|
Response to a rebuttal to Matt Slick's "More questions for Muslims" article -
continuation
(I have permission from the
author to reproduce his article and respond to it in full, Matt
Slick.
Mr. Zawadi's original is in
brown.
My responses are in
green.)
By Bassam Zawadi
Bassam Zawadi's Original:
Introduction
This article is in
response to Matt Slick's article
http://www.carm.org/islam/questions2.htm.
The answers mostly
are not of my own. I just provide them. Matt Slick said: What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing?
- "Created man, out of a (mere)
clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
- "We created man from
sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
- "The similitude of Jesus
before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust,
then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
- "But does not man call to mind
that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf
Ali). Also, 52:35).
- "He has created man from a
sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open
disputer! (16:4).
My Response:
http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/qanda/33.php
http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=102
http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_man_created.htm
Matt Slick's
Response: Unfortunately Mr. Zawadi does not address the
issues himself. Instead, he provides links. Should I refute
Islam by providing a links and saying "Here, read these,"? If I were
to do so many Muslims would denounce my effort as being weak and
that was not able to answer on my own. What is interesting is
that several Muslims have told me that I have been "refuted" by
Zawadi. They do not see the weakness in his argument because
if they did, it would not help the spread of Islam.
Nevertheless, having looked at the links I find the
supposed answers to the problem very poor. One link asserts that
there is no contradiction but a contradistinction; that is,"
speaking about two different concepts on the same subject without
conflict." Well, it is not a contradistinction, but a contradiction.
Sperm is not dust and dust is not sperm. Neither is dust water.
Likewise, a plot of congealed blood is not the same thing is dust.
The Quran does not state that man is created from dust, and water,
congealed blood, and sperm. The contradiction remains.
Another link tries to retranslate the words of the Quran and
even stating that some of the Muslim scholars who translated into
English, were not accurate. But the same article, the second
link, still sites the same issues that I've raised and affirms the
translations. Therefore, the contradiction remains.
Finally, the third link speaks about plasma, water,
human composition, and says, "The Qur'an and the Sunnah of the
prophet Muhammad (pbuh) provide a very detailed description of the
microscopic development of the human embryo from a mere sperm drop
up to the stage of a completely formed human being." the
problem is that the Quran says that man is created from a clot of
congealed blood (96:2). Is a clot of congealed blood the same
thing as clay (15:26)? Is clay the same thing as "nothing"
(19:67)? Is nothing the same thing as a sperm drop (16:4)?
It doesn't take much to see the problem in the Quran
which remains and is evidence that the Quran is not from God, but
from the man known as Mohammed.
Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said:
Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the
Qur'an?
- "Let there be no compulsion
in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever
rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most
trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and
knoweth all things," (2:256).
- "And an announcement from
Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the
day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger
dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye
repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that
ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to
those who reject Faith," (9:3).
- "But when the forbidden months
are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find
them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait
for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent,
and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then
open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most
Merciful," (9:5).
- 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, (even if they are) of the
People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing
submission, and feel themselves subdued," (9:29).
My Response: Taken from
http://www.muhaddith.org/Islam_Answers/Terrorism.html
Islam's answer
(adopted from our original e-mail answer):
The person you heard, reading this passage from the Quran, seems to
have so much hatred against Islam, whereby he did not allow himself
to examine the rest of the passage (let alone other passages of the
Quran, explicitly prohibiting violence against nations that did NOT
transgress, as will be quoted below the current discussion).
In other words, you heard something taken completely out of context,
which contradicts the truth as well as what you know (according to
your words).
This is if we give him the benefit of the doubt (that he did not
read the remainder because of his hatred), which is extremely far
fetched and presumes enormous irresponsibility for a person in his
position:
Matt Slick's
Response:
Unfortunately, Mr. Zawadi has apparently copied a great deal of text
from the link he cites. I do not know if he had permission to do
this, but I do not want to reproduce the work of a third party on my
web site and thereby violate copyright laws. Therefore, I have only
copied the first section of Zawadi's comment. If you wish to read
the entirety of his quote then you'll need to go to the link he
cites.
