100% Proof Muhammad Existed (Jay Smith Debunked)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Jay Smith has popularized the idea that Muhammad might be a complete myth, a fictional creation not based on any actual history. If true, that would certainly be devasting for the truth of Islam, but is Jay correct or has he allowed his zeal for attacking Islam to cloud his judgment? Everyone's favorite historian and expert in all things Islamic Mary Harb joins us live with a special look at surah 73 to discuss.
Previous episodes in our series on pre-Islamic Arabia/Life of Muhammad can be found in this playlist: • The True History of Pr...
Mary Harb can be found on UA-cam here: @toomanymarys7355
Read my vision/mission statement at ReasonedAnswers...
Support me on Patreon: / reasonedanswers
SubscribeStar: www.subscribes...
or PayPal: www.paypal.com...
Follow on Twitter: / reasonedanswers
Like on Facebook: / reasonedanswers
Feel free to email with any questions: thaddeus@reasonedanswers.com
#JaySmith #MythicalMuhammad #PaganIslam
----
This video is licensed under the Create Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. You may freely share and modify this video however you see fit provided you 1) give credit by linking back to the original and 2) release any modifications under the same license. Full legal details can be found at: creativecommon...
Whether he existed or not, his recorded sunnah is an abomination in d sight of God, that's all we need to know
If Muslims believe what it written, it only makes sense to point out the many, many errors in it!
Amen.
A false prophet has to exist to be a false prophet. Beware of false prophets that come to you in sheep's clothing but inside are ravenous wolves.
if shaytain was muhammad then muhammad never existed
Definately not debunked. You just proved the author of the Qur'an was not very clever and incorporated loads of other stuff into his"revelation".
What was his name? Muhammad is a title not a name in pre-islamic arabia.
Where was it written? At best we can claim the the narrative was placed in an area believed to be around medina. The descriptions of the vegetation fit other places so much better.
When was it written (revealed)? No evidence that it was revealed during the lifetime of anyone named mo. Your strongest case is that no one would redact a story this bad to someone else. A rehash of DW's story of too embarasing to be fiction.
If we believe the Uthman narrative we can have no trust in the Qur'an being anything more than total fabrication. The crap should have been edited out.
In our Turkish church we say Rab for our Lord
I am not sure why the incoherence of the Quran should be construed to support the hypothesis that Mohammed was an historical person. I still believe he was a mythical figure after listening to much of this video. It is too long for me to watch all of it in one go but I think I got the gist of Mary's argument. I don't think Jay Smith has much to fear from this video.
So you think a centralized authority creating a myth projected back 200 years would create an incoherent proof text of their myth?
@@ReasonedAnswers No. I think there are more options than the three given. Your suggestion doesn't seem to fit the radio carbon dating for what it's worth. After watching Jay Smith videos I didn't get the impression that he believed that the koran was written 200 years after Mohammed lived. Rather that he believed in an early date of the koran's origin.
@@ReasonedAnswers and it is also possible that Mohammed or Qatham the incoherent prophet DID exist, much as you describe, but was a minor part of the the initial tableaux.
The first Arabian putsch against Persia/Rome may have come from opportunist Lakhmid warlords with alliances and various grievances, or whomever was in power around 630 AD.
So both you and Jay are right, to some extent.
Isn't an Arabian trait that Arabs are very good at weaving stories, eg pre-Islamic poetry and the Arabian bard tradition?
From a historical perspective, we have to unravel the stories to get to the history.
Qatham, a minor figure in the original history was later useful as a hook to dress divine sanction onto the nascent Arabian nation?
It is almost a study in nation, or empire-building.
This is an excellent video, I learnt a lot thankyou, not yet watched it all.
I think your learning really re-elevates Mohammed/Qatham (whomever) as a genuine character in this drama, which is what I feel.
Maybe Muslims can start using your arguments.
One of the weird/funny/stupid incidents that makes me believe in Mohammed is the 624-ish rejection of Mohammed by the Jews of Medina re the story of Daniel.
Essentially Mohammed suddenly changes the Qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca, and after this point the abrogations start, and the legend of Abraham at Mecca.
Such a clunky, fumbling human story to move the centre of the world on a whim. And he says to the Meccas, like Paul Daniels the Uk magician "You are going to like this!"
We can't just *ignore* the Arabian/Muslim histories, we have to include them in the overall explanation .. ?
I think both you and Jay smith have valid point of view about Muhammad. Both are chiselling this false religion hard.
thats like saying there was no jesus only god
In a recent comment I said would like it if you give a 5min summary of the stream at the end of it. That helps remembering the most important points and the overall argument. But that also has the advantage that it can be cut into a small video for the impatient to view.
I did this time!
@@toomanymarys7355 I haven't finished the video at the point of writing that comment.
You have not proved that there was a person called Muhammad, living in Mecca, recieving revelations from somebody.
What you you are showing is that the Qur'an is so rubbish and incoherant it could not have been crafted by a divine being from eternity, an intelligent committee, or revised/ corrected at a later date.
Somebody, possibly a single person, later having thr epithet "muhammad", the praised one, applied to them, living some place further north than Mecca put together some very random sayings, contradictory and revised, and incorporating other pre-existing stories, hymns and lexical material and redacted semi-historical instances, that got adopted as the Quran. I would even allow within the above narrative that a leader figure was so vile, immoral and murderous existed and was adored. But his name was not Muhammed as this was a title applied to a revered warlord later.
