Meherally and the Bible - Revisited [Part 2]

Here is our response to Meherally's latest "response" posted on February 2, 2003. We omit material which appear both in Meherally's original article, as well as my initial response. Read [Part 1] first, before you continue here.

RESPONSE:

Meherally thinks he has actually refuted my article, but as I will now show Meherally has only managed to expose his shoddy scholarship and shallow reading of my material. Please notice what Meherally originally wrote regarding the Pentateuch, this time with added emphasis (green and italics):

It is absolutely incorrect or rather a folly to claim that "The Taurat" refers to the collection of the 39 Books of "The Old Testament". It is an indisputable fact that this entire collection of 39 Books was not Revealed to Prophet Moses. Similarly, it is ALSO incorrect to assert that the First Five Books of the Old Testaments called "The Pentateuch" (lit. "The Five Books"), which are often erroneously declared as the "Five Books of Moses", were Revealed to Prophet Moses. The Bible Scholars (mostly Christians and Jews), who have examined The Pentateuch (Five Books attributed to Moses), have discovered four or more main sources underlying them.

Do take note that Meherally initially claimed that it is incorrect to assert that ALL FIVE BOOKS of the Pentateuch WERE REVEALED TO MOSES. Yet after exposing his inconsistent methodology by quoting from his own article where he clearly attributes Deuteronomy 18 and 33 to Moses, Meherally tries to pull a fast one by claiming that I need to show where he rejects the entire book of Deuteronomy. This gives the misleading impression that Meherally does not reject Mosaic authorship for most of the Pentateuch, or at least for most of Deuteronomy. This is a sheer falsehood in light of Meherally's original claim.

This will become even clearer in the next quotation because Meherally's above statement continues:

The Bible Scholars (mostly Christians and Jews), who have examined The Pentateuch (Five Books attributed to Moses), have discovered four or more main sources underlying them.
Here are the Four Recognized Main Contributors or the Main Source Documents.

1. J = Yahwistic Text. Written by the authors in the time of
         David or Solomon.
2. E= Elohistic Text. Written by the author after the disruption of
         the old Solomonic Kingdom.
3. D= The work of Deuteronomists. The Text was written in the last
         quarter of the 7th and the first quarter of the 6th centuries BCE
4. P= The Priestly Accounts. Written after the Babylonian exile
         (586-538 B.C.E.).

Meherally seemingly subscribes to the JEDP theory. In this theory the "recognized scholars" believe that the earliest part of the Pentateuch is written in the time of David, i.e. about 1000 BC, roughly 400 years after Moses' death (about 1400 BC). In particular, these scholars declare all of the book of Deuteronomy to be the work of the Deuteronomist(s) and date it to a time at least 700 years after Moses according to the dates provided by Meherally himself, and which he even emphasized by writing it in extra large letters so that we may not overlook it.

Most importantly for our discussion, this theory does not make a difference between Deut. 18 and 33 on the one hand and Deut. 34 on the other. But that is a difference that Meherally would like to argue in his reaction to our rebuttal.

Meherally states, correctly, that this theory "identifies" four main sources for the Pentateuch, all of which are dated several centuries after the time of Moses. Moses is not even one of the main sources of the Pentateuch in the JEDP theory. Some of these scholars may hold that there may be small traces of text that are genuinely of Mosaic origin, but if they exist at all, that part is very minor. (Many of these scholars may not even believe that Moses existed in the sense that he was a historical figure.)

By subscribing to and promoting the JEDP theory, Meherally has indeed rejected ALL of the Pentateuch as Mosaic, but certainly ALL of Deuteronomy. If, on the other hand, he does not agree with this theory, why does he refer to it to support his argument?

Does Meherally promote theories in which he does not believe? Does he act under the guiding principle: It doesn't matter whether it is true or false — as long as it is useful to damage the credibility of the Bible in the eyes of my readers, I will gladly use it! Anything that further promotes Islam is good and right? Don't dare hold me accountable for what I wrote?

Yet, instead of admitting that he was caught red handed and was therefore mistaken, Meherally tries to cover up his gross errors by making excuses. Hence, not only has Meherally failed miserably to refute my initial defense of Mosaic authorship for Deuteronomy 34, as I will again demonstrate, but Meherally has exposed himself by distorting his original claim in order to cover up his gross mistakes.

