A Question About Allah

I know the question has been asked before, but I'm here to ask it again. I'd like to know why Allah refers to himself in the plural number. Why does Allah use the plural pronouns "We", "Us", and "Our" in the Qur'an? To forestall any complaints from Muslims that this has already been answered before, let it be stated that I am well aware that such attempts have been made. My question stems from the fact that no conclusive or even satisfactory answer has ever been given or agreed upon by Muslims. So, to return to the question, "Why, pray tell, does Muhammad put such words in Allah's mouth?" Since neither the Qur'an nor the Hadith ever directly address the issue or explain the phenomenon any answer would have to be inferred from Qur'anic usage. What, then, is the explanation, and what are the relevant premises or facts that demonstrate it to be correct? I take the explanation that its meaning is only known to Allah to be a non-answer, a convenient out for an issue on which the Qur'an gives no guidance. For those Muslims who think Allah's use of plural pronouns means something, and who further think the meaning of these words can be known from the "revelation" of the Qur'an, a word that means nothing in this regard if what is said in the Qur'an on this issue is only intelligible to Allah, then please speak up. Nota Bene: If you are a Muslim, I am not asking what you think my view is. I'm looking for a positive answer to the question and not a "refutation" of what anyone thinks my view may be. If you are a non-Muslim, feel free to share any answer from Muslim sources of which you are aware.

View article...

Egyptian Women’s Rights - Here yesterday gone today?

 

Guess which picture is more recent? As Egypt becomes increasingly radicalized, we see the rights of women moving further and further back in time. Nonie Darwish, featured in Obsession, explains how this radicalization is in part, a rejection of Western values. "Expecting Muslim women to be behind the reformation of Islam and Sharia, is like asking slaves to end their own slavery without their masters' approval or asking prisoners to get out of prison without the guards opening the doors. […] For Muslim women to simply revolt against Islamic gender apartheid will be regarded as anti-man, anti-family, anti-religion, anti-government and worst of all, anti-Allah himself." Check out Nonie's take on the potential for a feminist movement in the near future here.

View article...

Saudi Arabia: 80-Year-Old Muslim Marries 11-Year-Old Child

Now where on earth would a Muslim get the idea that it's perfectly acceptable for an elderly man to have sex with a child? News of a Saudi octogenarian marrying an eleven-year-old girl has outraged human rights activists amid calls on the government to regulate the marriage of underage girls, local media reported Saturday. The Saudi National Human Rights Commission formed a committee to investigate the marriage, which activists consider a flagrant violation of human and children rights, the Saudi newspaper al-Riyadh said. The marriage registrar, who was widely criticized since he agreed to seal the marriage contract knowing the girl's age, absolved himself of any blame. "There is no law that prohibits the marriage of a girl under 18," he told the paper. "Plus, I summoned the girl and she declared her consent and signed the contract." . . . The groom expressed his surprise at how the media leveled harsh criticism against him and his family for marrying the girl. "It is very simple. We didn't do anything wrong. It is a valid contract that meets all the conditions for marriage. What's the point of all this fuss?" The groom has three other wives, all much younger, and they all have kids. Read More.

View article...

Not in the Name of Islam? (Majed Moughni and other Muslims Rally against Terrorism)

 

On January 8th, 2010, Muslims and their non-Muslim friends gathered in Detroit, Michigan, to protest terrorism in the name of Islam. Majed Moughni, the event's organizer, predicted that thousands of Muslims would join together and condemn violence committed by Muslim terrorists. Unfortunately, Muslims aren't quite that disturbed by terrorism. Perhaps the Muslims who refused to condemn terrorism had some of the following Islamic passages in mind: Qur'an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Qur'an 9:73—O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination. Qur'an 9:111—Surely Allah has bought of the believers their persons and their property for this, that they shall have the garden; they fight in Allah's way, so they slay and are slain; a promise which is binding on Him in the Taurat and the Injeel and the Quran; and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Rejoice therefore in the pledge which you have made; and that is the mighty achievement. Qur'an 9:123—O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). Qur'an 47:35—Be not weary and fainthearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost: for Allah is with you, and will never put you in loss for your (good) deeds. Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Allah's Messenger said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me." Sahih Muslim 30—It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right, and his affairs rest with Allah. Sahih al-Bukhari 2785—Narrated Abu Hurairah: A man came to Allah's Messenger and said, "Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Sahih al-Bukhari 2787—Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Case into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty." Sahih al-Bukhari 2796—Narrated Anas: The Prophet said, "A single endeavor (of fighting) in Allah's cause in the afternoon or in the forenoon is better than all the world and whatever is in it." Sahih al-Bukhari 2797—Narrated Abu Hurairah: The Prophet said, . . . "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is! I would love to be martyred in Allah's Cause and then come back to life and then get martyred, and then come back to life again and then get martyred and then come back to life again and then get martyred." Sahih al-Bukhari 2810—Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them is in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e., Allah's religion of Islamic Monotheism) be superior, is in Allah's Cause." Sunan An-Nasa'i 3099—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Prophet said: "Whoever dies without having fought or having thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy." Sunan Ibn Majah 2763—It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that the Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever meets Allah with no mark on him (as a result of fighting) in His cause, he will meet Him with a deficiency." Sunan Ibn Majah 2794—It was narrated that Amr bin Abasah said: "I came to the Prophet and said: 'O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?' He said: '(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.'"

