Meherally and the Bible - Revisited [Part 3]

This is the final segment of my response to Meherally’s critique of Silas’ and my response (start reading with [Part 1] and [Part 2]). In Meherally’s next segment, he continues to take issue with my claim that Deuteronomy 34 was written by Moses:

RESPONSE:

I have already addressed the use of past and present tenses in reference to future events and even produced several verses illustrating this fact. Please see the second part of my response to Meherally for the references.

Here, I would simply like to highlight more of Meherally's desperation and hypocrisy. Meherally claims that since Deuteronomy 34 is couched in the past tense it cannot be referring to a future event. Yet, Meherally forgets what he has written elsewhere regarding alleged OT prophecies of Muhammad. Commenting on Habakkuk 3:3, Meherally writes:

The prophetic "past tense" of the Vision REFERS TO THE EVENTS THAT ARE TO HAPPEN IN THE "FUTURE".

And regarding Deuteronomy 33:2, Meherally states:

Nearly TWENTY CENTURIES BEFORE THE BIRTH OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD AND A SHORT WHILE BEFORE HIS OWN DEATH, prophet Moses speaking on the subject of the Holy One from mount Paran, said to his people:

And he said, The Lord CAME from Sinai,
and ROSE UP from Seir unto them;
he SHINED FORTH from mount Paran,
and HE CAME with ten thousands of saints:
from his right hand {went} a fiery law for them.
Yea, he loved the people;
all his saints {are} in Thy hand:
and they sat down at Thy feet;
{every one} shall receive of Thy words.
(KJV) Deut 33:2

(Source for both quotations: http://mostmerciful.com/prophecy2.htm)

Note that Deuteronomy 33:2 uses the past tense, and yet this doesn't stop Meherally from applying this passage TO AN EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE NEARLY TWENTY CENTURIES AFTER MOSES!

Meherally has written an article regarding Surah 54:1 and the splitting of the Moon (http://mostmerciful.com/moon.htm).

The most amazing thing about this is that despite the use of the present tense, Meherally tries to convince his readers that this is actually referring TO A FUTURE EVENT! Here is the verse in question:

The hour (of Judgment) is nigh and the moon is cleft asunder. S. 54:1

And Meherally comments:

EXPLANATION NO. 2: (The cleaving of the moon will happen in the future). Majority of the biblical prophecies, spoken by the biblical prophet Isaiah and recorded in the Old Testament concerning the sufferings and persecution of Jesus Christ, who was to be born some 700 years later, are written in the past tense (e.g. "he was despised and forsaken"; "was pierced"; "was numbered with the transgressors" - see Book of Isaiah chapter 53). These biblical texts demonstrate that within the Holy Scriptures, the prophetic past tense does indicate the future tense. There are translators of the Glorious Qur'an, Muslims as well as the non-Muslims*, who are of the opinion that the splitting of moon was a foretoken of the Last Day, and its proclamation in verse 54:1 that it has happened, may simply testify a forewarning and an affirmed admonition with an impending certitude. Yusuf Ali's comments; "the prophetic past tense indicates the future, the cleaving asunder of the moon being a Sign of the Judgement approaching" is not the commentary in isolation. (* those interested are suggested to read 'Companion to the Qur'an' by Professor Emeritus of Arabic and Islamic Studies, William M. Watt)

And:

2. The above explanation presented by Yusuf Ali is supported by another great Muslim scholar - Late Muhammad Asad. He happens to be the author of great Islamic literature, e.g., 'Islam at the Cross Road', 'The Road to Makkah'. Here is Muhammad Asad's commentary to verse 54:1 as it appears in his translation; 'The Message of the Qur'an' (Translated and Explained), published by Dar al-Andalus, Gibraltar:

Most of the commentators see in this verse a reference to a phenomenon said to have been witnessed by several of the Prophet's contemporaries. As described in a number of reports going back to some Companions, the moon appeared one night as if split into two distinct parts. While there is no reason to doubt the subjective veracity of these reports, ... But whatever the nature of that phenomenon, it is practically certain that the above Qur'an-verse does not refer to it but, rather, to a future event: namely, to what will happen when the Last Hour approaches. (THE QUR'AN FREQUENTLY EMPLOYS THE PAST TENSE TO DENOTE THE FUTURE, and particularly so in passages which speak of the coming of the Last Hour and of Resurrection Day; this use of the past tense is meant to stress the certainty of the happening to which the verb relates.) Thus, Raghib* regards it as fully justifiable to interpret the phrase inshaqqa 'l -qamar ("the moon is split asunder") as bearing on the cosmic cataclysm - the end of the world as we know it - that will occur before the coming of Resurrection Day (see art. shaqq in the Mufradat). As mentioned by Zamakhshari,** this interpretation has the support of some of the earlier commentators; and it is, to my mind, particularly convincing in view of the juxtaposition, in the above Qur'an-verse, of the moon's "splitting asunder" and the approach of the Last Hour. (In this connection we must bear in mind the fact that none of the Qur'anic allusions to the "nearness" of the Last Hour and the Day Of Resurrection is base on the human concept of "time".) (page 818).