Meherally continues:

RESPONSE:

As anyone reading my response could see, I didn't "try to change" anything. Rather, I tried to demonstrate that just as it was possible for God to reveal to Moses thousands of years of history beforehand, it is equally possible that God told Moses beforehand the manner of the latter's death. From there, God could have had Moses record his death as having already transpired, even though it was still future.

Here I will produce additional evidence supporting my claim. I first begin with the book of Deuteronomy:

"The LORD said to Moses, ‘NOW THE DAY OF YOUR DEATH IS NEAR. Call Joshua and present yourselves at the Tent of Meeting, where I will commission him.’ So Moses and Joshua came and presented themselves at the Tent of Meeting. Then the LORD appeared at the Tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the Tent. And the LORD said to Moses: ‘YOU ARE GOING TO REST WITH YOUR FATHERS, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, "Have not these disasters come upon us because our God is not with us?" And I will certainly hide my face on that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods. Now write down for yourselves this song and teach it to the Israelites and have them sing it, so that it may be a witness for me against them. When I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath to their forefathers, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my covenant. And when many disasters and difficulties come upon them, this song will testify against them, because it will not be forgotten by their descendants. I know what they are disposed to do, even before I bring them into the land I promised them on oath.’ So Moses wrote down this song that day and taught it to the Israelites. The LORD gave this command to Joshua son of Nun: ’Be strong and courageous, for you will bring the Israelites into the land I promised them on oath, and I myself will be with you.’ After Moses finished writing in a book the words of this law from beginning to end, he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD: ‘Take this Book of the Law and place it beside the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God. There it will remain as a witness against you. For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the LORD while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die! Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to testify against them. For I know that AFTER MY DEATH you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall upon you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and provoke him to anger by what your hands have made.’" Deuteronomy 31:14-29

"On that same day the LORD told Moses, ‘Go up into the Abarim Range to Mount Nebo in Moab, across from Jericho, and view Canaan, the land I am giving the Israelites as their own possession. THERE ON THE MOUNTAIN THAT YOU HAVE CLIMBED YOU WILL DIE AND BE GATHERED TO YOUR PEOPLE, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites. Therefore, you will see the land only from a distance; you will not enter the land I am giving to the people of Israel.’" Deuteronomy 32:48-52

Not only does God tell Israel what will befall them in the future, but also tells Moses that his death is near, going so far as to tell him the very exact location of his death! Hence, these passages clearly establish my original point. Just as God was able to tell Moses beforehand where and when he would die, God was also capable of telling Moses to record his own death and burial as a befitting way to conclude the book of Deuteronomy.

The following citations provide additional support for my position. These passages show how inspired prophets can speak of future events as past or present realities:

"And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day HAVE I BROUGHT your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever." Exodus 12:17 KJV

God tells Israel that he has brought them out of Egypt even before the Exodus had actually occurred!

"Therefore my people ARE GONE into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst." Isaiah 5:13 KJV

Isaiah speaks of the future captivity of the Jews as having already occurred!

"He IS COME to Aiath, he IS PASSED to Migron; at Michmash HE HATH laid up his carriages: They ARE GONE over the passage: THEY HAVE TAKEN up their lodging at Geba; Ramah is afraid; Gibeah of Saul is fled." Isaiah 10:28-29 KJV

Isaiah again speaks of the future as already transpiring.

"And after this did Jehoshaphat king of Judah join himself with Ahaziah king of Israel, who did very wickedly: And he joined himself with him to make ships to go to Tarshish: and they made the ships in Eziongaber. Then Eliezer the son of Dodavah of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, Because thou hast joined thyself with Ahaziah, the LORD HATH broken thy works. And the ships were broken, that they were not able to go to Tarshish." 2 Chronicles 20:35-37 KJV

Notice here that the prophet speaks of God as having already broken or destroyed Ahaziah's works, i.e. the ships, even though it didn't happen until some time later.

"Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Jehovah, And I HAVE MADE with the house of Israel And with the house of Judah a new covenant, Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day of My laying hold on their hand, To bring them out of the land of Egypt, In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them -- an affirmation of Jehovah. For this [is] the covenant THAT I MAKE, With the house of Israel, after those days, An affirmation of Jehovah, I have given My law in their inward part, And on their heart I do write it, And I have been to them for God, And they are to me for a people. And they do not teach any more Each his neighbour, and each his brother, Saying, Know ye Jehovah, FOR THEY ALL KNOW ME, from their least unto their greatest, An affirmation of Jehovah; For I PARDON their iniquity, And of their sin I MAKE MENTION no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34 Young's Literal Translation

God's future covenant with Israel is spoken of as being a present reality.

This OT phenomena of speaking of future events in the past is known as the prophetic perfective. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (section 106n, pp. 312-313) states:

More particularly the uses of the perfect may be distinguished as follows: -- ... To express facts which are undoubtedly imminent, and, therefore in the imagination of the speaker, already accomplished (perfectum confidentiae), e.g., Nu. 17:27, behold, we perish, we are undone, we are all undone. Gn. 30:13, Is. 6:5 (I am undone), Pr. 4:2. ... This use of the perfect occurs most frequently in prophetic language (perfectum propheticum). The prophet so transports himself in imagination into the future that he describes the future event as if it had been already seen or heard by him, e.g. Is. 5:13 therefore my people are gone into captivity; 9:1ff.,10:28,11:9 ...; 19:7, Jb. 5:20, 2 Ch. 20:37. Not infrequently the imperfect interchanges with such perfects either in the parallel member or further on in the narrative.

Yet this is phenomena is not restricted to the OT, as the following NT examples demonstrate:

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! Look, your house IS LEFT DESOLATE. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’" Luke 13:34-35

Jesus speaks of both his future rejection and the desolation of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 A.D., as already occurring!

Again:

"I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do ... Father, I want those you have given me to be with me WHERE I AM, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." John 17:4, 24

Even before his actual crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension to heaven, Christ could speak of already having completed the work of God and of receiving his heavenly glory!

Finally:

"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood, WHICH IS POURED OUT FOR YOU.’" Luke 22:19-20

Here, the Lord Jesus speaks of his blood as already being poured out even though he hadn't undergone the actual crucifixion.

Greek Grammarians H.E. Danay and Julius R. Mantey label this use of the present tense for future events as the futuristic present, stating:

"This use of the present tense denotes an event which has not yet occurred, but which is regarded as so certain that in thought it may be contemplated as already coming to pass." (Danay & Mantey, A Manuel Grammar of the Greek New Testament [Macmillian Company, Toronto, 1995], p. 185; emphasis ours)

The preceding verses clearly demonstrate that it is quite possible that God told Moses to record his impending death and burial as something which had already transpired in order to conclude the writing of the Torah.

Finally, I am not the first one to promote the idea that Moses recorded his own death and burial. This is a view held by men such as Philo and Josephus:

"The term ‘the book of Moses,’ found in II Chronicles 25:4; 35:12; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; and Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1, surely included the Book of Genesis and also testifies to a belief in Israelite circles in the fifth century B.C. that all five of the books were the work of Moses. Ben Sira (Ecclus. 24:23), Philo, Josephus, and the authors of the Gospels held that Moses was intimately related to the Pentateuch. Philo and Josephus EVEN EXPLICITLY SAID that Moses wrote Deuteronomy 34:5-12. Other writers of the New Testament tie the Pentateuch to Moses. The Jewish Talmud asserts that whoever denied Mosaic authorship would be excluded from Paradise." (Herbert G. Livingston, The Pentateuch in Its Cultural Environment, [Baker, 1974], pp. 218-219)

Thus far, nothing that Meherally has said even begins to refute the evidence presented for the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy 34.

RESPONSE:

Meherally thinks that by appealing to a translation committee he will somehow undermine my argument. Yet, all Meherally has managed to show is that he is good at evasion tactics and at committing logical fallacies. In this case, Meherally commits the fallacy of appealing to authority:

Appeal to Authority
(argumentum ad verecundiam)

Definition:

While sometimes it may be appropriate to cite an authority to support a point, often it is not. In particular, an appeal to authority is inappropriate if:
(i) the person is not qualified to have an expert opinion on the subject,
(ii) experts in the field DISAGREE ON THIS ISSUE.
(iii) the authority was making a joke, drunk, or otherwise not being serious

A variation of the fallacious appeal to authority is hearsay. An argument from hearsay is an argument which depends on second or third hand sources.

