Nezan, as you have challenged me to thrash whether Allaah is a Supreme Being or not with you, I announce to you that I will open a thread on that, meet me there.

Please what is happening? I can't understand, please Nezan explain yourself further.

‘Was Pharaoh Drowned or Saved?’

He was drowned verse 92 of Soorah 10 does not say he was not drowned. No Muslim has ever understood that verse that way, even the owners of the Language, so you ask them to teach you the language, do not teach then their language.

“So This Day we shall deliver Your (dead) body (out from the sea) that You may be a sign to those who come after You! and Verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs , revelations, etc.).”92.

If he was saved from drowning, this would not have been hidden from the Muslims.

In the Tafseer, the interpretation of that was that Allaah caused the corpse of Pharaoh to come afloat the sea so that the Jews would actually see that he had died.

Your sources do not understand Arabic.

Sorry.



‘Contradiction No. 19:’


Believers, Jews, Sabaeans and Christians –
whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does what is right –
shall have nothing to fear or regret.
-- Sura 5:69

But just three verses further in the text it says

The verse and this verse:

‘Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe In Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall They grieve.’ [Q2: 62]

All indicate that whoever among those people, as collections of people, believe in Allaah, the Last Day and work righteousness will have the mentioned rewards.

The verse is rather an invitation to the way of Allaah.
Look at the people mentioned:

Those who believe – the Muslims
Those who follow the Jewish scriptures – the Jews
The Christians
The Sabians (you will say these are the Serbs; remember your Saamiri-Samaritan principle!)

And ‘any who believe,’ this can be just anybody even an unbeliever.

That when those believe in Allaah, not in Jesus as son of God, the Last day and work righteousness, they will have the reward mentioned.

Thus it is glaring that those people were mentioned as examples. The list can go on:

Those who believe, the Jews, the Christians, the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians, anybody, if they believe in oneness of Allaah (in Islâm) and the Last Day, and they work righteousness,

I hope it is clear to you O Nezan.

Let me give you a homework, find out the meaning of these verses:

“Verily, You will find the strongest among men In enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikûn, and You will find the nearest In love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." that is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud.
And when they (who call themselves Christians) listen to what has been sent down to the Messenger (Muhammad), You see their eyes overflowing with tears because of the Truth they have recognised. They say: "Our Lord! we believe; so write us down among the witnesses.

"And why should we not believe In Allâh and In that which has come to us of the Truth (Islâmic Monotheism)? and we wish that Our Lord will admit us (in Paradise on the Day of Resurrection) along with the righteous people (Prophet Muhammad and his Companions)."

So because of what they said, Allâh rewarded them Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise), they will abide therein forever. such is the reward of good­doers.” [Maaidah: 82-85].


The Qur’aan is a Wonderful Book though you may not understand. Do you know it is the only religious book that is closely studied by its adherents?
And it is the most widely memorized religious book in the world. Please how many Christians have memorized the whole Bible?

“Therefore, either the Qur'an contradicts itself, or it shows itself very ignorant of historical Christianity.”

You are the one who is confused or made to be confused.
Sorry.



“Contradiction No. 20:”

Your quote:

“The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, -
flog them each with a hundred stripes.
-- Sura 24:2



If any of your women are guilty of lewdness,
take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them;
and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them,
or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. “

I say:

If you have brought the verse in their order of revelation then your doubt will be removed, but you (or your superiors) have a motive for bringing the way you have done.

So I will help you make it in the correct order:

‘If any of your women are guilty of lewdness,
take the evidence of four (reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them;
and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them,
or Allah ordain for them some (other) way ‘


That was the initial revelation when the Muslims were just settling down in Madeenah.
And when they had settled down, Allaah ordained ‘some other way:’

The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, -
flog them each with a hundred stripes.

So there is no contradiction, o Nezan.

As for this verse:

“If two (men) among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both.

If they repent and amend, leave them alone;
for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful. “
-- Sura 4:15-16

It remains as it is.

But you should have seen this clause now, ‘punish them both’

So those guilty of homosexuality will be punished according to the discretion of the Prophet, this is what is called Ta’zir in the Shariah.

And very much later, the prophet decreed that the homosexuals be killed:

‘Whomever you find doing the act of people of Lut, kill the subject and the object.’