View article...

An Open Debate Challenge to Yahya Snow

 

Muslim Yahya Snow promotes several videos on his site that attack the Trinity and the deity of Christ. He also finds occasion to attack these doctrines when the subject at hand has nothing to do with them. These are sufficient reasons by themselves to openly challenge Yahya to a written debate on either one or both of these topics. A further reason for such a challenge arises from the fact that Yahya thinks it is appropriate to censor people's comments, as in the following post (*), even though I did little more in the combox than direct people to a link where they could view the entire debate on the Trinity in the Old Testament between brother Sam Shamoun and Muslim Farhan Qureshi, a debate that Yahya provides a severely edited version of on his blog. This edited version consists only of Farhan's opening statement and completely excises what Brother Sam said in that debate. Yahya also only provides Farhan's opening presentation in his debate on the deity of Christ with brother Nabeel Qureshi (*). (Nota Bene: Yahya's actions should not be thought of as reflecting negatively on Farhan Qureshi.) By accepting this debate challenge Yahya will have the opportunity to prove that he believes in the public defensibility of his (anti-)position, something his actions heretofore do not evince. It will give him the opportunity of demonstrating that the Trinity and deity of Christ are not taught in the Old Testament, and that such a demonstration does not require making sure that the Muslim side is the only one being heard. Accordingly, here is my proposal for these two topics, both in the form of an interrogative: Is the Trinity Taught in the Old Testament? 2,500 word opening statements 2,000 word rebuttals 1,500 word counter-rebuttals 1,000 word closing statements Is the Deity of Christ Taught in the Old Testament? 2,500 word opening statements 2,000 word rebuttals 1,500 word counter-rebuttals 1,000 word closing statements Should Yahya accept this challenge: 1) Each installment shall be posted on our respective blogs, mine on Answering Muslims and Yahya's on The Facts About Islam. 2) Each installment shall be posted at a pre-agreed time that is convenient to both of us (i.e. not before or after). For example: Opening Statements: 8pm on 1/15/10 Rebuttals: 8pm on 2/1/10 Counter Rebuttals: 8pm 2/15/10 Final Remarks: 8pm 3/1/10 3) Each installment shall include a link to the opening, rebuttal, counter-rebuttal, and final remarks of the other. 4) Each installment shall be limited to the agreed upon word-limit, which shall include footnotes. Any violation of these rules will constitute a breach of the debate agreement and will result in forfeiture. For example, if one or the other of us fail to provide a link, do not post at the pre-agreed time, or go beyond the word limit, then such will be deemed an act of self-disqualification. The same would go of course if either one of us fail to respond at all. Since Yahya has been banned from this blog for reason of bad conduct, he can post his acceptance at his blog. Exact details can be worked out in the comments section. ***It has come to my attention that the ban on Yahya may have been lifted. Since I have been busy the past little while and have only popped in periodically, I do not know. If that is the case, the details can be worked out right here.***

View article...

Reply to Abdullah Kunde on Various Issues

 