If your only dispute is the name "Muhammad," then you certainly don't agree with Jay who does argue the Quran was created by an intelligent committed and revised many times. Now as far as the name being a "title" goes, that is a really weak argument. The vast majority of names have meanings that could also be titles and there is ample evidence of many people name "Mohammad" before, during, and after the 7th century. I have no idea why Jay and others push that as some kind of great evidence. And for the location of origin, that wasn't in view in this video but we have several other on that topic - see link to full series in the description.
@@ReasonedAnswers yes the idea of a malign superhero like Dr Death or Dr Evil from Austin Powers creating a fake book from scratch which takes everyone around in is a bit far-fetched.
Although once the prohibitions against criticizing the Koran are removed, it does seem to be crumbling quickly.
I was reminded by a comment of my post, The Quran Tells Us to Ignore It
S 2:62 Those who have believed and those who were Jewish and the Nasara and the Sabians--those who have believed in Allah and the last day and have done a righteous deed, theirs is their wage with their lord and there is no fear upon them nor do they grieve.
No need to become a Muslim.
S 5:47 And let the People of the Injil judge by what Allah has sent down therein. And those who have not judged by what Allah has sent down then those are the fasiqun.
Apparently not considered abrogated.
S 5:68 Say: People of the Book, you are on nothing until you establish the Torah and the Injil and what has been sent down to you from your lord. And increases many of them, what has been sent down to you from your lord, in tyranny and kufr. So do not grieve over the kafirun people.
Apparently not considered abrogated.
Now if you uphold the Torah and the Gospels, you have to reject the Quran and Islam. Some might conceivably claim that "and what has been sent down to you from your lord" means the Quran, but the Quran isn't mentioned and it says "to YOU"; but where does it say that the Quran was 'sent down' to Christians and Jews? And should we conclude that the Torah and Injil were NOT 'sent down' from Allah? And the Quran would increase them in tyranny and kufr but they are to 'establish' it?
S 5:69 Those who have believed and those who were Jewish and the Sabians and the Nasara, he who has believed in Allah and the last day and has done a righteous deed, there is no fear upon them and they do not grieve.
Again, no need to become a Muslim. And it is apparently not considered abrogated. And there's a grammatical error in the verse. The Qur'an: Grammatical Errors
Whereas S 2:62 is said to have been abrogated, S 5:69 appears not to be (!)
List of Abrogations in the Qur'an - WikiIslam
phil always with the information 😭
I wonder if Muslims will like this defence.
No, we wouldn't, nor is it necessary. Slander and misrepresentations in defense of the truth isn't appreciated. The bias here is quite evident. And there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of Muhammad from actual scholars and archeology. None of this is needed to refute Jay Smith. He's an unqualified charlatan.
Hence why I/Mary would really like to debate Jay - Islam is screwed no matter who wins. :)
@@ReasonedAnswers It makes me wonder whether any Muslims who haven't been exposed to this channel will see both the title and thumbnail and assume she's a Muslim and share this video.
No, this defense is full of misrepresentation and falsehood to try and give a false depiction of Islam. That's the only way to "refute" Islam.
@@sub7se7enNo a critique is not necessarily a misrepresentation if it doesn't align with your beliefs about what Islam should be.
You seee jay smith is not your BFF !!! THIS IS THE PROOOOFF !!! You have been humiliated !!!
wheres a picture of muhammad then or an arifact ???
Yeahhhhh congrats
Muhammad saw
Qutham
Muhammad tayaye = Iyas ibn qabisah
😂 everyone is muhammad
😂😂😂😂 in the mocking Dizzle voice mimicking Hijabibi
@@donhue4546 well I can't tell if your being sarcastic, their was no cameras and film development process in the 7th century middle east. So that's why their is no picture of muhammad, another stat is most people who ever existed on planet earth their is no picture and most their is no memory of billions that have ever existed.
@@joshuawoodin was jesus born in the first century?? is there drawing of jesus,yes, there no image of muhammad?? whats cameras got to do weith it, there was no paper till the 4th century, so how was there a book from allah??? it there coins from 3,000rs ago with faces on them ?? now go read quran 8;65 then 8;66 and tell me the mistake
I think this is refuting the old version of what Jay said. The historical records and theories have gotten more complicated
I think you mean convoluted lol
I have seen how Jay and Al-Fadi are very willing to go where the evidence leads them. They don't stick adamantly to one position out of pride.
He still says that the Quran that we have is NOT the production of a historical Islamic Muhammad but is a massively altered and edited book, rather than one that is mainly missing content. He still relies on a central authority totally changing the meaning of the text through their editorial powers to what suits the Abbasid rulers.
Agreed.
@@toomanymarys7355 What we have today is very easily the original, or close to it, collection of ideas picked up by Muhammad in his limited and sketchy interactions with a variety of people. It lacks any refinement that might result from a later, deliberate effort to create a consolidated Arab narrative.
Reasoned Answers, I have enjoyed your video and I am subscribed. My comments get erased pretty much on a regular basis. Do you have any reason why that's happening? because it's super annoying. It's probably Abdul's reporting my comments.Thanks anyway 🙏🏽
YT has been deleting comments right and left for about 2 months now. Doesn't matter which side of a debate you are on. Some glitch in the auto-filters.
YT erases about half my comments. Its them, not Thaddeus.
And Smith's arguments don't fit with the evidence. That is the issue.
@@toomanymarys7355 , YT has been erasing comment right and left for about 2 months. No rhyme or reason to what is deleted and what stays.