Examples:

(i) Noted psychologist Dr. Frasier Crane recommends that you buy the EZ-Rest Hot Tub.
(ii) Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argues that a tight money policy s the best cure for a recession. (Although Galbraith is an expert, not all economists agree on this
point.)
(iii) We are headed for nuclear war. Last week Ronald Reagan remarked that we begin bombing Russia in five minutes. (Of course, he said it as a joke during a microphone test.)
(iv) My friend heard on the news the other day that Canada will declare war on Serbia. (This is a case of hearsay; in fact, the reporter said that Canada would not declare war.)
(v) The Ottawa Citizen reported that sales were up 5.9 percent this year. (This is hearsay; we are not n a position to check the Citizen's sources.)

Proof:

Show that either (i) the person cited is not an authority in the field, or that (ii) there is GENERAL DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE EXPERTS in the field on this point. (Source: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/aa.htm)

Since there is general disagreement amongst scholars regarding Deuteronomy 34, to then appeal to a certain scholar(s) to support one's case is clearly a fallacy and proves absolutely nothing.

Secondly, even though I have attempted to defend the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy 34, the claim that someone else wrote Moses' obituary would still do nothing to undermine Mosaic authorship of either the Pentateuch or the great bulk of Deuteronomy. It would only suggest that Moses didn’t write Deuteronomy 34.

There are many conservative Jews and Christians who believe that another inspired writer such as Joshua wrote Deuteronomy 34. Evidence for this view can be found within the Holy Bible itself since we are told that God personally commissioned Joshua to add additional instructions to the book of the Law:

"On that day Joshua made a covenant for the people, and there at Shechem he drew up for them decrees and laws. And Joshua recorded these things in the Book of the Law of God. Then he took a large stone and set it up there under the oak near the holy place of the LORD." Joshua 24:25-26

This passage demonstrates the plausibility of Deuteronomy 34 being written by another inspired writer under the direct order of God.

In fact, in one of my first debates with Meherally, I had written:

Mr. Meherally, can you please explain to us in what way do the opinions and comments of translators' effect the integrity of the Holy Bible? Had you been able to show that the inspired text of scripture contained the above statements then you might have had a case. Besides, for one translator to say that Moses wrote Deuteronomy, while another says Moses and Joshua poses no real difficulty whatsoever. If I were to write 90% of a book and died before completion, would it be wrong for someone to attribute the book's authorship to me despite the fact that someone else, let's say Jochen Katz, wrote the remaining portion? Obviously not, just as it wouldn't be wrong for someone else to say that Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz were actually the authors of the book I intended to write but did not complete due to my untimely death, God forbid!

Hence, Meherally grasps at straws since, a) he attacks the comments of translators that have no bearing on the inspired text, and b) claims to have found an error when actually the only error is the one assumed in Meherally's own mind. (Source)

As one can see, the fact that some conservatives believe that someone else wrote Deuteronomy 34 while still believing that Moses wrote the Pentateuch demonstrates that Meherally's appeal to the NRSV is misplaced and does nothing to support his gross errors.

For a look at conservatives who believe that someone else wrote Moses' obituary, we recommend the following two scholarly articles:

Finally, please do remember that Meherally's original claim was that it was incorrect to ascribe ALL FIVE BOOKS to Moses. He now abandons his original position and concedes (after getting caught and exposed) that Moses did in fact write certain parts of the Pentateuch, specifically Deuteronomy 18 and 33. He then tries to give his readers the impression that he was only seeking to undermine Mosaic authorship for Deuteronomy 34. Yet, Meherally's smokescreen and recanting of his original position only demonstrates that Meherally realized that he got caught in a gross error and is now trying to desperately cover over this major embarrassment.