I noticed a number of arguments being brought up by Abdullah Kunde as a reply to Sunil. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=189095653198387790 Again as usual when we read Muslim argumentation for Islam or against the Christian faith, we quickly discover the high number of inconsistencies, and I intend to assess some of these here; not because I intend to attack Kunde personally or single him out to expose him publically but rather because these lines of arguments are so frequently used in modern islamic apologetics: Kunde wrote: 1) Muslims/Qur'an does not attempt to follow earlier revelations or prophets. a) This is absolutely false. The Qur'an, in multiple instances, asks Christians and Jews to look to what is still contained within their books for guidance towards the Qur'an and Islam. Hogan replies: I assume you are referring to the Gospel in Muhammad's time! But can you then explain what the Gospel was in Muhammad's time and what did it still contain? Could you please elaborate on this? In the sixth and seventh century we know that Christians utilized the 'Four Gospels', hence based upon your wording here, the book of the Christians or the Gospel would be the 'Four Gospels', which Christians commonly referred to as 'the Gospel' and which would contained doctrines and narratives such as Jesus' death and resurrection, which clearly contradict the Qur'an. But now comes the real puzzle, because later in your replay to Sunil you state that the Gospels are not reliable. I find your view of these matters highly inconsistent; firstly your phrase 'what is still contained within their books' and secondly that these books are unreliable, and thirdly that Jews and Christians are still to seek their guidance. This third claim (that Jews and Christians are to look to what is still contained) is indeed confirmed by the Qur'an: "Say, O people of the book! You are not founded on anything until you PERFORM the TORAH and the GOSPEL, and what was revealed to you from your Lord" (Sura 5:68-71) But you forgot to mention the third faction, the Qur'an encourages even Muslims and Muhammad to believe in and to consult the content of these previous writings: Be courteous when you argue with People of the Book except with those among them who do evil. Say: " We believe in that which is revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one". (Sura 29:46) "If you Muhammad are in doubt regarding that which we have revealed to thee, ask THOSE who READ the BOOK from BEFORE YOU" (Sura 10:94). "O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and his Messenger, and the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO HIS MESSENGER, AND the SCRIPTURE WHICH HE SENT TO THOSE BEFORE (HIM). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His BOOKS, His messengers, and the day of judgement, hath gone fare astray" (Sura 4:136) I would assume if the author of the Qur'an believed the Gospel to be corrupted, he would have worded these passages quite differently and have revealed passages that explicitly confirmed the corruption of the Gospel (Injeel), yet such passages are no where to be found in the Qur'an. The author of the Qur'an was either a deceiver or just plain ignorant! If as you assume that these previous revelations are no longer reliable, why are the Christians, the Jews and the muslims asked to seek guidance from these books, and if it only refers to specific passages in these books which are devoid of corruption, where does the Qur'an differentiate explicitely between these corrupted passages and the intact passages? I ask this question in particular since I would assume that this matter would demand explicit reference in the Qur'an, if this indeed was the author's view. Kunde continues: In fact, we see in the Gospels a clear and progressive steering away from the earlier message. In Mark (12:29) we find Jesus saying the greatest commandment is "Hear, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.", yet in the parallel passage in Matthew (23:36) states: "Love God with all your heart, soul and mind." Why? Possibly developing Christian theology? Hogan replies: No this is not developing Christian theology, the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22: 36-37 (not 23: 36) is taken from Deuteronomy 6: 5 which records the phrase of Jesus in Matthew 22 and that of Jesus in Mark 12: 29-30; in fact both phrases are from Deuteronomy 6: 5, which makes it likely that Jesus quoted both of them, but Matthew simply omits the first part. It puzzles me how this is steering away from an earlier message, could you please elaborate on this? Kunde seems to think that this is Matthew removing the focus of worshipping one God. All I can do is, is to encourage Kunde to read through Matthew, is this really the context of Matthew? Can you elaborate on, based upon the enterity of Matthew's Gospel that Matthew's omission of one single phrase reveals that Matthew is attempting to change the theology? Furthermore, if this was the case then you would have to admit that the Qur'an is