It is quite astonishing, to say the least, that Meherally will apeal to scholars to prove that the Quran uses past and even present tenses in reference to future events, and yet rejects such arguments when used to affirm Mosaic authorship. Such careless exegesis is appalling and Meherally's double standard is inexcusable to say the least.

Meherally proceeds:

RESPONSE:

The Hebrew words which are translated as "and the opening of the prison to (them that are) bound" are paqach-qowach and acar. As one can see, paqach-qowach is actually a redoubling of the same word. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines the redoubled word paqach-qowach as:

Note that the word implies the opening of eyes.

Here is how the BDB Lexicon defines acar:

As one can see, the phrase literally means "to open those that are tied/bound/imprisoned."

Note the way the following translation renders the text in question:

The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah [is] on me, Because Jehovah did anoint me To proclaim tidings to the humble, He sent me to bind the broken of heart, To proclaim to captives liberty, And to bound ones an opening of bands. Young's Literal Translation

In light of the preceding considerations, the text can be referring to a literal releasing of those taken captive. Or it can be referring to a spiritual releasing from bondage to the powers of darkness, to the opening of eyes that have been blinded from seeing the truth of God.

The following commentaries help clarify this point:

opening of the prison--The Hebrew rather is, "the most complete opening," namely, of the eyes to them that are bound, that is, deliverance from prison, for captives are as it were blind in the darkness of prison (Isaiah 14:17, 35:5, 42:7) [EWALD]. So Luke 4:18 and the Septuagint interpret it; Luke 4:18, under inspiration, adds to this, for the fuller explanation of the single clause in the Hebrew, "to set at liberty them that are bruised"; thus expressing the double "opening" implied; namely, that of the eyes (John 9:39), and that of the prison (Romans 6:18, 7:24,25 Hebrews 2:15). His miracles were acted parables. (Source: Jamieson-Fausset-Brown commentary on Isaiah 61:1)

release from darkness for the prisoners This is a difficult phrase in Hebrew because of a scribal error in the text. Scholars have reconstructed it to read "an opening for those bound." From darkness is not in the Hebrew. The NIV added it because THE WORD TRANSLATED RELEASE MEANS "OPEN THE EYES" (Prov 20:13). The Greek translation of the Hebrew (Septuagint), which circulated widely in the New Testament period, read "those blind" instead of "those bound." Luke evidently quotes this passage from the Septuagint (Luke 4:18). (Source: http://www.cresourcei.org/isa61.html)

And:

The LXX and the NT include the "recovery of sight to the blind" - a concept which is replaced with an opening of prison for those who are bound. Marginal notes in the RSV and the NIV indicate that this MT phrase COULD BE TRANSLATED "the opening of the eyes" - in the Hebrew, it is simply "the opening." (Source: http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spindex.htm)

As already mentioned in the above quotations, this understanding is reflected in the pre-Christian Jewish translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek called the Septuagint (LXX):

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declare the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all that mourn; Isaiah 61:1-2 Brenton's LXX (http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Isaiah/61.html)

It should be noted that the Septuagint at times preserves an older, and sometimes more accurate, rendering of the Hebrew text. Some of the variant readings that arose amongst the MSS were either the result of copyist mistakes or corruptions, or due to difficulties in accurately understanding the Hebrew text. In the case of the latter, the scribe would try to clarify the text by providing an interpretation of what he felt the text meant based upon the context. This seems to be the case with the LXX's rendering of Isaiah 61:1. Yet these variants in no way affect the essential purity and accuracy of the Biblical text.

This then leads me to my second point, namely, Meherally's erroneous claim that Luke added his own text. It is quite apparent that Luke wasn't adding anything, but was accurately quoting the LXX, a text which was widely used by both the Greek speaking Jews and Gentile Christians.