So in the Shariah, the eventual punishment for homosexuality is killing.

Sorry Nezan, you made a mistake again.

Then you said: “All this is further complicated by the fact that in the Sharia the actual punishment for adultery is stoning on the basis of the Sunna of Muhammad and various hadiths, ”

What a wicked conclusion from you Nezan, do you mean the Shariah does not demarcate it?

For unmarried adulterers it is hundred stripes and for a married person, stoning to death, as it is in the Torah!

And you still said:
“, and there are even traditions that the verse of stoning was originally part of the Qur'an.”

Yes it was abrogated in recitation but retained in ruling according to the Infinite Wisdom of your Creator, Allaah.

He the Only Lord said:

“Whatever a Verse (revelation) do we abrogate or Cause to be forgotten, we bring a better one or similar to it. know You not that Allâh is Able to do All things?” [Q2: 106].

Remember Nezan, this is Shariah and it has its experts studying it day and night in the places of learning (including the mosques). So you or your superiors are far from knowing it unless you let us teach you.

It is our religion, it is our Faith.
(I have prepared this from my busiest time, may Allaah accept it from me as worship. O Allaah it is because of You Alone I have done this, make it so for me.)

I had thought you would accuse me of running away having not seen my hands for some days now, I know you would not say that because you once made that blunder on my that other thread and when I hit you back. Please give me some days and I shall show your folly as regard the latest round of 'contradictions' in the Qur'aan which you have gone and brought, ku se, I am very much engaged now but i shall find time to answer you adequately. No respite for you, Nezan.

you yourself have seen it. Your points are to shallow to be contended with, time is precious, nobody has a time to waste. so if you have other 'contradictions' bring them, otherwise face your work in your office or you go to sleep.

Lest I forget the 50,000 stuff, so that Nezan will not accuse us again of dodging some things.

Yes Q32: 5 says:

“He arranges (every) affair from the heavens to the earth, then it (affair) will go up to Him, in one Day, the space whereof is a thousand years of your reckoning (i.e. reckoning of our present world's time).”

And Q70: 4: says:

“The angels and the Rûh [Jibrael (Gabriel)] ascend to Him in a Day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years”

So the Nezans of this world think both of them contradict, if they have pondered well, they will see that they did not contradict.

The actions being referred to in each is different:

The first one is arrangement of affairs from heavens.

The second one is movement of the angels and the Ruh.

The first one if humans were to count it will take place in their own 1000 years and the second, in their 50,000 years. But each of the action takes place in a Day with Allaah.

To put it more practically: That A should come down from Allaah to earth will cost a Day with Allaah which will have been our 1000 years, and for B to come down it will cost a Day with Allaah and that will be equall to our 50,000. If A and B were to come down from Allaah in a Day that will be our 1000 + 50,000, let Nezan complete the sum if he still knows Arithmetic. [Laugh].

Nezan said: “I was the one trying to educate abulbanaat that crucifixion was not used in ancient egypt at the time of Moses.”

I say if you are basing that on your historical ‘facts’ then I say we will not accept it from you because history is subjective and it is often based on human conjectures which are prone to error.

He said: “The fact is that the koran goofed when it said that the Egyptians worshipped many gods, and in another breathe, said that pharoah was the god of the Egyptians.”

I say there is no single verse in the Qur’aan except that its experts have explained it in the light of Sunnah and what has been handed down from the Pious Predecessors.

The verses that you are alluding to are reports by Allaah from what those people say. I hope you will understand. Pharaoh told his people he was their only lord but the people later said: ‘Stop Musa unless he will leave you and your gods.’ What the people inferred from that was that Pharaoh had paraphernalia of fetish that qualified him and those things as gods. Will you now understand O Nezan. Remember Allaah was reporting their conversations. It would have been a contradiction if Allaah had said: ‘Indeed Pharaoh was the god of the Egyptians’ and later said: ‘There are many gods in Egypt.’ Will you now understand?



He said: “Stop derailing the OP, must you always resort to abuse when you are cornered?”

I say while you are sharper in that regards than I am.


He said: “When the Israelites were coming out of Egypt, God caused the Egyptians to give the Israelites gifts of gold, silver, etc, which were later used to make the calf”

I say if this is from the Bible then it is very illogical as Sir Olabowale had said, and that confirms our fear about the Bible – that it is a mix-up of what is from God and humans.