@toomanymarys7355 Okay, thanks. I appreciate that, going down the rabbit hole right now. This channel introduce me to Lloyd and he is absolutely awesome. Curious what his take is on it, also just discovered Dr Shoemaker. Mostly I watch Christian Prince and sometimes Sam. They're not all going to agree on every little thing but I like the idea of building our case against Islam. I have to do more research because I find myself debating with people online a lot and you got to be educated or else they will eat you up. I'm trying my best to be the best representative of Christianity possible.🙏🏽👍🏼
Edit: are you Mary from the video? If so that's pretty cool because you're awesome too. ❤️
@@Tee-roni , I applaud your objectivity and caution, chum.
23:45 I have a question. The quran claims to be a copy of the previous book with some additional stuff. If the same applies to all the prophets and there are 124'000 prophets. How much did each prophet add? And what specifically did they add? Let's assume all the Muhammed related stuff is from Muhammed. How many ayahs per prophet do we get if we divide all the remaining ayahs by the number 124'000?
The Quran does not claim to be a copy of the previous books. It claims to be the verbatim word of God.
@@sub7se7en I refer to Mary when it comes to that claim. I wrote it here so that I can get feedback on the idea.
@@sub7se7en Also the two things you say don't contradict. Since the books given to the other prophets also come from allah, it wouldn't be a problem if the Quran builds on them and extends them.
That's pretty much the same thing as if an author adds another chapter when his book gets into reprint.
@@philippbrogli779 I guess in a manner of speaking you'd be right, but we believe that the previous scriptures have been abrogated but the Quran affirms what was in them. So not quite building or expanding on them.
Btw, the 124,000 is not from an authentic narration. We don't actually know how many prophets there were.
@@sub7se7enIt claims to be the Reminder, revealed from the singular heavilenly book that is the verbatim word of Allah, which is also what all the other scriptures are--they are revelations from the same book.
Muhammad said that the Surah of The Cave was in the Torah. Implying with the same contents and in the same order. As soon as you press on the Islamic sources about this ludicrous position, it falls apart, because it never made sense. The prophecies about Muhammad in the Tawrah and Injil SHOULD be in the Qur'an, but the Qur'an makes only one halfhearted stab at fabricating something from Jesus.
In sort, the mechanics are fuzzy, because it was made up by an unintelligent person.
Nothing in history can be proven one hundred per cent.
You have in no way refuted dr Jay Smith because you are too blinded by the standard sunny narative, a narrative the fits perfectly with your belief of a false arabian prophet named Muhammad ibn Abdullah.
By equating the Sira with the Quran despite the Sira being compiled more than 100 years after the Quran you are failing in your historical critique.
I suggest that you go to dr Luxemburg’s channel and see how the Qur’ān becomes a much more clear text when going back to the eastern Syriac origins.
Most authors of fictitious novels try to write in such a way as to make their characters appear as real or as lifelike as possible. Warts and all.
Is Allah's math on how long to stand during the night like his math on calculating inheritance? Seems like he has a problem w/ fractions.
The disparate and contradictory nature of the Quran's contents rule it out being the verbatim composition of the Creator of the universe, but it doesn't rule out its being compiled by a clique of scholars in the early Arab empire. Plenty corpora contain material from contradictory and diverse texts, like those one can find in the Nag Hammadi writings or the Dead Sea Scrolls. It depends on what the compilers and users of these texts intended in using them. E.g., did they want a textual tradition of total 100% consistency or to conserve texts that were widely circulated and highly regarded within their religious community (or communities). This is one way to explain why there are contradictory accounts of the same stories in the Quran (cf. e.g., Q. 27:7-9, Q. 28:29-30, Q. 20:10-18). The notion that the contents of the Quran are compositions by different authors with different ideas has been advanced by scholars like Gabriel Said Reynolds, Stephen Shoemaker, Tomasso Tesei, Daniel Beck, Karl-Friedrich Pohlmann, etc.
2:03:20 That arabic poetry is epic. Why did Muhammed have to downgrade it?
Because Mo could've sustain a meter!
@@toomanymarys7355 I think people have invested so much time and effort into playing Islam there is maybe a supreme embarrassment realising Mohammed is a klutz.
If Mohammed was real why are there no biographical details about him in the Koran itself? Looks fishy to me.
Maybe b/c the Quran isn't a biography of Muhammad?
Painful torment...
If it rhymes in arabic, perhaps better to translate it as "tortuous torment"?
At least it alliterates, and continues the theme of repeating (variations) of words....
Interesting that the orginial method of prayer with Muhammad was all night long. A classic cult tactic is behavioural modification that tires out the followers and causes them to become emotionally worn down and seek other members for comradery.
That's not quite fair. This form of prayer is called a 'vigil' and was/is practiced by Christians from ancient times. Read the Desert Fathers, for example, or consider people attending midnight mass on Christmas eve. The contents of surah 73 may have little to do with Muhammad or Islam per se, and verse 20 is clearly a later addition that serves to abolish the rigorous, ascetic mode of prayer taught in Q. 73:2-3. We find elements of Christian ascetic practice, vigils, elsewhere in the Quran, for example in Q. 97. This latter surah is certainly indicative of a vigil in its contents, and indeed the word 'shahr' in Q. 97:3, usually understood as 'months,' which makes little contextual sense, more likely derives from the Syriac 'shahra,' which means a 'vigil.' I.e., the nocturnal devotions of the Night of Qadr are better than a thousand vigils on ordinary nights.
