Did Prophet Muhammad Confirm the Old Testament?

[Bassam Zawadi]

Assalamu Alaykum

See the following hadith below...




Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar:

A group of Jews came and invited the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.

They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.

He then said: Bring me one who is learned among you. Then a young man was brought. The transmitter then mentioned the rest of the tradition of stoning similar to the one transmitted by Malik from Nafi' (No. 4431). (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4434)



Why did the Prophet peace be upon him do this if the Torah was corrupted?

[Moumen]

Dear brother Bassam,
wa 'alaikum assalam wa rahmatullah wa barakatoh,

This report is considered weak because one of its reporters is Hisham ibn Sa'd whose narratives are disturbed and corrupted according to many hadith critics like Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Ma'een, Abu Hatem, al-Nisa'ee, Ibn Sa'd, Ibn 'Adii, al-Madini, al-Hakim, al-'Aqili, Ibn Habban and others.

This is the reason why Ibn Hazm notes: (( As for the report in which the Prophet (saws) took the Torah and said: "I believe in thee", it is a fabricated false report that did not reach us with proper chain of transmission )) [Ibn Hazm, Al-Fisal fe al-Milal wa al-Ahwaa wa al-Nihal 1/237]

It is also noteworthy that this particular hadith has been reported through multiple chains of transmission, however, none has ever mentioned the incident of the Prophet (saws) praising the Torah except in the report of Hisham ibn Sa'd from Zaid ibn Aslam.

And Allah knows best.

[Ayman bin khaled]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم و الصلاة و السلام على خير المرسلين


This hadith has been narrated from authentic ways but with a different context to which Abu Dawd ( rahimu Allah) collected in his Sunan book. The other narrations describe the incident and do not have the part (I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.)

Narrated By Ibn 'Umar: A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess [ Sahih Muslim: Vol 8, Book 82. Hadith 089]


I believe the answer which brother Bassam is looking for is in what Al-Hafith Bin Hajar ( rahmu Allah) said:

He said: " And so, some used this hadith as an indication to show that the Torah that the Jews presnted, at that time, to the prophet was all sound and correct and not being altered. However, this argument is far from correctness because even saying : ((I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.) cannot be used as this saying refers to the original Torah ( which was revelaed to Moses)" [ Fat-h Al-Bari Fi Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhari: Section of rulings of Ahlu Al-thimma]

As a result, even if we assume the Hadith classification is Hasan ( depending on some scholars who creditated Hisham bin Sa'd although I still believe the jarh in him is stronger based on what brother Mou'men stated) the saying of believing in the Torah and who revealed it does not mean that the prophet was referring to what the Jews presented at all. The prophet was referring to the original book ( Torah) itself.

Inshallah the above clarify it for you my beloved Brother Bassam . smile

Wallahu A'lam

[Bassam Zawadi]

Assalamu Alaykum


Jazakum Allah Alf Khayr, but the problem is that I remember that Shaykh Albani declared this hadith hasan. Do you think he is wrong?

[Ayman bin khaled]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم و الصلاة و السلام على سيد المرسلين

Akhi Bassam,

I believe my previous reply answers your question both ways whether the Hadith is classified as Hassan or have been weakened by other scholars. which is what Imam Al-hafith bin Hajar said.

As I said scholars had different opinion about Hisham bin Sa'd status that is why they differenced with classifying the Hadith.

As I said before: I am with the opinion of those who considered Hisham Bin Sa'd as weak. smile

wallahu A'lam

[Moumen]

Jazak Allah khayran brother Ayman [ex-child of Islam, you must have been grown up now lol].

I am fully aware of the view of Ibn Hajar, and his explanation does not seem quite persuasive especially when it comes to the field of Muslim-Christian dialogue. My conviction before Allah is that the Prophet (saws) did not utter these words, and Allah knows best.

However, this report has been used by some scholars to prove that there were uncorrupted copies of the Torah in hands of Jews of Madinah together with other corrupted copies. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah used it as a proof that the corruption in the Torah is not so grave and its main teachings are still intact and pristine.

I recall these views from very ancient readings, so forgive me if I'm mistaken.

And Allah knows best.