He said: “So what are we to believe now? Yusuf Alli said the name mean watchman. abulbanaat said the name means somebody from Iraq olabowale said its the name of a person.”

Then you have told a lie against me read what I wrote:

“In the Arabic knowledge of ‘Ism Nasab’ (generic name), it will rather be right to say the translation will be a person from Saamarah (in the present day Iraaq) which has nothing to do with Samarita, Saamarah is literally ‘Su Man Ra ah’ (May he who sees (the town) be pleased with it).”
And let me expatiate: What that means is that Saamarah is a coinage of a recent past in Iraaq to refer to a city which is literally ‘Su Man Ra ah’ (May he who sees (the town) be pleased with it). So it can’t be Saamarah of the Qur’aan, so Saamiriyy is a person of a tribe which we don’t know and it is of no significance that we know it.

I even made that clear when I wrote:

“So the person being referred to is another person of another town which we don’t know (and it does not affect us as Muslims in any way if we don’t know it).”

So I hope you can see your folly O Nezan.



He said: “Thank you for backing my argument. Your koran erroneosly argued that Egyptians used 'fired bricks' against 'mud bricks', and abulbanaat was trying to let me believe that 'cut stone' means 'fired bricks'. So much for islam, 'boko haram'!”

I say if you still base that on historical ‘facts,’ Allaah knows more than the historians, to hell with them.

He said: “but your koran made it to appear as if it is Egypt.”

So now it is ‘appear’ but you did say Qur’aan says it was Egypt that was promised the Children of Israel. And I challenged you to produce the Aayah. Now that you cannot produces the Aayah, remember what I said you would be a LIAR, so you are. Can you also bring the verse (s) that make (s) it seems to be Egypt, so that you will receive a feather to your lying business.


He said: “Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring, ”

This verse (and other verses that would be mentioned later) only explains what is applicable to the naked eyes, just as Sir Olabowale as said. And Zul-Qar’nain getting to the setting place of the sun does not indicate that the Qur’aan implies that the earth is flat. The action only refers to the fact that Zul-Qurnain travelled far – Far East and Far West such that he got to a place that would seem to him that the sun was setting (as you see it if you around a river when the sun is to set or rise).
Till today we still say the sun sets and rises because that is what is observable to the eyes. And nobody says whoever says that is ignorant of the science, one because science itself is not constant (they now say the sun moves on its own axis; and a group of scientists in Germany had removed Pluto from family of the planets). So Science is not an embodiment of truth.




He said: “Yusuf Ali in his commentary reports that Zul-qarnain is thought to be Alexander the Great.”

I say: That was the opinion of later English commentators of the Qur’aan (like Yuusuf Alli), it is never the mainstream thought in Islam, so that was a conjecture from them.


“However, the Qur'an specifically assigns the stars to a lower or even the lowest heaven, while it states the relationship of the moon to the totality of the seven heavens is that it is "in them" (fehinna). This gives the impression that the moon is at least as far away as the stars if not further.”

I say: The explanation of that is like what I said over Zul-Qar’nain’s travels above; that is what is observable to the eyes. Indeed the sky has been adorned with the stars irrespective of where they may be (and remember we say Science is not constant).

“In fact, for anyone concerned about the "scientific miracle of the Qur'an" the omission of the six-legged insects must be devastating since science teaches that there are vastly more insects than there are animals with no legs, two or four legs taken together.”

I say: So you want the Qur’aan to mention Arachinds, Molluscs, Amoeba, etc, Haba, this is a book directly talking to the Arabs, reminding them of what they see in their daily lives.

Anyway if the Qur’aan does not mention your favourite ‘six-legged insects’ it has however said:

“And (He has created) horses, mules and donkeys, for you to ride and as an adornment. And He creates (other) things of which you have no knowledge.” [Q16: 8]

What the verse implies that there things you may not know now but He also created them.

He said: “Ants Cannot Talk”

You think so, even Qur’aan says hands and legs will talk on the Day of Resurrection. That is simply spiritual, so the talking of the ants to Solomon too was spiritual, no scientific effort can unravel it just as the science has failed to unravel existence of God.