@ConsideringPhlebas actually I agree with what you're saying, but this method of increasing comradeship by tiring and repetitive work is put to use in all kinds of situations, inlcuding army training, industrial work places, prison work, monasteries etc. However it is also used in cults.
From my post, Tales
From an Answering Islam article we read:
Al-Nadr b. al-Harith b. Kalada b. `Alqama b. Abdu Manaf b. Abdu'l-Dar b. Qusayy got up and said: 'O Quraysh, a situation has arisen which you cannot deal with. Muhammad was a young man most liked among you, most truthful in speech, and most trustworthy, until, when you saw grey hairs on his temple, and he brought you his message, you said he was a sorcerer, but he is not, for we have seen such people and their spitting and their knots; you said, a diviner, but we have seen such people and their behaviour, and we have heard their rhymes; and you said a poet, but he is not a poet, for we have heard all kinds of poetry; you said he was possessed, but he is not, for we have seen the possessed, and he shows no signs of their gasping and whispering and delirium. Ye men of Quraysh, look to your affairs, for by God, a serious thing has befallen you.' Now al-Nadr b. al-Harith was one of the satans of Quraysh; he used to insult the apostle and show him enmity. He had been to al-Hira and learnt there the tales of the kings of Persia, the tales of Rustum and Isbandiyar. When the apostle had held a meeting in which he reminded them of God, and warned his people of what had happened to bygone generations as a result of God's vengeance, al-Nadr got up when he sat down, and said, 'I can tell a better story than he, come to me.' Then he began to tell them about the kings of Persia, Rustum and Isbandiyar, and then he would say, 'In what respect is Muhammad a better story-teller than I?' [Sirat, pp. 135-136]
...
Ibn `Abbas, according to my information, used to say eight verses of the Quran came down in reference to him, 'When our verses are read to him, he says fairy tales of the ancients'; and all those passages in the Quran in which 'fairy tales' are mentioned.
When Al-Nadr said that to them, they sent him and `Uqba b. Abu Mu`ayt to the Jewish rabbis in Medina and said to them, 'Ask them about Muhammad; describe him to them and tell them what he says, for they are the first people of the scriptures and have knowledge which we do not possess about the prophets.' They carried out their instructions, and said to the rabbis, 'You are the people of the Taurat, and we have come to you so that you can tell us how to deal with this tribesman of ours.' The rabbis said, 'Ask him about three things of which we will instruct you; if he gives you the right answer then he is an authentic prophet, but if he does not, then the man is a rogue, so form your own opinion about him. Ask him what happened to the young men who disappeared in ancient days, for they have a marvellous story. Ask him about the mighty traveller who reached the confines of both East and West. Ask him what the spirit is. If he can give you the answer, then follow him, for he is a prophet. If he cannot, then he is a forger and treat him as you will.' The two men returned to Quraysh at Mecca and told them that they had a decisive way of dealing with Muhammad, and they told them about the three questions.
They came to the apostle and called upon him to answer these questions. He said to them, 'I will give you your answer tomorrow,' but he did not say, 'if God will.' So they went away; and the apostle, so they say, waited for fifteen days without a revelation from God on the matter, nor did Gabriel come to him, so that the people of Mecca began to spread evil reports, saying, 'Muhammad promised us an answer on the morrow, and today is the fifteenth day we have remained without an answer.' This delay caused the apostle great sorrow, until Gabriel brought him the Chapter of The Cave, in which he reproaches him for his sadness, and told him the answers of their questions, the youths, the mighty traveller, and the spirit. [Sirat, pp. 136-137] Al-Nadr bin al-Harith
I hope I am not over analyzing, if I was to explain the symbolism of islam, based purely on its theology. The Quarter moon = religion of the night prayer & the little star = it's a shooting star, which Allah obviously throws at rebellious devils who eavesdrop on Allah to bring the secrets of Allah to the soothsayers !
Thank you @Too Many Marys & @Reasoned Answers - you're doing such great work!
My post, Fir'awn's Family
It seems very likely that the author thought that Fir'awn (Pharaoh) was a proper name.
S 2:49 And when we saved you from Fir’awn’s family afflicting you with the evil of torture, slaughtering your sons and letting your women live. And in that there is a great affliction from your lord.
S 2:50 And when we parted the sea for you we saved you and drowned Fir’awn’s family while you look.
S 3:11 Like the custom of Fir’awn’s family and those before them, they called our verses a lie so Allah took them for their sins. And Allah is severe in punishment.
S 7:130 And we took Fir’awn’s family with the years and the shortage of fruits; perhaps they will remember.
S 7:141 And when we saved you from Fir’awn’s family, afflicting you with the evil of torture, massacring your sons and letting your women live. And in that there is a great affliction from your lord.
S 8:52 Like the habitude of Fir’awn’s family and those before them. They disbelieved in Allah’s verses so Allah took them for their sins. Allah is strong and the severe in punishment.
S 8:54 Like the habitude of Fir’awn’s family and those before them. They called their lord’s verses a lie so we destroyed them for their sins and we drowned Fir’awn’s family and all were wrongdoers.
S 14:6 And when Musa said to his people: Remember Allah’s grace upon you when he saved you from Fir’awn’s family, imposing the evil of torture upon you and slaughtering your sons and letting your women live. And in that is a great affliction from your lord.
S 28:8 Then Fir’awn’s family picked him up that he might be an enemy and a grief to them. Fir’awn and Haman and their troops were sinners.