[Jumbo]

Assalam Alaikum,

I was looking into this hadith many months ago with the assistance of another brother and we arrived upon the following conclusion:

The hadith is reported by many sahaba, such as Ibn 'Umar (R), Abu Huraira (R), Gaber (R) and Al-Baraa Ibn 'Azib (R). However, only Ibn 'Umar (R) is reported to have related, "I believe in thee and the One Who revealed thee". Moreover, Nafi' who related the event on the authority of Ibn 'Umar (R) did not transmit it; only Zaid Ibn Aslam did.

Therefore, the sentence, "I believe in thee and the One Who revealed thee" is not mentioned except in the narrative of Zaid Ibn Aslam related by Abu Dawood.

Zaid Ibn Aslam belongs to the generation of the Tabi'un, i.e., the Successors – so the isnad of this addition is considered interrupted.

Second, even if we are to take the addition in this hadith to be authentic for arguments sake, it does not follow that the whole of the text of the Bible is being endorsed.

The Prophet (P) specifically followed this particular ruling without generalization i.e., he (P) did not intend to follow all the rulings of the Torah, but only the judgement on stoning in that particular incident when the Jews approached him (P) requesting for a judgement to punish the adulterers. So, while this tradition leaves no doubt that the passage in the Torah that prescribes the stoning of adulterers is authentic, it cannot be used to prove authenticity of other passages. The additional sentence would only refer to the origin and the core of the Torah, not its textual status, as Imam Ibn Hajar has noted.

So, what do you guys think?

[Skillganon]

Mashaallah. You and the bro impressed me.

[Moumen]

Originally Posted by Jumbo

Zaid Ibn Aslam belongs to the generation of the Tabi'un, i.e., the Successors – so the isnad of this addition is considered interrupted.

Zaid ibn Aslam related it from Ibn 'Umar, so the isnad is not interrupted This is a mistake done by some Arab brothers .. check this link:
http://ebnmaryam.com/web/modules.php...article&sid=73

كل الروايات التي وردت لم ترد بها لفظة ( آمنت بك وبمن أنزلك ) الا في رواية أبي داوود عن زيد بن أسلم وزيد ابن اسلم من طبقة التابعين فيكون سند زيادة زيد ابن اسلم منقطعا .

I'm afraid he is mitaken, but the report is weak due to another reason.

And Allah knows best.

[Ayman bin khaled]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم و الصلاة و السلام على إمام المتقين و سيد المرسلين

Brother Moumen : ( أضحك الله سنك ), I am still growing so you may find me one day being a grandfather, wink.

I will sum up the topic so that we do not get distracted from the main thread inshallah:

1) The Hadith has been narrated, as was explained above, from other authentic ways. However, the authentic narrations do not have the part ((I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee.)


2) The hadith which has this addition is been collected in Sunan Abi Dawd from the following chain of narrators: Ahmad Bin sa'ed Al-Hamadni - Ibn Wahb - Hisham Bin Sa'd - Zaid Bin Aslam - Ibn Umar.

3) This Hadiths classification differed because scholars of Hadith disagreed on Hisham Bin Sa'd ( I highlighted it with red bold font).


He is: Hisham Bin sa'd Al-Madni from the Tabaqa 7 and he is one of the Atba'aa Al-Tab'ieen. He passed away on 160 H or before.

he was classified as weak by:

a) Ahmad Bin Hanbal : He is not hafith for hadith nor Muhkam in Hadith. So Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal did not accept his Hadith

b) Yahya Bin ma'een: He is weak and in another place he said that he is a good man and his Hadith is not abandoned. He said as well that he is not strong and yahya bin Sa'ed never narrated anything from him.

c) Abu hatim: We write his Hadith but do not use his Hadith as supportive evidence.

d) Al-Nisa'e: He is weak

e) Ibn Sa'd: He used to narrate alot of hadiths and he was considered as weak in Hadith and he is with the shi'a

f) ya'qoob Bin Suliman: He mentioned him as weak in his book.

g) Ibn O'dai: He is weak but we can write his Hadith


He was accepted by:

a) Al-ei'jli: He is hasan in hadith

b) Abu Zar'a: he is an honest Sheikh

c) Abu Hatim: We write his Hadiths

d) Abu dawd: accepted the hadiths he narrats from Zaid bin Aslam

e) Ali Bin Al-Mudaini: he is good but nit strong

f) Imam Bukhari: narrated from him in the Adab Mufrad, A Hadith in the Saheeh (Ta'leeqan)

g) Imam Muslim: narrated from him in the shawahid

h) Al-Saaji: He is honest


Now, Shaikh Al-Albani ( Rahimu Allah) classified the above Hadith, which we are dicussing, as its Isnaad Hasan. This classification is given to Hadith when the chain of narrators has one who is less than Thiqa level. Examples: he has bad memeorization or he is not strong or he is weak but Hadith is still written and etc.
This classificatioin is concerned with the Isnaad only because saying Isnaad hasan mean that the chain of narrators is good or authentic but that does not mean that the matn (context) is authentic because it can be weak due to I'lla or Shothooth.