Let us now turn the tables on Meherally and see if the Quran passes his own criteria:

Quran:

"And We prescribed for them therein: The life for the life, and the eye for the eye, and the nose for the nose, and the ear for the ear, and the tooth for the tooth, and for wounds retaliation. But whoso forgoeth it (in the way of charity) it shall be expiation for him. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are wrong-doers." S. 5:45

Compare:

"But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:23-25

"Anyone who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution - life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death." Leviticus 24:18-21

"Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Deuteronomy 19:21

We challenge Meherally to find a single place in the Holy Bible where the phrase, "and the nose for nose, and the ear for ear", appears.

Quran:

"And verily we have written in the Psalms, after the Reminder: My righteous slaves will inherit the earth:" S. 21:105

Compare:

"He will spend his days in prosperity, and his descendants will inherit the land." Psalm 25:13

"But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy great peace... the righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it forever." Psalm 37:11, 29

We challenge Meherally to show us where the phrase "My righteous servants" appears in the Psalms that speak of inheriting the earth.

We are forced to conclude that because the Quran does not literally quote the OT word for word, but paraphrases it, it is therefore in error. Would Meherally accept this? He must if he is to remain consistent in his critical approach to the Holy Bible.

Meherally's approach leads us to the inevitable conclusion that his god, Allah, cannot get his quotations correct and has a hard time recalling the exact words of his own revelation.

Finally, here is a list of variant readings that existed amongst the competing Quranic codices:

Addition to Sura 92

Surah 92:3 reads:

Yet according to the following hadiths, the phrase "by Him who created (ma khalaqa)" is an addition to the text that some like Ibn Masud said shouldn't be there:

Narrated Alqama:
I went to Sham and was offering a two-Rak'at prayer; I said, "O Allah! Bless me with a (pious) companion." Then I saw an old man coming towards me, and when he came near I said, (to myself), "I hope Allah has given me my request." The man asked (me), "Where are you from?" I replied, "I am from the people of Kufa." He said, "Weren't there amongst you the Carrier of the (Prophet's) shoes, Siwak and the ablution water container? Weren't there amongst you the man who was given Allah's Refuge from the Satan? And weren't there amongst you the man who used to keep the (Prophet's) secrets which nobody else knew? How did Ibn Um 'Abd (i.e. 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud) use to recite Surat-al-lail (the Night: 92)?" I recited:--

"By the Night as it envelops By the Day as it appears in brightness. And by male and female." (92.1-3) On that, Abu Darda said, "BY ALLAH, the Prophet made me read the Verse in this way after listening to him, but these people (of Sham) TRIED THEIR BEST to let me say something different." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 105)

Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abu Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama."How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:

‘By the male and the female.’ Abu Ad-Darda said, "I TESTIFY that I heard the Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--

‘And by Him Who created male and female.’ BUT BY ALLAH, I WILL NOT FOLLOW THEM." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 468; see also Volume 5, Book 57, Number 85)

Missing Part On Muhammad's Fatherhood:

Yusuf Ali records that S. 33:6 in the text of Ubay b. Ka'b read differently from the Uthmanic text. The Uthmanic text presently reads:

"The prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers."

Yet Ubay's codex read:

"The prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and he is a father to them, and his wives are their mothers."

Hence, Yusuf Ali states:

"In spiritual relationship the Prophet is entitled to more respect and consideration than blood-relations. The Believers should follow him rather than their fathers or mothers or brothers, where there is conflict of duties. He is even nearer - closer to our real interests - than our own selves. IN SOME QIRAATS, LIKE THAT OF UBAI IBN KA'B, occur also the words ‘and he is a father to them,’ which imply his spiritual relationship and connect on with the words, ‘and his wives are their mothers.’ Thus his spiritual fatherhood would be contrasted pointedly with the repudiation of the vulgar superstition of calling any one like Zaid ibn Haritha by the appellation Zaid ibn Muhammad (xxxiii. 40): such an appellation is really disrespectful to the Prophet." (Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 1104, fn. 3674)

Missing Part On Asr Prayer

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam from al-Qaqa ibn Hakim that Abu Yunus, the mawla of A'isha, umm al-muminin said, "A'isha ordered me to write out a Qur'an for her. She said, ‘When you reach this ayat, let me know, "Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient to Allah."’ When I reached it I told her, and she dictated to me, ‘Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer and stand obedient to Allah.’ A'isha said, ‘I heard it from the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.’" (Malik's Muwatta, Book 8, Number 8.8.26)

Yahya related to me from Malik from Zayd ibn Aslam that Amr ibn Rafi said, "I was writing a Qur'an for Hafsa, umm al-muminin, and she said, ‘When you reach this ayat, let me know, "Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and stand obedient to Allah."’ When I reached it I told her and she dictated to me, ‘Guard the prayers carefully and the middle prayer and the asr prayer and stand obedient to Allah.’" (Malik's Muwatta, Book 8, Number 8.8.27)

Compare it with today's present text:

"Be guardians of your prayers, and of the midmost prayer, and stand up with devotion to Allah." S. 2:238 Pickthall

Missing Verse On Suckling

Narrated Aisha:
It had been revealed in the Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (peace_be_upon_him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims). (Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3421)

Missing Verse On Stoning

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816)

... In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the callmakers for the prayer had finished their call, 'Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married person (male & female) who commits illegal sexual intercourse, and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah's Apostle did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him.

