"The Origin of Quran. Its transmission, compilation, corruption/preservation and current status". 


The debate will be hosted jointly by Exploring Faiths Organization (THIS BLOG) and the group "Religion, philosophy, let us talk about it" (http://www.facebook.com/groups/181024738596591/) and Islamic Perimeter (www.islamicperimeter.com). The debate will be published onhttp://www.exploringfo.blogspot.com and in the group mentioned above and also on the website http;//www.islamicperimeter.com

Mr. Ninad Gaikwad: is a 19 year old student of computer science. He is an atheist. He possesses profound knowledge on Quraan and Sunnah. As an atheist he is strictly pro science, and anti dogma. He was the participator of the first debate in the Forum "Religion, Philosophy, Let's talk about it" with Shah Saaib Ahmed Rabbani on the topic "What is better for the society, Shariah or the current social order?". We are honored to invite him again for the second debate.

I shall divide this paper into two parts. First part will address the papers by the opposition and the second part will be dedicated to Muhammad’s timely revelations like I promised in my last paper.

Let’s start with Saaib Ahmed. You begin by criticizing our papers and asserting that we aren’t addressing everything in the topic. I can’t speak for my teammates, but I intend to make use of the multiple paper system of the debate and go into a particular topic one paper at a time. In this paper I intend to attack Muhammad’s intents. 

You then go ahead and take the liberty of judging the papers by both sides and to everyone’s astonishment believe that the Muslim side is winning. It was an utterly pointless exercise. 
You then go on in detail how your side successfully proved the source of Quran being god. We all love to be our own critics don’t we? I’m just going to ignore all the words you spent judging and praising your own side. 

Moving along you support the argument made by Shakoor against my accusations of “borrowing”. I will respond to that when I address Shakoor. Whatever points you made next are addressed in my last paper except one about how changing the way of writing actually changes the meaning of words in Arabic. If you deny that then you do not possess basic knowledge of ancient Arabic and/or are being purposefully dishonest. 

Then you move on to straight out deny the satanic verses incident portraying once again your bias against sources which make Islam look bad. Unfortunately for you though you will have to against the Quran to do this. 

Never did We send a messenger or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and Allah will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom:

That He may make the suggestions thrown in by Satan, but a trial for those in whose hearts is a disease and who are hardened of heart: verily the wrong-doers are in a schism far (from the Truth):
Qur'an 22:52-53

If this incident never occurred then these verses don’t make sense. Either it happened or the Quran is imperfect and flat out lying about events that never took place. 

Your suggestion that I debate Dave is pointless. Must I explain you the purpose of the debate? Your side has the responsibility of coming up with a sound theory which is consistent with the evidence and shows that the Quran is uncorrupted and Muhammad was divinely inspired. My side simply needs to poke holes in your theory and if need be provide alternative explanations which are also consistent with the evidence. We may come up with as many different theories as possible as long as they are consistent. In fact the more theories we come up with the stronger will our case be. 

Now I’ll address Shakoor Saafir. You give the old excuse of plagiarism. Yes we all know that the Quran claims to be the sequel of the bible, and still none of the authors of the bible spoke of a coming sequel. The biblical myths the Quran regurgitates are poorly reproduced and it is clear by anyone who has read both that the stories in the Quran are narrated by someone with only a basic understanding of the stories of the bible. There are too many mistakes and inconsistencies to ignore. No matter what excuse is given for plagiarizing, the fact remains that the stories are unoriginal, lacking in detail, have different details and are poorly written, like someone narrating them from memory after hearing them from a different source. 
At the time of Muhammad, Arabic orthography was yet to develop into what we have known for centuries. There was no distinction between letters of the Arabic alphabets of similar shape and there were no vowel marks. There were no dots above or below the letters either. For the interpretors who added diacritical marks, to read the Qur'an as it was originally written, would lead the reader to interpret and choose for themselves from the many possible meanings available in the Arabic without diacritical marks.
The word for “girl” is “bent”. The word is composed of three letters which are “Ba”, “n” or noon”, and “Ta”. When these three letters are connected to each other without diacritical marks they will appear identical. They will look like three adjacent crescents facing upwards. The difference between them is nothing. Only the diacritical marks (and the dots) can differentiate between them. Here is how it works:
If you put one point below any one of them, it's "Ba"
If you put two points below any one of them, it's "ya"
If you put one point above any one of them, it's "non"
If you put two points above any one of them, it's "Ta"
If you put three points above any one of them, it's "Tha"
Therefore, there are a multitude of possible alternatives that could arise from the arrangements of diacritical marks on each of the letters.