Compare with:
S 2:248 And their prophet said to them: A sign of his kingship is that the Ark will come to you. Therein is a Shekhinah from your lord and a remnant of what Musa’s family and Harun’s family left, the angels carrying it. In that there is a sign for you if you are believers.
S 3:33 Allah chose Adam and Nuh and Ibrahim’s family and Imran’s family over the ‘alamin.
S 4:54 Or do they envy people for what Allah has given them from his favour? But we gave Ibrahim’s family the Book and the Wisdom and we gave them a great dominion.
S 12:6 And thus does your lord choose you and teach you of the interpretation of the ahadith and complete his grace upon you and upon Ya’qub’s family as he completed it upon your two fathers before, Ibrahim and Ishaq. Your lord is learned, wise.
S 15:59 Except Lut’s family. We are saving them all
S 15:61 And when the commissaries came to Lut’s family.
S 19:6 Inheriting me and inheriting from Ya’qub’s family. And make him, lord, pleasing.
S 20:40 When your sister walks and says: Shall I direct you to him who vouches for it? So we returned you to your mother that her eye might be cooled and not grieve. And you killed a soul but we saved you from sorrow and tried you with fascinations. Then you remained years among the family of Madyan. Then you came upon a fate, Musa.
S 27:56 But his people’s answer was nothing but that they said: Remove Lut’s family from your village. They are people who purify.
S 28:45 But we constructed centuries and he was long-lived over them. And you were not a thawi in Madyan’s family reading our verses to them but we were senders.
S 34:13 They make him what he wills of niches and statues and bowls and watering-troughs and fixed pots. Work, family of Dawud, in gratitude! But few of my slaves are the grateful.
People of Pharaoh or Family of Fir’awn?
I tend to believe he was a charismatic speaker who was outsmarted by one of his contemporaries for the number one job of Caliph. Like Dr. Wood often says, how stupid can the dude be to eat food cooked by a woman whose family he just put to the sword. He wasn't. One or his companions allowed it to happen.
My post, People of Pharaoh or Family of Fir’awn?
Did the author of the Quran think that Fir’awn (Pharaoh) was a proper name? In a number of passages we come across al Fir’awn, but we also come across al Ibrahim and al Imran and al Ya’qub, which are unquestionably the family of Ibrahim, the family of Imran and the family of Ya’qub respectively.
S 3:33 Allah chose Adam and Nuh and Ibrahim’s family and Imran’s family over the ‘alamin.
S 4:54 Or do they envy people for what Allah has given them from his favour? But we gave Ibrahim’s family the Book and the Wisdom and we gave them a great dominion.
S 12:6 And thus does your lord choose you and teach you of the interpretation of the ahadith and complete his grace upon you and upon Ya’qub’s family as he completed it upon your two fathers before, Ibrahim and Ishaq. Your lord is learned, wise.
So it seems likely that when the author said al Fir’awn he meant the family of Fir’awn. In S 7:109 we find qawm Fir’awn. Qawm does mean ‘people’.
The chiefs of Fir’awn’s people said: This is a learned magician.
Let the reader decide.
My post, Food Eaten in the Afterlife
In this post we shall be looking at what is promised in the afterlife, beginning with the denizens of the Jannah.
S 2:25 And give good news to those who have believed and have done the righteous deeds that theirs are jannat, rivers running beneath them. Every time they have been provided with therefrom from fruit as a provision they have said: This is the one we were provided with before. And they have been given similar to it. And theirs therein are purified husbands and they abide therein indefinitely.
S 38:51 Reclining therein they call therein for much fruit and drink.
S 43:73 For you therein is much fruit; of it you eat.
S 44:55 They call therein for every fruit, secure.
S 47:15 A similitude of the Jannah which the fearers have been promised. Therein are rivers of water that is not stagnant and rivers of milk whose taste has not changed and rivers of wine, delicious to the drinkers, and rivers of clarified honey and theirs therein of all the fruits and forgiveness from their lord like those who abide indefinitely in the fire and have been given to drink boiling water and it has cut their intestines up.
The Rivers of the Jannah
S 52:22 And we have supplied them with fruit and meat of what they desire.
S 55:52 Therein are of every fruit, two pairs.
S 55:54 Reclining on beddings, their linings of istabraq, and the fruits of the two jannat are close.
The two Jannat?
Some Thoughts on Al-Jannah
S 55:68 Therein are fruit and date palms and pomegranates.
Isn't the pomegranate a fruit?
S 56:20 And fruit of what they select
S 56:21 And bird meat of what they desire
S 56:32 And much fruit
In verse 29 we read: And talh mandud
Talh is thought by some to refer to the banana, but it is also thought to be an error and signifying some kind of thorny tree.
وَطَلْحٍۢ مَّنضُودٍۢ (الواقعة - 29)
القرآن الكريم - تفسير البغوي - تفسير سورة الواقعة - الآية 29
As Allah, so we are told, wants the hereafter, and should it get into the Jannah, would it eat what the others would supposedly eat?
Who Wants the Hereafter?
Does Allah Eat?
The food of the denizens of hell:
S 88:6 They have no food but from dari’.
They would consume nothing but dari'.
S 69:36 Nor food except from ghislin.
They would consume nothing but 'ghislin', translated by some as 'pus'.
S 37:62-68 Is that better as a lodging or the zaqqum tree? /We made it a fitnah for the wrongdoers. /It is a tree that comes out in the root of the jahim. /Its spathes are as though they were devils’ heads. /And they eat from it and fill the bellies with it. /Then they have upon it a mixture from boiling water. /Then their return is to the jahim.