So take it Nezan, hands and legs will talk. Imagine if your hands and legs testify against you on the Day of Resurrection O Nezan. See this:

“This Day, We shall seal up their mouths, and their hands will speak to Us, and their legs will bear witness to what they used to earn.” [Yaasin: 65]

Even the Qur’aan says the creatures sing the praise of Allaah, even mountains! Science may not be able to explain that because there are many things that are beyond the realm of science, and such things abound in the Qur’aan (this is why we don’t believe in the Qur’aan because of its scientific content but because it is a Revelation from the Lord of the worlds).


He said: “Thinking located in the breasts?”

“I don't want to parade this example as a difficulty or contradiction in the Qur'an. It only shows that this was the common way of speaking about it in the Middle East and even until today in our "scientific age."

I say what you say here has exonerated the Qur’aan of what you have been saying about it viz. Its mentioning that the stars adorn the sky, that Zul-Qurnain got to where the sun rises and sets. Simply all those are based on people perception of those phenomena, that does not mean Allaah did not know the reality but communicated to people in a way that they will understand, and of course take lessons. If Allaah had wished, He would have told us of what goes on in the galaxies but that might not have brought the desired result.

He said: “since YHWH and allah are two different beigns, one been an idol, and the other God Almighty.”

I say: I have always like this side of my discussions with the Christians saying Allaah is an idol being worshipped by the Arabs before Muhammad because Muhammad’s father was Abdullaah (Abdu Allaah). What a reasoning! Since you have brought this, I will challenge you again, O Nezan, to produce your evidence, even your historical ‘facts’ that say the Arabs did (and do not) believe in a Supreme Being.

Again if you fail to then you are a LIAR.

But if Allaah is the Supreme Being, O Nezan, don’t you think you are in for trouble. I pity you O.

He said: “Never was it proved scientifically and historically that the moon was ever split into two.”

I say: Well that was one of the miracles of Muhammad (we Muslims do not bank on the miracles of the Prophet to prove the authenticity of Islam). Since it has been proved authentically that he performed that miracle (Qur’aan even attests to it [Suurah Qamar v. 1]), we believe it, so we don’t need any scientific proof for that the same way we don’t need scientific proofs for Jesus’ miracles.

He said: “I have observed that abulbanaat has now taken the sidelines”

I say: Sidelines ke, never. It is only Muhsin that is trying to prevent me, also I am pretty busy. But this is a religious duty, so that we will establish the proof of Islâm against you O Nezan.

So no relief for you O Nezan, I am at home for you.

Yes I am pretty busy. However I will try to answer some of Nezan's full-blown ignorance (as an addition to what Sir Olabowale has been telling him), I had thought he had gone into a lull. Now that he is back, we welcome him. and I think Muhsin will pardon me this time around if I forcefully reply Nezan, he can see himself. Yes i am busy and I was the one that threw the challenge so I must be around. Therefore Nezan wait for my reply, I promise to make it snappy.

Perhaps you will ponder

I could understand Muhsin's fear, well I will take that: I will hands off for now unless they come again, and i will try to remain unperturbed until they go beyond bounds. But they must know that we will not sit cross-legged while they attack Islam with their mouths, never.

Anyway thank you Muhsin, but remember we need not be apologetic, Islam is the ONLY WAY.

You should advise your cousin to stay away from the act. tell him there is no obedience to anybody while disobeying the Creator. He has nothing to benefit from Church except Kufr and blasphemy. His boos is only looking for away of wooing him to their midst.

in the first place he has to even find out the ruling for a Muslim working any a bank. Please it is very crucial. Maybe if you need more information, you can let me know.

Hey manmustwoc or what do you call yourself, do you know what the Christians do in the Muslims' side. and may I ask you why has the poster put a question with an Islamic allusion in this side? please be objective. Me I know send O. If you have been asked to punish Abuzola then we will not allow that. You may ban me too O.

He said: “A "coin" is a standard weight of some metal that is stamped with the design,
Answer: For he who can read very well will not fail to quickly grasp the sense of foolhardiness of your source. Well I don’t blame you much, you are a Christian making frantic efforts to remain in Christianity after the truth has come. And those sources of yours have only played on your intelligence, and they have made you believe that you have a belief that can save you in the Sight of your Creator on the Day of Resurrection. You have all failed, you better re-trace your step back to Islam before your ignorance and arrogance land you in everlasting perdition (as I often sound it to the hearing of your ‘son’ or ‘brother’ GODSON).