I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,’ and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: ‘O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father’ ..." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 82, Number 817; see also Vol. 9, No. 424)

Notice that this hadith mentions an additional verse, besides the one on stoning, which is not found in the Quran!

Missing Bismillah

Ibn 'Abbas asked `Uthman what possessed him to place surat al Anfal, one of the mathani, with Bara'a, one of the mi'in, join them with no bismillah between them and place them among the seven lengthy suras. `Uthman replied that often the Prophet received quite long revelations. He would call for one of the scribes and say, ‘Put these verses in the sura in which so-and-so occurs.’ Anfal was among the first of the Medina revelations and Bara'a among the last. Since its contents resembled those of Anfal, `Uthman took it to belong with it, for the Prophet had died without explaining that it was part of it. (p. 164, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 60)

Malik had a shorter explanation for the absence of this bismillah. The beginning of Bara'a fell out and its bismillah fell out with it. (p. 164-165, Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. abi Bakr al Suyuti, al Itqan fi `ulum al Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, pt 1, p. 65)

Missing Part On "Valley of Riches"

Anas b. Malik reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If there were two valleys of gold for the son of Adam, he would long for another one, and his mouth will not be filled but with dust, and Allah returns to him who repents. (Sahih Muslim, Number 2284)

Ibn'Abbas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: If there were for the son of Adam a valley full of riches, he would long to possess another one like it, and Ibn Adam does not feel satiated but with dust. And Allah returns to him who returns (to Him). Ibn 'Abbas said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur'an or not; and in the narration transmitted by Zuhair it was said: I do not know whether it is from the Qur'an, and he made no mention of Ibn 'Abbas. (Sahih Muslim, Number 2285)

The following list of variant readings is taken from Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 30, Dialects and Readings of the Qur'an (Kitab Al-Huruf Wa Al-Qira'at). We are using the translation done by Prof. Ahmad Hasan (Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984), Volume III. Some of these ahadith can also be found at this online hadith database

Shahr ibn Hawshab said: I asked Umm Salamah: How did the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) read this verse: "For his conduct is unrighteous" (innahu 'amalun ghayru salih)? She replied: He read it: "He acted unrighteously" (innahu 'amila ghayra salih). (Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 3972)

Ibn al-Musayyab said: The Prophet (may peace be upon him), Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman used to read: "maliki yawmi ‘l-din (master of the Day of Judgment)." The first to read maliki yawmid-din was Marwan. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 3989)

Shaqiq said: Ibn Ma‘sud read the verse: "Now come thou" (haita laka). Then Shaqiq said: We read it, "hi ‘tu laka" (I am prepared for thee). Ibn Ma‘sud said: I read it as I have been taught; IT IS DEARER TO ME. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Number 3939)

As we have already stated, Meherally shouldn't be throwing stones seeing that he lives in a glass house. In fact, his glass house has come crashing down.

Meherally writes:

RESPONSE:

We have shown that neither Silas nor the perfect Triune God erred. Rather, it is Meherally who has erred and has shown that he has not done enough research into these issues. Furthermore, we have also shown that Silas was right and Meherally was wrong. Both the Holy Bible and even Meherally’s false book, the Quran, confirm that the Holy Bible is God’s true and preserved Word.

Those who are interested in a refutation of Meherally’s shoddy article, please read the following article:

Meherally concludes:

RESPONSE:

Since Meherally quotes the Quran regarding the Apostles of our risen Lord Jesus, we conclude with some of their own statements:

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

"He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." Acts 10:42-43

"Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." Acts 15:10-11

Those interested in another refutation of Meherally’s misinformation, may click here:

This concludes our rebuttal. We pray that our risen Lord and eternal Savior, Jesus Christ, God’s eternal and beloved Son, will be glorified through our unworthy efforts. Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. We love you holy Son of God.

Sam Shamoun

Responses to Akbarally Meherally
Answering Islam Home Page