Please notice how the response immediately says that I
am full of hatred. It goes on to state that my hatred is why my
arguments are invalid. This is an ad hominem attack. Instead of
dealing with the issue, the "refutation" begins with an attack on my
character. This is extremely poor technique and the author of this
article demonstrates a lack of proper argumentation principles.
Will the author have us believe that there is no
compulsion in Islam in view of the verses that says "proclaim a
grievous penalty to those who reject faith," (9:3), and that they
should "fight and slay the pagans... seize them... lie in wait for
them" (9:5), and force them to pay the Jizya tax until they "feel
themselves subdued," (9:29)? Is this the language of no
compulsion? Perhaps the author would care to tell us why it is
illegal to carry a Bible in public in Saudi Arabia, a Muslim run
country? Or perhaps he would like to inform us all about the
oppression that Christians suffer in Islamic dominated countries?
I've spoken to many Christians from Muslim countries who have had to
flee the oppression they have suffered at the hands of Muslims.
Don't be deceived. Islam is not a tolerant religion and it is a
religion of compulsion. It seeks to submit the world to its hand.
Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said:
The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?
- "And I [Muhammad] am
commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam,"
(39:12).
- "When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and
his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to
me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst
thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in
its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His
glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a
swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to
Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to
believe." (7:143).
- "And this was the legacy that
Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons!
Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the
Faith of Islam," (2:132).
My Response:http://www.submission.org/answering-Islam-3.htm#realiz,
read number 59.
Matt Slick's
Response: I do not plan to read other web sites in order
to refute the supposed "rebuttal" by Mr. Zawadi. If this were
the case, all he would have to do is take my papers and reproduce
them with very is Web addresses inserted throughout. This is
not a refutation of my work and I'm not going to continue to tackle
all the web sites that he cites. I might as well put up a site
like www.answeringislam.org
and tell him to refute that.
Therefore, I will not be responding to mere web page
addresses. If Mr. Zawadi as to tackle my papers, then let him
do the tackling instead of referencing other peoples' work.
Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said:
Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?
- Allah forgiveth not that
partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth
anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with
Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48). Also
4:116
- The people of the Book ask
thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they
asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show
us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption,
with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even
after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them;
and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).
My Response:
[a list of web sites, which I removed since they are not Mr.
Zawadi's responses]
Matt Slick's
Response: All that Mr. Zawadi did was provide a list of
web sites. There was no commentary, no response to my
questions on his part. Again, this is not a response and I am
not obligated to read through who knows how many pages of material
on various web sites in order to rebut whatever they might say.
Also, if I were to try and respond to all of the pages that he
merely links to, I would also be obligated to obtain permission to
reproduce their work in order to refute them. Again, if Mr.
Zawadi wants to tackle my papers, then let him actually do it
instead of referencing other peoples' work. If this is all he
is going to do, then he isn't responding and he is wasting my time
since he isn't answering the questions. I then ask why is he
even bothering? Finally, I am quite surprised that the Muslims
who have contacted me saying my papers have been "answered" actually
consider Mr. Zawadi's effort to legitimate one. Unfortunately,
listing other peoples' work can easily mean that Mr. Zawadi is not
capable of doing it himself.
Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said: Are Allah's decrees changed or not?
- "Rejected were the messengers
before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their
rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them:
there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah.
Already hast thou received some account of those messengers,"
(6:34).
- "The word of thy Lord doth
find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change
His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all,
(6:115).
- None of Our revelations do
We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute
something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah
Hath power over all things?" (2:106).
- When We substitute one
revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He
reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but
most of them understand not," (16:101).
My Response:
[a list of web sites, which I removed since they are not Mr.
Zawadi's responses]
Matt Slick's
Response: All that Mr. Zawadi did was provide a list of
web sites. There was no commentary, no response to my
questions on his part. Again, this is not a response and I am
not obligated to read through who knows how many pages of material
on various web sites in order to rebut whatever they might say.
Also, if I were to try and respond to all of the pages that he
merely links to, I would also be obligated to obtain permission to
reproduce their work in order to refute them. Again, if Mr.