The claim of your source is that ‘There is some debate over which coin is the world's oldest.’ That is their first failure, so those historians could not conclude when the coin made surfaced into the world. And you said the Egyptian trader who bought Joseph did not use silver-coin (dir’ham) to buy him. Did your sources really read about the Egyptian Civilization? So there was no gold or silver in Egypt during the time of Joseph?

Your problem is that of semantics if you know what Linguistics is. The term ‘money’ is a recent coinage. What will you call the legal tender people of old used in their time? The same thing applies to Dir’haam. It was initially used to mean silver-coin then used generally to refer to money.

And your sources said it was Muhammad that began the usage of the term. What a misinformation. Then we ask them to tell us what that Arabs used to spend before Muhammad, maybe it was cowries!

Important Notice: This was what I prepared after I saw your initial response. I could not reply since yesterday because my connection was down. Alhamdulillah Sir Olabowale has rightly answered you so I need not waste my energy again for a soul not wanting salvation.

Nezan the question again is, bring the contradictions in the Qur’aan not where the Qur’aan contradicts the non-ending historical debates of what came before what.

I like to give you a question that you must solve with your historical facts. Where is the historical proof that there was Noah Flood, and that an ark as big as the one Noah used could carry the whole mankind at that time? And that the knwoldge of the time could make him construct that?

[Muslims believe in the Noah Flood because the Qur’aan says it, we don’t depend on Nezan’s ‘historical facts.’]

Maybe you will even say the Qur’aan contradicts Charles Darwin ‘historical evolutionary facts.’ Munmun.



Nezan, free your conscience.

Thank you Sir Olabowale O jare.

Nezan, compile on your foolhardiness, I am preparing for Salat Jum'ah now, when I come back you will see, Insha Allaah.

I am grateful O Muhsin, I love you and other becuase of Allaah.

And may I humbly add:
"And I free not myself (from the blame). Verily, the (human) self is inclined to evil, except when my Lord bestows His Mercy (upon whom He wills). Verily, my Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." [Yuusuf: 53].

O Muslims:

“Allâh made it not but as a message of good news for you and as an assurance to your hearts. And there is no victory except from Allâh, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise.

That He might cut off a part of those who disbelieve, or expose them to infamy, so that they retire frustrated.” [Q3: 126-127].

So let the Nezans of this world be wary.

“So the disbeliever was utterly defeated. And Allâh guides not the people, who are Zâlimûn (wrong-doers, etc.).” [Q2: 258].

‘Contradiction No. 7’


Answer: As for your babbling about the Injeel, I think a thread will better be opened to thrash out that. But before then:

Injeel was one of the Heavenly Books revealed by Allaah to Prophet Jesus. Jesus was a Messenger of God, and a Messenger of God would receive revelations from God, it is the aspects of the revelation that will constitute a corpus. It is not that a book would just come down g-r-a-m from heaven. Qur’aan too was revealed in piecemeal (13 years in Makkah and 10 in Madinah). The circumstance in which Jesus lived will without doubt not deny the fact that any revelation to him would have been secretly written down such that not all would know it, and remember Jesus’ ministry spanned just three years so it would have been very far if the book was not well documented but metaphorically a book had been sent down. So Muslims believe what is contained in the News testament is not the actual Injeel but a faint aspect of it. Thus whatever has been originally reported from Jesus (as confirmed by the Qur’aan) is the Injeel and all other imaginations of Luke, Mark et al, remain their own imaginations. So Qur’an commands the Christians to stand by the Injeel by looking for its original (which Allaah knew they cannot achieve) but to taunt them and to bring them back to the Qur’aan which has replaced the lost Injeel, and in fact the Torah.

So try and understand O Nezan, may Allaah show you the light.

He said: “I will continue after you reply to these few contradictions, as the contradictions are too numerous.”

Answer: Do you mean where aspects of Qur’aan contradict one another, or your phantom historical and biblical ‘facts’? Bring the contradictions in the Qur’aan, the world is watching you. Shame.

Anyway we are at home for you.

‘Contradiction No. 5’


A Tower of Burnt bricks in Egypt?

How did it get there?