Fitnah
Qur'an Contradiction: What will be the food for the people in Hell?
Their return would be to the jahim, hell? Aren't they already in hell?
The Return
We now take a look at a hadith.
"When the news of the arrival of the Prophet (ﷺ) at Medina reached `Abdullah bin Salam, he went to him to ask him about certain things, He said, "I am going to ask you about three things which only a Prophet can answer: What is the first sign of The Hour? What is the first food which the people of Paradise will eat? Why does a child attract the similarity to his father or to his mother?"...As for the first meal which the people of Paradise will eat, it will be the caudate (extra) lobe of the fish-liver. ..."
[bukhari:3938]
In Legends of the Jews, Chapter 1, we read:
"Like leviathan, so ziz is a delicacy to be served to the pious at the end of time, to compensate them for the privations which abstaining from the unclean fowls imposed upon them." Legends of the Jews index
Muhammad Fails A Test Of Prophethood
Abdullah bin Salam is a Jew and the Jews had a notion of eating in Paradise.
Congratulations, you proved that PDF file existed. Amazing...
My post, How Much of the Quran is the Quran? [1]
We are told that the commencement of the 'revelation' was in AD 609.
S 2:185 The month of Ramadan wherein the Quran was sent down, a guidance for people and proofs of the guidance and the Furqan. So he among you who has witnessed the month, let him fast on it, and he who was ill or on a journey, then an ‘iddah of other days. Allah wants ease for you and does not want hardship for you, and that you complete the ‘iddah and magnify Allah for what he has guided you; and perhaps you will thank.
In this 87th surah by order of 'revelation' we read that it was 'sent down' in Ramadan. It doesn't speak of its being sent down but of its having been sent down. What was 'sent down'? 'The' quran. This very verse excludes this surah's being part of that quran.
The first surah to have been 'sent down' is mooted to have been S 96. Now there wouldn't have been many surahs, if more than one, composed on that night (see below). Anything after that may be considered to be 'quran' but it would be a different quran.
A quran?
'This' Quran
An Arabic Quran
Muslims argue that 'the' quran was 'sent down' one night in Ramadan but to a lower sky and delivered piecemeal over a period of 23 years. But none of the qurans state that. Rather, they state what we read in S 2 above: "the quran WAS sent down". From an Answering Islam article:
We sent down (anzalnahu) the (Qur'an) in Truth, and in Truth has it descended (nazala): and We sent thee but to give Glad Tidings and to warn (sinners). (It is) a Qur'an which We have divided (into parts from time to time), in order that thou mightest recite it to men at intervals: We have revealed it (wa-nazzalnahu) by stages. S. 17:105-106 Y. Ali
And those who disbelieve say: "Why is not the Qur'an revealed (nuzzila) to him all at once?" Thus (it is sent down in parts), that We may strengthen your heart thereby. And We have revealed it to you gradually, in stages. (It was revealed to the Prophet in 23 years.). S. 25:32 Hilali-Khan
These conflicting and contradictory statements have caused Muslim scholars to come up with a convenient ad hoc explanation. It is asserted that the entire Quran was sent down from Allah himself to the lowest heaven where it remained. From there Allah sent Jibril/Gabriel to reveal portions of the book to Muhammad over a period of twenty-three years!
As renowned Salafi scholar Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips explains:
According to Allaah’s statements in His Book, there were two distinct revelations of the Qur’aan which took place. It is important that these two revelations be understood in order to clear up the apparent contradictions [sic] in the various terms used in the Qur’aan and Sunnah to describe the Qur’aan’s revelation. On one hand, the Qur’aan is referred to as having been revealed in its totality in Ramadaan or on Laylatul-Qadr, the Night of Decree; while on the other hand, it is referred to as having been continuously revealed in segments up until the death of the Prophet.
The First RevelationAllaah caused the Qur’aan to descend from the Protected Tablet (al-Lawh al-Mahfooth) on which it was written to the lowest heaven. In this revelation all of the Qur’aan was sent down at one time to a station in the lowest heaven referred to as "Bayt al-‘Izzah" (The House of Honor or Power). The blessed night on which this descent took place is called "Laylatul-Qadr" (The Night of Decree), one of the odd-numbered nights in the last ten days of the month of Ramadaan. Allaah referred to this initial revelation as follows [quotes Q. 44:1-3; 97:1; 2:185]…
These verses have [sic] to refer to the initial revelation because it is a known fact [sic] that the whole Qur’aan was not revealed to Prophet Muhammad on a single night on Ramadaan.
Ibn ‘Abbaas stated that the Qur’aan was first separated from its station in the upper heavens and placed in Bayt al-‘Izzah in the lowest heaven. One version states that this took place on the Night of Decree in Ramadaan. Had it been Allaah’s wish, the Qur’aan could then have been revealed as a whole to the Prophet in a single revelation. This was the method by which all of the earlier books of revelation were sent down. But, Allah chose to divide the revelation into two parts [sic]. The first revelation within the heavens represented an announcement to the inhabitants of the heavens that the final book of revelation was being sent down upon the last of the prophets. (Philips, Usool at-Tafseer, 6. The Revelations of the Qur’aan, pp. 94-96; sources 1, 2; comments within brackets and underline emphasis ours)
Another Islamic source says:
(The month of Ramadan is) the month in (which was revealed the Qur'an) whereupon Gabriel brought down the ENTIRE Qur'an to the first heaven, dictated it to the scribes among the angels (al-safarah) and then took it down to Muhammad (pbuh) day after day, sometimes revealing to him just one, two or three verses and sometimes an entire surah, … (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; source; capital and underline emphasis ours)
And:
And from his narration on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas that he said regarding the interpretation of Allah's saying (Lo! We revealed it): '(Lo! We revealed it) He says: We sent Gabriel with the entire Qur'an to the scribes of the nether heaven (on the Night of Power) on the night of judgement and decree; it is also said this means: on a night blessed with forgiveness and mercy, and then it was revealed to the Prophet (pbuh) in instalments. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; source)
The reader can immediately spot the problem with the above assertion. The Quran nowhere says that it was revealed in two stages, one in which the entire revelation was sent down at once to the lowest heaven, and the other where only parts of it was conveyed to Muhammad. This is simply a desperate attempt of explaining away the gross error within the Muslim scripture which claims in certain places that Allah sent down the Quran as a whole on a certain night, thereby contradicting those passages that state that Muhammad received the so-called "revelations" in segments.