According to Ibn Taymiyyah in "Sheik of the Muslims", Muslims began using diacritical marks because reading errors began to appear:
The companions (Muhammad’s friends or “Sahaba”) did not vocalize or provide diacritical points for the letters of the Qur’anic copies which they wrote, but later during the last part of the companions’ era, when reading errors came into being, they began to provide diacritical points for the copies of the Qur’an and to vocalize them. This was admissible by the authority of the majority of the scholars, though some of them disliked it. The truth is, it should not be disliked because the situation necessitated it, and the diacritical points distinguish the letters from each other while vocalization explains the grammatical inflection.[3]
Ibn Taymiyyah also states:
The companions of Muhammad had never used the diacritical points or the vocalization for the Qur’an. For each word, there were two readings—either to use (for instance) ‘ya’ or ‘tah’ in such words as ‘they do’ or ‘you do’. The companions did not forbid one of the readings in favor of the other, then some successors of the companions began to use the diacritical points and vocalization for the Qur’an.[4]
This means more than one reading was accepted by Muhammad.

You then claimed that “The inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock were in part borrowed and sampled from the Quran and recreated with artistic license and was never meant to be an exact copy of the Quran or verses therein. It becomes apparent once we read the inscription.”

You follow this by pointing out the differences in Quran and the writing on the Dome. I don’t understand what you meant to do here? I know there are differences. That was my point. Your claim that they are “in part borrowed and sampled from the Quran and recreated with artistic license” is baseless and unfounded. 

Your rebuttal against the satanic verses doesn’t actually merit a response because you never made a case against my point. My point was that Muhammad did it on purpose and Gabriel doesn’t exist, so I don’t know how to respond to your argument when you use a non existing being to argue your case (a premise which I don’t accept). 

Moving on to Mushafiq Sultan who also honors us with his completely unbiased judgment of both the sides and once again comes to the astonishing and unexpected conclusion that Saaib did. It almost reminds me of the Quranic challenge to create a verse like it/surah like it/10 surahs like it (depending on which verse you read). 
He doesn’t really address me after that, and I trust my teammates will successfully refute any and all further assertions made. 

Now we finally get to the second part where I will list Muhammad’s convenient revelations. 
Muhammad seemed to have quite a penchant for receiving revelations from Allah just-in-time to absolve him of misconduct. It seems quite astounding that an eternally existing heavenly scripture would contain revelation that applies only to one individual who lived in 7th century Arabia. Nevertheless, this is exactly what we find.
The following are but a few examples of the prophet of Allah being rescued rather conveniently from one predicament or another by divine revelation.

Allah revealed to Muhammad that Muslim men are permitted to marry up to four women.

"And if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan-girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three, or four but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one or (the captives and the slaves) that your right hands possess."
Qur'an 4:3

However, it seemed Muhammad had a special place in his heart for women and was not satisfied with a mere four. So Allah set an exception for him alone:
"O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses -- whom God has given to you, and the daughters of your 'Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your 'Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khâl (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khâlah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers."
Qur'an 33:50

And although Allah allowed men to marry up to four wives, Muhammad allowed only one wife for his son-in-law Ali who was married to Muhammad's daughter Fatima. When Ali desired to take a second wife, Muhammad insisted he first divorce Fatima before taking a new wife.
Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama:

I heard Allah's Apostle who was on the pulpit, saying, "Banu Hisham bin Al-Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abu Talib, but I don't give permission, and will not give permission unless 'Ali bin Abi Talib divorces my daughter in order to marry their daughter, because Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me."
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:157

Muhammad carved special exceptions to marriage for himself by divine revelation, and forbid for his son-in-law Ali something permitted all other Muslim men per Allah's revelation in theQur'an.