And Pharaoh said: O chiefs! I know not that ye have a god other than me, so kindle for me (a fire), O Haman, to bake the mud; and set up for me a lofty tower in order that I may survey the god of Moses; and lo! I deem him of the liars. [Sura 28:38]
This is a very interesting verse for several reasons.


This command of Pharaoh is a problem for the authenticity and accuracy of the Qur'an since at the time of Moses Egyptians didn't construct buildings out of burnt clay, i.e. this is a historical contradiction. See the dictionary entry on Bricks for more details.

Answer: How did the Egyptians build their pyramids?

See this: ‘During the Old Kingdom, the Egyptians built their largest and most ambitious pyramids, typically of large stone blocks. Over time, the size and quality of the pyramids decreased, probably because they were extremely costly. In the Middle Kingdom (2040 BC-1640 BC), the Egyptians built pyramids mostly of mud brick. (Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009)


Can you see ‘mud brick?’ And if you ponder on the meaning of ‘stone blocks,’ you will see that it meant ‘baked bricks.’


Will you not understand, O Nezan?

As for the motive: Qur’aan says Pharaooh commanded that the tower be built so that he would see that God which Moses claimed was a Lord superior to him (Pharaoh). If you ponder very well you will see that it is more logical than the story of a people competing to build towers to reach the heavens.

And why didn’t you mention the final aspect of your story? That it was the origin of different tongues, then the folly of the Bible will come to the open.

‘Contradiction No.6’


Israel, the Quran and the Promised Land



‘, it may come as a surprise to some readers to discover that the Quran actually teaches that the Promised Land which Israel was to inherit was Egypt!’
Answer: Which verse did the Qur’aan it was Egypt? O Nezan. And if you can’t produce it know that you are a LIAR.

He said: ‘When the Quran does speak of Israel's inheritance it simply refers to the land or city which God gave them’.
Answer: Yes Allaah did not mention the land for He knew He would not make them inherit any place.
He said: The text doesn't identify exactly where this holy land was situated, who these giants were, or which two men feared their Lord.
Answer: Because it was of no significance. What could have been the significance of that to the Muslims? Is like saying Qur’aan does not mention the names of Joseph’s brothers except Baniyamin (Benjamin). Quran is but Mother of the books that has the basis.


He said: “{As a side note, Q. 5:20 contains a gross anachronism since it has Moses speaking of Israel’s kings when in fact Israel had no kings until centuries later during the time of Samuel.}”

Answer: So you mean there had not been rulers (kings) in the Jewish Tribe before Moses? You must be kidding.



He said: “Yet if we stick strictly with the Quran itself and take into consideration all the references to the Exodus of Israel then it becomes apparent that the author(s) thought that the land given to Israel wasn't Jerusalem or Canaan but Egypt!”

We say bring your proof from the Qur’aan.

‘Contradiction No. 4’


Two Pharaohs who crucified?

Various passages tell the story that Pharaoh's sorcerers believe in the signs and message of Moses, and then Pharaoh tries to threaten them with these words (Shakir's translation):


I will certainly cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, then will I crucify you all together. [Surah 7:124]

Said he: You believe in him before I give you permission; most surely he is the chief of you who taught you the magic, so you shall know: certainly I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and certainly I will crucify you all. [Surah 26:49]


In the story of Joseph, about 400 years earlier we also read of another crucifixion in this passage:


O my two mates of the prison! as for one of you, he shall give his lord to drink wine; and as for the other, he shall be crucified, so that the birds shall eat from his head, the matter is decreed concerning which you inquired. [Surah 12:41]


We have, however, no record that Egyptians used crucifixion as punishment in the time of Moses (1450 BC, conservative date; 1200 BC at the latest) or even Joseph (1880 BC, conservative date). Crucifixion only becomes a punishment much later in history and then first in another culture before it has been taken over by the Egyptians. Such threats by a Pharaoh at these times are historically inaccurate.

Answer: Your error here is like the one you made in ‘contradiction No 1.’ That you do not have a record of something does not mean that thing does or did not exist. For instance you do not definitely have the record of my father’s name (sure), so don’t I have a father? Why are you (or your sources) so parochial in thinking?

Well may you tell us when exactly crucifixion began.

Q2: 140: “, say, "Do You know better or does Allâh?"

‘Contradiction No.3’


JOHN THE BAPTIST
(YAHYA)


no one before him has the same name, Maryam 19.7.