In fact, one of the verses expressly says that the Quran was sent down in the month of Ramadan as a guide to mankind:
Ramadhan is the (month) in which was sent down the Qur'an, as a guide to mankind, … S. 2:185
Instead of saying that the Quran was given to the angels in the lowest heaven in Ramadan, the passage actually claims that the book was sent down for the guidance of mankind. This certainly sounds like it was sent down to mankind in Ramadan, in seeming contradiction to the theory postulated by the above scholars. Qur'an Contradiction: The descent of the Quran -- piecemeal or all at once?
See also: The descent of the Quran -- Verses in conflict with the piecemeal theory
S 44:3 We sent it down on a blessed night. We were warners.
According to this surah, the 64th by order of 'revelation', 'it', which Muslims would argue refers to quran, was 'sent down' on a blessed night viz: of Ramadan. So the whole quran was 'sent down' on one single night. It doesn't say: 'It is being sent down'. Remember, quran is 'clear' and 'detailed'. This surah too must be excluded from being 'the' quran.
S 97:1 We sent it down on the Night of Qadr.
In this surah, the 25th in order of 'revelation', we read that''we' sent 'it' down on the Night of Qadr.
Allah's boss apparently forgot the date of the Night of Qadr due to a disturbance. It seems odd that he might have had to be told the approximate date that his quran 'came down' by others given a dream regarding the date.
When is the Night of Qadr?
S 17:105 And we sent it down with the truth and it came down with the truth. And we did not send you except as a bearer of good news and as a nadhir.
This, in the 50th surah, is supposed to be a reference to quran.
S 24:34 And we have sent down to you clarifying verses and a similitude of those who passed away before you and an exhortation for the fearers.
[2] S 24:46 We have sent down clarifying verses. And Allah guides whom he wills to a straight path.
These verses from the 102nd surah don't say: 'We are sending down clarifying verses'. Besides, a number of clarifying verses or parts thereof were added later.
Clarified and Detailed Verses
S 28:87 And do not let them block you from Allah’s verses after when they have been sent down to you. And call to your lord. And do not be of the mushrikun.
By the time of this 49th surah in order of 'revelation' 'the' quran should have been around for some time. According to a Muslim site:
Period of Revelation
As mentioned in the introduction to Surah An-Naml, according to Ibn Abbas and Jabir bin Zaid, Surahs Ash-Shu'ara, An-Naml and Al-Qasas were revealed one after the other during the middle stage of the Prophet's residence at Makkah. [alim .org/quran/introductions/malik/surah/28/]
'During the middle stage of his residence in Mecca'.
S 29:51 Has it not sufficed them that we have sent down upon you the book read to them? In that there is mercy and remembrance for a believing people.
This 'book' has been sent down. Does it in this 85th surah say: 'parts of the book'?
S 42:15 So to that then call and be straight as you have been commanded and do not follow their desires and say: I have believed in what Allah has sent down of a book and I have been commanded to act justly among you. Allah is our lord and your lord. Ours are our deeds and yours are your deeds. There is no argument between us and you. Allah gathers between us and to him is the destiny.
By the time of this 62nd surah 'the' whole quran would have been about.
S 58:5 Those who oppose Allah and his messenger have been suppressed as those before them have been suppressed. And we have sent down clear verses. And for the kafirun there is base torture.
'Sending down clear verses' in this 105th surah? Not what the text says.
S 65:10 Allah has prepared severe torture for them. So fear Allah, possessors of albab, those who have believed. Allah has sent down to you a dhikr.
In this 99th surah we are told that Allah has sent down a dhikr, which Muslims will argue refers to 'the' quran, but one may wonder whether the term 'dhikr' was originally a word used of the Bible.
Dhikr
People of the Dhikr
Further reading:
Chronological Order of the Qur'an - WikiIslam
I saw only 5-10 min of this video but i think i got the gist. Too long.
Its possible that the contradictions are contradictory to create a deceptive narrative that it was organic.
Or its possible that there were 2-3 power centres with contradictory ideologies. And they all had their say, and the weaker power centres were abrogated.
Triumphalism is a real thing and it is the cornerstone of the sharia. These people are adept at this even to this day. A good example is andrew tate having n no of contradictions but in the end, they approve of him.
Is it possible that the people on this show are AI generated?
The Muslim guests? You mean AI as in Allah Insane? Then yes. Yes it is.
@@ryanparris1021 Is this mockery the teaching of your religion or are you going against your religion when you speak this way?