Zawadi wants to tackle my papers, then let him actually do it
instead of referencing other peoples' work. If this is all he
is going to do, then he isn't responding and he is wasting my time
since he isn't answering the questions. I then ask why is he
even bothering? Finally, I am quite surprised that the Muslims
who have contacted me saying my papers have been "answered" actually
consider Mr. Zawadi's effort to legitimate one. Unfortunately,
listing other peoples' work can easily mean that Mr. Zawadi is not
capable of doing it himself.
Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said: Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?
- "We took the Children of
Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed
them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with
the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except
Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who
submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): "Ah now!-
But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou
didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee
in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after
thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our
Signs!" (10:90-92).
- Moses said, "Thou knowest well
that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of
the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I
consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to
destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of
the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him,"
(17:102-103).
My Response:
[a list of web sites, which I removed since they are not Mr.
Zawadi's responses]
Matt Slick's
Response: All that Mr. Zawadi did was provide a list of
web sites. There was no commentary, no response to my
questions on his part. Again, this is not a response and I am
not obligated to read through who knows how many pages of material
on various web sites in order to rebut whatever they might say.
Also, if I were to try and respond to all of the pages that he
merely links to, I would also be obligated to obtain permission to
reproduce their work in order to refute them. Again, if Mr.
Zawadi wants to tackle my papers, then let him actually do it
instead of referencing other peoples' work. If this is all he
is going to do, then he isn't responding and he is wasting my time
since he isn't answering the questions. I then ask why is he
even bothering? Finally, I am quite surprised that the Muslims
who have contacted me saying my papers have been "answered" actually
consider Mr. Zawadi's effort to legitimate one. Unfortunately,
listing other peoples' work can easily mean that Mr. Zawadi is not
capable of doing it himself.
Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said: Is wine consumption good or bad?
- O ye who believe!
Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and
(divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's
handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper,"
(5:90).
- (Here is) a Parable of the
Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of
water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never
changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and
rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all
kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such
Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire,
and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their
bowels (to pieces)?" (47:15).
- Truly the Righteous will be
in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight
(of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming
brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure
Wine sealed," (83:22-25).
My Response:
[a list of web sites, which I removed since they are not Mr.
Zawadi's responses]
Matt Slick's
Response: All that Mr. Zawadi did was provide a list of
web sites. There was no commentary, no response to my
questions on his part. Again, this is not a response and I am
not obligated to read through who knows how many pages of material
on various web sites in order to rebut whatever they might say.
Also, if I were to try and respond to all of the pages that he
merely links to, I would also be obligated to obtain permission to
reproduce their work in order to refute them. Again, if Mr.
Zawadi wants to tackle my papers, then let him actually do it
instead of referencing other peoples' work. If this is all he
is going to do, then he isn't responding and he is wasting my time
since he isn't answering the questions. I then ask why is he
even bothering? Finally, I am quite surprised that the Muslims
who have contacted me saying my papers have been "answered" actually
consider Mr. Zawadi's effort to legitimate one. Unfortunately,
listing other peoples' work can easily mean that Mr. Zawadi is not
capable of doing it himself.
Bassam Zawadi's Original:
Conclusion
Obviously I in no
way whatsoever deserve any credit for this article. Clearly, all the
issues have already been addressed by other Muslims (may Allah
greatly reward them). I just found that it might be useful to make a
comprehensive article with the rebuttals in them to the so called
contradictions that have been put forward.
There are no
contradictions in the Quran. I really hope that people out there
would be objective and search for the truth and if they think that
there are contradictions in the Quran then they should go and search
for the rebuttal to it. Then they judge for themselves.
Matt Slick's
Response: Conclusion: I agree that Mr. Zawadi does
not deserve any credit for this article. I do not find listing other
peoples' work, when you are intending to deal with an individual's
paper, to be an adequate defense by any means. I am very
disappointed in the Mr. Zawadi's effort. I can only hope that if he
were to seriously attempt to respond to my work that he would actually
write responses instead of pointing to others' websites.
|