However, we read of a Johanan in 2 Kings 25:23, 1 Chronicles 3:15, 24, 6:9, 10, Ezra 8:12, etc. In fact, there are 27 instances of the name "Johanan" mentioned in the Old Testament. The Hasmonean Dynasty ruled Palestine in the century before John the Baptist appeared on the scene. Palestine at that time was very Hellenized and Greek became the main language. One of the priest-king of the Hasmonean Dynasty was John Hyrcanus, well attested to in many historical and classical sources. Josephus talks about a John the Essene who served as a general of the rebel force in Timna (Jewish War, 2.125). 1 Maccabees 2:1 tells us of "Mattathias son of John son of Simeon". Mattathias also has a son called John (1 Maccebees 2:2). John's brother, Judas, led the Jews in rebellion against Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Simon also has a son named John (1 Maccebees 16:19). All these Johns lived before John the Baptist. John was indeed a very common name.

Answer: Not to waste time on that, Ibn Kathir said in his Tafseer: ‘Mujaahid said (the meaning of that statement is that), there had been none like Yahya (that is, in his peculiar qualities). And he quoted another statement of Allaah to buttress that:

“Lord of the heavens and the earth, and All that is between them, so Worship Him (Alone) and be constant and patient In his worship. do You know of any who is similar to Him (literally: Anyone like His Name)? (Of course none is similar or coequal or comparable to him, and He has none as partner with Him). {Maryam: 65}

So there is none similar to Yahya in name, for literally his name means ‘he lives on’ because of his special qualities, namely (as Ibn Abbas put it in the same Tafseer) he was given birth to by a mother who had been barren all her life.

Even for argument sake, O Nezan, do you want us to believe that those ‘Johns’ and ‘Johanans’ which you allude to, really existed. Remember Bible is full of names of people and legends that were later imaginations of the Jewish scribes.

So you have no point O Nezan. Sorry.

‘Contradiction No. 2’


The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term `Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

Answer: What a foolish and wicked translation to render the word ا as ‘Samaritan.’ None of the Qur’ânic translators has ever rendered it so, I have samples of Muhsin Khan and Yuusuf Ali below.

Muhsin Khaan:
87. they said: "We broke not the Promise to you, of Our own will, but we were made to carry the weight of the ornaments of the [Fir'aun's (Pharaoh)] people, Then we cast them (into the fire), and that was what As-Samiri suggested."

Yuusuf Ali:
87. They said: "We broke not the promise to thee, As far As Lay In Our power: but we were made to carry the weight of the ornaments of the (whole) people, and we threw them (into the fire), and that was what the Samiri suggested.

In the Arabic knowledge of ‘Ism Nasab’ (generic name), it will rather be right to say the translation will be a person from Saamarah (in the present day Iraaq) which has nothing to do with Samarita, Saamarah is literally ‘Su Man Ra ah’ (May he who sees (the town) be pleased with it).

So it is glaring to all that there is no ‘ta’ in the word the Qur’aan used.

So the person being referred to is another person of another town which we don’t know (and it does not affect us as Muslims in any way if we don’t know it).

So sorry Nezan. You gaffed again.

‘Contradiction No 1’

Surah 12:20 tells us:




They sold him [Joseph] for a miserable price, for a few dirhams counted out [darahima ma‘dudatin]; in such low estimation did they hold him!


The use of the word Dirham in the sale of Joseph as a slave is one of many anachronisms in the Qur'an. Dirhams, as well as all other coins, did not exist in the time of Joseph. Even if one accepts the dating of Joseph's life in Egypt, coins were still not invented until several centuries after his time.

Answer: Your no one foolishness is that you do not (or the peopel you are copying from) understand the Arabic Language. One the term Dir’ham literally means according to ‘Al-Munjid’ (an Arabic dictionary published in Beirut in collaboration with the Catholic Church) ‘a silver coin used for transactions.’ One fact remains incontestable that silver-coins and gold-coins (called Dinar in Arabic) had been in used from the time immemorial.

So you must prove to us that during the time of Joseph, silver coin was not in existent.

And it can also be said that the term ‘Dirham’ was used as a legal tender of the time. In the modern Arabic, Dirham and Dinar are (sometimes) used to represent cash used by the people. Check a nearby Arabic-English dictionary for confirmation. Thus we can say Dirham is used as ‘Ism Jins’ (a generic name).