In the same verse noted above Qur'an 4:3 is an injunction to treat all wives equally... " but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one...".

Muhammad initially gave each of his multiple wives equal attention and time with him, visiting a different wife each night. As time progressed however, he developed favorite wives who garnered more attention and affection than others. This created a great deal of tension among the ladies, and jealousy and rage ensued. But fear not; Muhammad received another revelation absolving him from the earlier admonition to treat all wives as equals and deal with them justly, and allowed him to select his favorite wives according to his desire alone:

"You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive whom you will. And whomsoever you desire of those whom you have set aside (her turn temporarily), it is no sin on you (to receive her again), that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieved, and may all be pleased with what you give them. God knows what is in your hearts. And God is Ever All-Knowing, Most Forbearing."
Qur'an 33:51

Aisha, the favorite wife of Muhammad, was very discerning of his just-in-time revelations. After Muhammad received the verse above, Aisha commented, "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."[1]

As stated above, Muhammad used to take turns among his wives, visiting a different one each night. One night during the time allotted for Hafsa, she had to take care of an urgent need with another family member and so was not at home. Muhammad instead had intimate relations with Mary, a Coptic slave that had been given to him. Muhammad was not married to Mary the Copt.
When Hafsah found this out and questioned him, he promised (on oath) not to touch Mary again if she would keep this a secret, and promised that Umar and Abu Bakr should be his successors. Hafsah, however, did not keep quiet and told Aysha about this event. As a result Muhammad had no dealings with any of his wives for a full month, living with Mary alone. [2]Aisha and Hafsa conspired with the rest of the prophet's wives against Muhammad and isolated him from physical relations.
To justify his actions with Mary, Muhammad then conveniently received a revelation:

"O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which God has made lawful to you.."
Qur'an 66:1
And to add insult to injury, Allah then chastised Aisha and Hafsa for condemning Muhammad for having sex with Mary the slave girl:

And (remember) when the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. 'Aishah), and God made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: "Who told you this?" He said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware (God) has told me". If you two (wives of the Prophet , namely 'Aishah and Hafsah) turn in repentance to God, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad), then verily, God is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers. It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to God), believers, obedient to God, turning to God in repentance, worshipping God sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for God's sake), previously married and virgins."
Qur'an 66:3-5

Again we find in a book that has always and eternally existed from before the beginning of time verses that pertain only to a select few individuals who lived in one specific time and place, and seem to absolve Muhammad of any and all wrongdoing.
After examining these few examples, of which there are more, one must conclude that Muhammad's revelations were not divinely inspired or sent down at all by Allah but were used instead as a convenient way of exonerating himself from misdeeds, immoral actions, or other embarrassing moments. Muhammad alone was given special privileges accorded nobody else, and always in line with his expressed personal desires. 

There are plenty more verses which were revealed conveniently for Muhammad’s benefit, but I believe I have made my argument pretty strong already. No need to dilute the effect by just listing all the verses. 

In the end I would like to ask the readers as to why an all knowing, omnipotent being would talk to individuals in private and then instruct them to convey his message to the rest of the population. Does this not seem suspicious? A god which is described by the Quran wouldn’t need a messenger or a book. He especially wouldn’t bother fulfilling his messenger’s wishes, nor would he order his followers to follow THE MESSENGER. Muhammad grew quite bold in the later years of his prophethood and “revealed” verses which ordered followers to take instruction directly from Muhammad himself, cutting out the puppet he had invented altogether. 

By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restating the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs. What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate? What kind of designer or creator is so cruel and indifferent? And—most of all—what kind of designer or creator only chooses to “reveal” himself to semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions?

-Christopher Hitchens.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

0 Response to "The Origins of Quran. Paper 15. Ninad's Rebuttal."

Post a Comment