also steering away from the previous revelations and a development in theology. The Qur'an indeed claims to be united with the previous revelation, but a comparison of the contents of these writings reveals that the Qur'an is the book that deviates. Kunde continues: 2)All the disciples/followers of Jesus were also mislead by the fake crucifixion. a) This is only if you assume the Gospel accounts are accurate, which I do not, and as I argue, it is completely reasonable to question the validity of them (at the very least). Hogan replies: Again I find your conclusion highly inconsistent Firstly, the Gospels are according to the Gospels not revelations they are the transmitted testimony of the eyewitnesses. The disciples are commanded to transmit Jesus sayings (Matthew 28: 20) and the narrative (Luke 24: 45-48) (Acts 1: 8). Luke 24: 48 and Acts 1: 8 confirms that the disciples were commanded to be witnesses. In the Gospel of John 15: 26-27 Jesus says: 'When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning'. Having been with Jesus from the beginning and be elected was to be a fundamental and authoritative witness, and this was indeed vital as we see from the selection of Matthias to join the category of the twelve (Acts 1: 23-26). What am I saying here: I am saying that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony of the apostles and their transmission of the Gospel account and the sayings of Jesus, not revelation. Hence the Gospel is a witness of those who were commanded by Jesus to transmit this information. Indeed the Qur'an seems to confirm this When Jesus found unbelief on their part, he said: 'who will be my helpers to (the work of ) Allah?' Said the disciples: 'We are Allah's helpers: we believe in Allah and do you bear witness that we are Muslims. Our Lord! We believe in what you have revealed, and we follow the messenger, then write us down among those who bear witness' (3: 53-4) If the disciples of Jesus failed, and they must have if the Gospel suffered the corruption you are proposing, then the Qur'an is conveying a false picture of these followers of Jesus as being superior and victorious and doing the work of Allah: O you who believe! Be you helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to his disciples, "who will be my helpers (to the work) Allah?" Said the disiciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" Then a portion of the children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: but we gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed (Sura 6: 14) I will make those who follow you superior to those who reject the faith to the day of resurrection (Sura 3: 55) Kunde continuous: 3)What Paul did isn't deception. a)I'm pretty sure I didn't say, "Paul lied", but I did say something along the lines of deception. I was asked a similar question on the night to which I replied: "If it were modern times, would Paul come into a mosque and pray as we pray, etc, in order to present Christianity? Thats what it seems he did. Hogan replies: This is exaggerating the matter, I doubt Paul would have recognised any resemblance between Islam and first century Judaism! Paul would not have bowed toward a Gentile city like Mecca and a pagan shrine with a black stone kissed by its followers, I guess Paul would have recognised such practice as paganism. Paul at least realised that parts of Judaism and the religion of Israel was part of the progressive revelation of Yahweh, which Islam is not. This is why Paul and early Christians did not view it problematic to enter the temple or a synagogue; I don't think they would have been equally sympatetic with a mosque. Kunde continues: You do realise that by being a 'Gentile to the Gentiles' that means he possibly worshiped their gods while with them? Do you think God needs to be presented in this way?" Hogan replies: You are in fact misrepresenting the passage here, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 9: 20-22: 'To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the Law I became like one under the Law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the Law. To those not having the Law I became like one not having the Law (though I am not free from God's Law but under the Law of Christ), so as to win those not having the Law'. It never says Paul became like a Gentile or that he adopted Gentile pagan practice. All the passage points is that Paul did not practice the Mosaic while in the presence of those not having this Law. Yet he emphasises that he is not free from the Law; meaning the Law of Christ, e.g. the Sermon on the Mountain and the Gospel information. I am amazed how you even read the possibility of pagan worship into this context. Kunde continues: If you say 'yes', thats a very interesting belief system. Hogan replies: I also find it interesting that the Qur'an refers to the previous revelations as intact despite the rejection of its doctrine; is that misleading or was the author of the Qur'an so human that he failed to consider the content of these previous revelations?