So you (or they) have failed.

I hope you will understand, Nezan Nezan.

And here comes the answer o Nezan and be ready to accept the defeat,

'I laugh tire.' By Allaah we will not ignore Nezan, we shall answer him, let him go to any site and copy then paste here, their foolishness shall be brought to the open, Insha Allaah. I have been unable to browse since the last time you saw my hand, I am just back. Nezan Nezan wait for your reply and don't stylishly run away like your 'aburo' or 'omo' GODSON.

If we ever see your hand again, then you will meet us at home. So check your archives very well for hundreds of contradictions in the Qur'aan, I assure you that you will not be able to find any except your wild imaginations.

@Bluetooth

Masha Allaah, baraakallahu feeka.

But this your name sha o, why not Greentooth? {Laugh}

Nezan is a very cunning somebody, he has a peculiar way of creating nuisance, he hardly pursues a matter to an end before he runs away. He does not show seriousness for a seriuos discussion. Between him and Sleeky I do not know who is more cantankerous. Nezan one of these days you and I will have a seriuos discussion. Won't you like it? Nezan Nezan how is Abuja?

As for me I married my wife when she became a Muslimah and I was not instrumental to her Islam anyway.

Whatever Allaah decrees none can change. So if one marries a former Christian who has become a Muslimah then one has only married a Muslimah not a Christian. I think a point we ought to be very careful of is that if a woman says she will accept Islam if a man will marry her then that man must be very careful because such love often has something underneath.

Please let us take note of that fact.

And I think Alimat has made a good point. Perhaps she is ready for marriage too. Good for her.

@Nezan, nobody is saying that he will not marry Muslim women Hijaab we are only talking about those who might wnat to fool us from your side, I hope you will understand. Nezan Nezan, how is Abuja?

The First Muslims

KHADIJAH
Khadijah, the Prophet's wife, was the first believer in the new faith. She had the opportunity of being his companion and helper, his consort and supporter. She always stood behind him, consoling and giving him support against all those who denied and scorned him. She tried to relieve his apprehensions and encouraged him by reinforcing her trust in him.

‘ALI IBN ABU TALIB AND ZAYD IBN HARITH
‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib was the next to enter in the fold of Islam. He was then a youth of ten years, and had been brought up under the guardianship of the Prophet () since his early childhood. The Prophet () had taken the charge of ‘Ali from his uncle Abu Talib, and kept him as a member of his family since the time a grievous famine befell Quraysh. The third person to accept Islam was Zayd Ibn Haritha who was a freeman of the Prophet () and whom he had adopted as his son).

ABU BAKR
Acceptance of the Prophet's faith by Abu Bakr Ibn Abi Quhafa, after Zayd, was of no minor significance. This merchant of sociable nature was known for his moderation and prudence, good character and kindliness, and enjoyed a still greater reputation for his wide knowledge of the genealogy of the Quraysh and expertise in commerce. He began to preach the truth that he had affirmed himself to all those that he had relied upon including those who are associated with him or those who came to seek his company. (Ibn Hisham, Vol. I, pp. 249-59)
The persuasive businessman began to win over the elite of the Quraysh to place their trust in the mission of the Prophet (). Those who accepted Islam at invitation of Abu Bakr included ‘Uthman Ibn Affan, Zubayr Ibn Al ‘Awwam, 'Abdul Rahman Ibn Auf, S’ad Ibn Abi Waqqa and Talha Ibn ‘Ubaydullah. Abu Bakr brought all of them to the Prophet () upon whose hands they embraced Islam. (Ibn Hisham, pp. 150-51)
Slowly, the mission of the Prophet () was made known to other respectable citizens of Makkah and some of them who followed after the first eight were:
Abu ‘Ubayda Ibn al-Jarrah, Al-Arqam, ‘Uthman Ibn Maz’un, ‘Ubaydah Ibn al-Harith Ibn Abdul Muttalib, Sa’id Ibn Zayd, Kahbbab Ibn Al-Aratt, ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’us, ‘Ammar Ibn Yasir, Suhayb Ibn Sinan and others.
People now began to accept Islam in large numbers; they came in throngs from different tribes and families until the news spread throughout the city that Muhammed taught some sort of a new faith. (Ibn Hisham, pp. 262)