@@sub7se7enI have learned: _When in Rome, do as the Romans do._
Muslims mock and Muslims listen when they are being mocked. Then this is the strategy we should apply when talking with them. At least the non-western ones.
@@philippbrogli779 I don't agree with this in the slightest. If other people debase themselves with insults why stoop to their level? Surely your character must be better than theirs. Does your religion not teach good character? I myself am a Muslim and we're, in fact, forbidden from insulting and mocking. These are some of the the guidance from God in the Quran on this matter: Quran6:108 Quran 41:34, Quran 25:63, and Quran 49:11. The Muslims who make the mistake of mockery are not my example to follow, nor should they be yours.
Oh, and I would like to add that people do not listen when they are being mocked. Rather, they dig into their positions and become defensive. It's a terrible strategy to employ.
@@sub7se7en From a western influenced position I can fully relate. Both with the "you should not mock" and the "you stop listening when you are mocked". But from an arabic influenced position things are different. They think you are weak if you stay calm and rational.
I am currently at work. If you want to I can give a slightly better response when I'm at home if you want to.
What is it that walks on water.
Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ of course ✝️💖 No one else could.😂
@@GodIsLove1015 (John 19:5) ♾
@@HansSvensson-hr3jo
Let me quote the context of John 19:5 for you.
👇
JOHN 19:1-3
Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged Him. And the soldiers placed a crown of thorns upon Hos head, and they put on Him a purple robe. And they said "Hail, King of the Jews! And they smote Him with their hands.
JOHN 19:4-5
Pilate went forth again and said unto them "Behold I bring Him forth to you, that you may know that I find no fault in Him". Then Jesus came forth, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. And Pilate said unto them "Behold the man" !
JOHN 19:6-7
Therefore, when the chief priests and officers saw him, they cried out saying "Crucify him, crucify him". Pilate said unto them "Take him and crucify him: for I find no fault in him". The Jews answered him "We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God".
👇
What has John 19:5 got to do with Jesus walking on water?
@@GodIsLove1015 🌞
Sister Mary uuhhhhhh! What's this sister?
Mary's knowledge and insights are awesome. Kudos.
Hey
You seeee the proooof, mary is about to puke because the power of islam is upsetting her unbelieving belly !!!
Lol! No, I just cant do coffee anymore at any time. But the cacao nibs and yaupon tea was awesome!!!
I haven' seen any proof. Mary is free to believe what she chooses about Islam, even if the available data don't support those beliefs. Either way, Islam is collapsing like a house of cards. It cannot bear the critical scrutiny it is now receiving.
@@toomanymarys7355 well islam has a vitriolic reaction to anyones stomach, and yes I am sure that these natural native herbs in which you speak are probably better for the human body, personally I do drink coffee and a bit of espresso, specifically "Cafe bustelo" and I am happy that coffee and espresso do not hurt my tummy, atleast not yet in life. Oh and when I started watching you, I thought your name was mary herb, and I found out you are mary harb. Some details are delayed to me, maby due to the espresso, but Allah knows best ! JK, Allah knows nothing !!!
I'm not arguing in favor of one side or the other, but from my perspective, there's a pretty significant issue with the "criterion of embarrassment" argument.
Namely that it inherently assumes nobody making up a story could possibly realize that they need to include potentially embarrassing things about the main figure(s) of said story to make them believable.
We see this done often in myrh and legend dating back thousands of years before the time of Mo'Ham. Yes, it is often part of a redemption arc but not always.
Sometimes main characters are just written as flawed individuals, as we are all flawed individuals.
True, but would any believing Muslim deliberately paint Islam's beloved prophet Momo in an unflattering light? I doubt it. He is supposed to be the "best of men" and a pattern for human conduct for eternity. yet the Islamic sources depict him as a satyromaniac, criminal, and p-dophile.
Muhammad, in Islamic theology, is not supposed to be flawed. Nit with moral flaws.
@@toomanymarys7355 , , exactly. I said the same, but my comment magically disappeared.
If Muhammad didn't exist, then why was there a succession crisis after he died, that both sides (Sunni and Shia) agree on the reasoning for?
Plus, why would there be passages in the Qur'an like the exhortation to not stay too long for dinner at the prophet's house? That wouldnt have been invented later.
The succession crisis narrative could well just be a back story, invented to explain the Shia-Sunni divide. The dinner guest nonsense is probably the brainchild of some later political leader, who was tired of his supporters dropping by and outstaying their welcome. If Muhammad had Allah's support to limit the time dinner guests remained in his household, then caliphs could cite this passage to control their own annoying dinner guests.
Theyd have spent those words telling people how to pray!!!
This was was written down hundreds of years after the event.
The Qur'an reads like the guru's words taken down by his devoted disciples who hang on his every word and only the leader can revise. Jay Smith's argument fails against the non-Muslim 7C evidence re Muhammad and his claim Mecca had no water ignores the large Hijaz aquifer (which the Saudis are now depleting but supplies a lot of water) & Muslim sources mention several wells, not just the Zamzan.
The Hijaz aquifer would have been out of reach of 7th century Arabs. BTW, there was so little water in Mecca that an 8th century woman had an aqueduct built from a nearby oasis (Ayn Zubaydah) to the city. BTW, there is NO historical reference to Mecca before the mid-8th century AD. Highly suspicious if this was an ancient and holy settlement, as Muslims assert.
Muhammed is found all over the New Testament and this will make muslims very happy 🤣😂😅
Matthew 7:15-16
Matthew 24:11
Mark 13:22
2 Peter 2:1
1 John 4:1