View article...

Debunking the claim that the Quran Predicts Modern Science: The Qur’an and the World of Atoms

Does the Qur'an Predict the Sub-atomic world and particles? This is the claim of certain Islamic apologists, such as Mustafa Mlivo, Muhammad Assaid and Zakir Naik among others: Mustafa Mlivo, Quran and Science , The Qur'an prior to Science and Civilisation; see: http://www.preciousheart.net/Main_Archives/Links_Folder/SUPER_List_Islam.htm And Muhammad Assadi, in his book: The Unifying Theory of Everything: Koran and Nature's Testimony; see http://www.amazon.com/Unifying-Theory-Everything-Natures-Testimony/dp/0595129048 And Zakir Naik; see http://www.scribd.com/doc/18926563/Quran-and-Modern-Science-EnglishBy-Dr-Zakir-Naik These among others claim that the Qur'an is miraculous in its prediction of the sub atomic world (that is sub atomic particles). Let's assess the claim: The particular Qur'anic (Sura 34: 3) passages reads: '...by him who knows the unseen,—from who is not hidden the least little atom in the heavens or on earth; nor is there anything less than that, or greater, but is in the record of perspicuous ' See also Sura 10: 61: 'He [i.e., Allah] is aware of an atom's weight in the heavens and on the earth and even anything smaller than that...' Firstly we need to consider that there is a debate whether the Qur'an is literally referring to atoms or insects or possibly dust. But let us for a moment assume that the Qur'an does refer to atoms and the sub-atomic particles, are we then correct to presume that this reference is miraculous or is possible that the Qur'an only makes a lucky guess or even that sub-atomic particles were already a common idea flourishing in the time of Muhammad? The theory of atoms was founded by Leucippus (440 BC) and Democritus (432 BC), who proposed that atoms constituted and composed everything in existence even heaven and earth. The theory perceived the atoms as physical particles, which are in constant motion; being indivisible, indestructible and infinite in number and varieties. All this is slightly correct indeed, expect of course that the number of atoms and their varieties are infinite. Indeed the early atomists predicted a range of up-to-date details, such as Democritus' 'moving at random', which according to Russel in his book: 'History of Western Philosophy' suggests denotes the kinetic theory of gasses; and furthermore the collisions of atoms which collected them and formed vortices and later material bodies (Russell, 82-84); all this was in agreement with the latter theory of Lucretius (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p. 185). Yet Democritus and many early atomists seem to have committed the fallacy of considering atoms to contain no void, which made them impenetrable and indivisible (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 88). This error excluded the existing reality of e.g. the neutrons, protons and electrons, and the newly proposed theory of the quarks. That is of course unless we move Democritus' understanding as a theory of the Quark world and what preceded it. Hence according to certain Muslim writers, e.g. Mlivo and Muhammad Assadi and Zakir Naik, this suggests that the Qur'an solely gets the information right and must therefore be of divine origin. However, there are serious flaws within this Muslim proposition. Its primary failure is the failure to grasp that atomic science developed through the centuries. The emphatic claim of Democritus, that atoms were the first cause-particles which could not be further divided appears to be slightly diminishing at the time of Lucretius (approximately 50 BC); Lucretius seems to refer to new ideas in his time which suggests that atoms could be divided (at least he alludes to ideas quite different from those presupposed by Democritus); Lucretius writes in 50 BC: 'It is with a mass of such parts, solidly jammed together in order, that matter is filled up. Since they cannot exist by themselves, they must stick together in a mass from which they cannot by any means be prized loose. The atoms therefore are absolutely solid and unalloyed, consisting of a mass of least parts tightly packed together. They are not compounds formed by the coalescence of their parts, but bodies of absolute and everlasting solidity. To these nature allows no loss or diminution, but guards them as seeds for things. If there are no such least parts, even the smallest bodies will consist of an infinite number of parts, since they can always be halved and their halves halved again' (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe 45)? What are these least parts of which the atoms consist? And how about the opposite position, but otherwise proposed impossibility, that atoms can be halved and halved again? This idea seems to have been raised 600 years prior to Islam. And there are further indications, that even the Epicurean's postulated particles smaller than atoms. Epicurean theory theorized that our body throws off thin films, which travel to touch the soul-atoms to create sensation; if these were considered to operate between atoms, then we might assume they are smaller (Russell, History of Western Philosophy, p. 255). If however, atoms are the principle of matter and thus life, why is it that the Qur'an, being a divine revelation does not provide further insight into the world of atoms or quantum? Why is the Qur'an making no reference to atoms in relation to compounds or the combination of atoms to form a greater mass, as was expounded upon by Lucretius more 600 years prior to Islam (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, p.41); Lucretius writes: 'At that time the sun's bright disc was not to be seen here, soaring loft and lavishing light, nor the stars that crowd the far-flung firmament, nor sea nor sky, nor earth, nor air nor anything in the likeness of things we know nothing but a hurricane raging in a newly congregated mass of atoms of every sort' (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184). This completely refutes Zakir Naik in his debate with William Campbell, in which he admitted the similarity between Qur'anic and Greek science but then claimed that Qur'anic science is more specific and even corrects Greek science. The Qur'an does not explain that the atoms are the fundamental building blocks and existed prior to cosmological expansion and the accretion of the earth, nor does it describe their existence as prior to the galactic dimension the pre-stellar material existed. Lucretius' description of a primordial congregated mass of atoms in the writings of Lucretius is fairly accurate and presents an idea that is much more advanced and explicit than the Qur'anic simple reference to the world of atoms and lesser matter. Lucretius continues: '...they (the atoms) began, in fact, to separate the heights of heaven from the earth, to single out the sea as a receptacle for water detached from the mass and to set apart the fires of pure and isolated ether. In the first place all the particles of earth, because they were heavy and intertangled, collected in the middle and took up the undermost stations. The more closely they cohered and clung together, the more they squeezed out the atoms that went to the making of sea and stars, sun and moon and the outer walls of the great world' (Lucretius, The Nature of the Universe, 184-5)? While Lucretius' postulate is outdated and contains a number of flaws, it does reveal a much more advanced insight into the atomic world than the Qur'an does and some details actually predicts modern science. If the Qur'an is a miracle due to its reference to atoms and smaller matter, then certainly a number of Greek philosophers and indeed the atheist Lucretius were divinely inspired. What is much more logical however is that the Qur'an simply describes the ideas that were flourishing within its time and era; unfortunately for the Muslim position is the fact that these pre-Islamic sources provide a much more advanced and accurate picture of the atomic world than the Qur'an.

View article...