefers to take the short route of simply reading the Koran and then applying to it the meaning he chooses. In spite of what the Prophet had to say in this regard.
4. Suffice it to say that the question appears to display a complete unawareness of any {Hadeeth} aspects of the discipline of AI-Fara'id, its basis, its subdivisions, its special cases, the rules of "Awl" and '"Usbah," the laws of "'Usool"' of the Fara'id, the laws of ""Hajb wa Hirman," and many other issues relating to this matter of inheritance.
Jochen's particular example falls under the laws of "Awl" which regulate the cases When the inheritor's shares exceed or '"overshoot"' the sum of the total inheritance, and in which case the inheritance is recalculated according to the laws of "Awl" and redistributed. In the above two cases, the distribution would be "Parents: 4/27 each, wife:l/9, daughters: l 6/27" and for the second case, "'Mother:4/15, Wife:3/15, Sisters:8/15." The books of "Fiq" contain specific examples of "Awl", such as the Awl of Umar ibn aI-Khattab, however, the interested reader can study this issue further by referring to any number of references on Islamic Fiq_
There are yet other cases when the number of inheritors and their shares do not sum to a whole 1OO%, in which case the laws of "Usbah" come into play in order to distribute the unclaimed shares which have no corresponding people to receive them. Then there are the laws of "'Hajb wa Hitman," which encompass still other special cases of inheritance and block normally deserving relatives from inheriting in special extraordinary cases.
Jochen objects to Islamic law and wishes it to conform to his tastes. Christians officially have only one reference; the Bible. This is why he and some of his friends at times try to force this same system on Muslims. They insist that Islamic law come only from the Koran, thus effectively blotting out roughly one half of Islamic law.
{ Even if the Qur'an were "scientifically and literally perfect" -- what would be proven by that?}
That there is a book by God more accurate and reliable than the Bible.
{ But on the contrary, it not only contains a variety of contradictions and scientific humbug }
Humbugs?, show at least 1, or do you rely on the way Brother Jochen twists the words, Real Scientists have already proven the Koran to be from God, our Brother Jochen has proven he is willing to lie for his pride, despite God.
Since you say "Humbugs", let's look at the Bee. {Koran 16:68} "And your Lord inspired the Bee, build your dwellings in hills, on trees, and in {human's} habitations."
The imperative "build" above is the translation of the Arabic word "attakhithi", which is feminine form {Arabic unlike English, differentiates between the sexes} The feminine form is used when all of those it refers to are female, whereas the masculine is used when a group consists of at least 1 male.
Therefore the Koran is in fact saying "build, you female bees.." A swarm of bees {who collect honey and build the hive}, are female only, thus the phrasing of this command is in agreement with the Fact that male bees do not partake in the construction of the hive.
{ a lot of linguistic faults which possibly are the traces of the Qur'an's emendation from a text in the Arabic vernacular to a text in Classical Arabic.}
I have already answered this concern in a Previous Reply, the Koran is perfect. You try to find fault in the Koran from God that Labels Jesus as Sinless, while the Bible Labels Jesus as a Sinner
The Straight Path is in front of you, follow your logic, you know what is right.
Your Brother in Islam: Mohamed.