Meherally again:

RESPONSE:

It is rather quite apparent that Meherally is getting very desperate here. His appeal to the KJV is nothing more than a red herring aimed at avoiding admitting that he has been exposed for his inconsistent methodology and shoddy scholarship. Seeing that the translators of the KJV held to conservative views of the Holy Bible, specifically affirming Mosaic authorship of most, if not all, of Deuteronomy, Meherally is therefore guilty of committing the fallacy of a false analogy. The translators of the KJV did not deny that the Pentateuch was revealed to Moses, as Meherally does (or did initially). Yet, after being exposed for contradicting himself from one article to the next (i.e. his denial that Moses wrote the Pentateuch to his appeal to Deuteronomy 18 and 33 as genuine prophecies of Moses regarding Muhammad), Meherally has now tried to do an about face and 180 degree turn.

Furthermore, unlike Meherally, I do not appeal to the Quran as the word of God. Everytime I appeal to the Quran, it is solely for the purpose of exposing and/or convincing Muslims of the error of their ways. For instance, in my original response to Meherally, I used the Quran to show that his view regarding the Holy Bible is grossly in error and is not supported by the very book he claims to be God's Word.

Yet, Meherally often points to prophecies within the Pentateuch, such as Deuteronomy 18 and 33, as well as other books of the Holy Bible, with the implication that these are genuine revelations from God. In light of this, Meherally is again guilty of a false analogy, since my appeal to the Quran is not the same as Meherally's appeal to the Holy Bible.

Meherally next commits one of the grossest errors we have ever seen. In fact, what Meherally is about to say is one of the greatest lies and deceptions we have heard thus far:

RESPONSE:

Let me repost Meherally's own transliteration of the Arabic in order to expose one of the boldest lies and deceptions ever attempted by a Muslim:

'in(na) -naa anzalnaa AT-TAWRAAH fe -haa huda(n) wa- nor yah.kum bi- -haa an- nabeyon 'alladhena aslamo li- 'alladhena haado wa- ar- rabbaaneyon wa- al- ah.baar bi- maa istuh.fiz.o min kitaab 'allaah wa- kaano calay -hi shuhadaa' fa- laa takhshaw an- naas wa- ikhshaw -ni wa- laa tashtaro bi- 'aayaat -e thaman(an) qalel(an) wa- man lam yah.kum bi- maa anzala 'allaah fa- 'olaa'ika hum al- kaafiron.
Transliteration of Verse 5: 44

Everyone can easily see that the expression At-Tawraah (the Torah) appears in the Arabic, BUT THE WORD MUSA (the Arabic name of Moses) IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE TEXT! And yet, Meherally has the audacity to claim that I am in error, and that I have promoted falsehood!

Notice how the following translations render this verse:

As can be seen from the preceding translations, Moses' name does not appear anywhere in the verse. This is just as expected, since we have already established, that it is not found in the Arabic original. The fact that a translation by F. Malik inserts the word Moses into the text doesn’t help Meherally in the least. All this shows is that some Muslims have dishonestly translated the Quran by either obscuring the real meaning, or by reading their own unwarranted presuppositions into the text.

This also shows that, if anything, it is Meherally who hasn't read S. 5:44 carefully. Yet, I do have a problem with letting Meherally off the hook that easily. I do find it rather hard to accept that Meherally has not read the text carefully, especially when Meherally appeals to the Arabic transliteration of the Quran and even distinguishes the relevant part with a different color. This suggests to me that he has indeed carefully read the verse and therefore knows very well that Moses' name does not appear in the text. We find it highly unlikely that Meherally has not only failed to understand the English translation, but also failed to grasp the Arabic as well. We are therefore left with one conclusion:

Some may have wondered, what is the point in quoting nine English translations of a verse from the Quran after we have already proven from the Arabic that "Moses" is not mentioned in it? Using the search engine Google on March 4th 2003, we found that Meherally currently cites at least the following translations in his website "mostmerciful.com":

Shakir and Sarwar are standard Shia Muslim translations, and Dawood also is a commonly used translation, even though Meherally uses these three seldomly. The translation of F. Malik is a relatively new, but obscure and rarely used one (no wonder, it is quite inaccurate, taking too many liberties, as we have seen in this case). Yusuf Ali, the translation most used by Meherally, puts (to Moses) in brackets to indicate that this is an addition NOT FOUND in the original text. The point is: Meherally has available and regularly uses many different translations of the Quran, nearly all of which make it clear that Moses is NOT mentioned in Surah 5:44. But despite the fact that Meherally is well aware of it, he searches until he finds one rarely used English translation which does write what he wants, and then presents it as proof, that the Quran states what it clearly does not say. This is additional evidence for an intentional deception.

It would have been acceptable had Meherally - as an expression of common Muslim belief - written in any of his articles that the Quran states the Torah was given to Moses. It would then just have been a matter of common ignorance. No big deal. It is quite another issue that after this fact was (a) clearly stated to Meherally, and (b) after Meherally has researched it himself by comparing several translations and even consulting the original Arabic of the Quran, to then deliberately lie about it.

HERE IS AN ADDITIONAL SHOCKER. Meherally thinks that by appealing to a subheading in his article he will somehow refute my original challenge and this constitutes as proof for his claim. Since Meherally's subheading is not part of the Quran, this only further demonstrates that Meherally is using deceptive tactics to evade the fact that he has been exposed. So we issue our challenge again:

Since Meherally appealed to Silas' statement regarding dogs and donkeys, we reproduce it here leaving it to the reader to decide whether Meherally fits the bill:

At this point, I need to say to Meherally, "Meherally! Before you ‘rebut’ anything, please read all of it!!! Otherwise you appear to be a barking dog or a braying donkey."

In light of the fact that Meherally again has shown that he hasn't read our rebuttal carefully or, even worse still, has chosen to deliberately misrepresent our arguments, and even the Quran itself, Silas' description is rather befitting. We must say it rather bluntly that Meherally's deceptive methodology is shameful to say the least. Nor is this the first time or in any way unusual. It is and was a consistent feature of Meherally's approach from the beginning. We only need to point to this rebuttal dating back to 1995: Issues of Integrity.

[Meherally responded to the above, and our answer is found here.]

Meherally proceeds to introduce another red herring into the discussion:

RESPONSE:

Meherally now changes the subject of the discussion from the Quranic view of the Holy Bible to textual criticism, a discipline of New Testament scholarship that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Quran. This evasion tactic only further demonstrates just how weak and desperate Meherally's response truly is. Since these issues have already been dealt with elsewhere, we will simply link to the responses:

Furthermore, please do read the following articles documenting the corruption of the Quran at the hands of Muslims, especially the last two:

These links document how entire chapters and verses have either been omitted or deliberately inserted into the text of the Quran.

Meherally has also tried to address the issue of Quranic variant readings on his web site. Yet, as is the case with most of his articles, his response is rather poor and unscholarly, as we will show in the near future, Lord Jesus willing.

As they say, a person who lives in a glass house shouldn't be throwing stones!

We conclude our article by briefly commenting on the following claim:

RESPONSE:

The following quotation is Meherally's praise for Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Mubarakpuri's stringent work of omitting all weak narrations from Ibn Kathir's commentary:

Good News... The Admission of "Weak Hadeeths" and "Israelites Stories" within the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir... Process of Weeding Out initiated by the Muslim Scholars and Islamic Organizations...

Meherally then presents the following quote:

Careful analysis and eforts [sic] have been made and taken to ensure that weak Hadith ARE NOT included within the abridged version of the English translation.

It seems that Meherally failed to grasp the implication of the Shaykh's comments. Since the weak hadiths were omitted from Ibn Kathir’s commentary, leaving only those that are sound according to the Muslim scholars, and since this is the very translation I use in most of my citations, THIS MEANS THAT THE STATEMENTS I QUOTE FROM IBN KATHIR ARE SOUND AND ARE WITHOUT DISPUTE! Hence, Meherally's very own appeal to the translators of Ibn Kathir only serves to strengthen my case against him. Thank you Meherally. We appreciate all your fine efforts in helping us expose your shoddy research and scholarship.

Meherally plans to update his responses to our initial response. As this occurs, we will also update our rebuttals to him, Lord Jesus willing.

Continue with Meherally and the Bible - Revisited [Part 3].

Sam Shamoun

Responses to Akbarally Meherally
Answering Islam Home Page