As a result, matching all different opinions about (Hisham bin Sa'd) we will conclude that although he is weak but his Hadith is written but cannot be used as an evidence to rely on. Thus, the Hadith we are referring to is classified as a Hadith with good Isnaad without mentioning the classification of the context of the Hadith. So the context of the Hadith cannot be used as an evidence especially when the Hadith is been narrated from more stronger ways without having that phrase. However, if the Hadith is meant to be classified as hasan in its context then that does not mean that the prophet ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) acknowledged the Torah, which Jews put in his hand, at that moment, as an authentic one [ Refer to the words of Al-Hafith bin hajar in my previous replies].

Now if you notice, Although the narrator is been classified as weak, scholars did not exclude all his narrations because the methodology of the Mutaqadimeen is to examin events, narrators and context case by case. thus, they may accept weak people narration in some cases because the weakness of these narrators does not invalidate all Hadith they narrate. The weakness of some narartors sometimes happen to be limited to some places or times or people or events therefore they do not accept his Hadith in related matters.

Wallahu A'lam

[Jumbo]

Thanks for correcting me Moumen.

I think we all, at the very least, appear to agree that the controversial sentence in question, "I believe in thee..." is quite likely to be an inauthentic addition, particularly in light of the fact that all parallel versions lack it.

Secondly, even if it is authentic, it is open to interpretation because to merely say "I believe in thee . . . " is not necessarily a reference to the textual status of the writings.

[Moumen]

Exposing Lies of A Christian Missionary Against Brother Ayman bin Khaled

assalamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullah wa brakatoh,

I've noticed that some Christian missionaries use pieces of the views presented here to support their arguments through partial exposition of sayings of posters in these forums.

One glaring example is that missionary who quoted brother Ayman bin Khaled's post n.10 as following :

09-03-2007, 08:39 AM
Ayman bin Khaled
He was accepted by:

a) Al-ei'jli: He is hasan in hadith

b) Abu Zar'a: he is an honest Sheikh

c) Abu Hatim: We write his Hadiths

d) Abu Dawud: accepted the hadiths he narrates from Zaid bin Aslam

e) Ali Bin Al-Mudaini: he is good but nit strong

f) Imam Bukhari: narrated from him in the Adab Mufrad, A Hadith in the Saheeh (Ta'leeqan)

g) Imam Muslim: narrated from him in the shawahid

h) Al-Saaji: He is honest

This partial quotation exhibits none but dishonesty and falsehood of these people for if the missionary quotes brother Ayman's post in its entirety, his argument would fall down.

First: the missionary did not quote the scholarly views showing weakness of Hisham ibn Sa'd inspite of their importance and them being more credible and acceptable than views authenticating him.

Secondly: he neglected the conclusion of brother Ayman in the same post :

As a result, matching all different opinions about (Hisham bin Sa'd) we will conclude that although he is weak but his Hadith is written but cannot be used as an evidence to rely on. Thus, the Hadith we are referring to is classified as a Hadith with good Isnaad without mentioning the classification of the context of the Hadith. So the context of the Hadith cannot be used as an evidence especially when the Hadith is been narrated from more stronger ways without having that phrase.

This conclusion by brother Ayman bin Khaled is completely avoided and ignored by the missionary, because the missionary is determinant on bringing all that agrees with his preconceived ideas and exclusion of whatever disagrees.

This is how Christian missionaries make their points!

Quite intersting is the comment of the missionary on the partial quotation of brother Ayman's post:

Note that the two most stringent hadith compilers, al-Bukhari and Muslim, narrated from Hisham! In light of just how meticulous these two hadith scholars were (at least this is what Sunni Muslims always tell us) this pretty much establishes that Hisham can be taken as a reliable transmitter of hadith, and therefore establishes the veracity of the report from Abu Dawud.

These are his words, however, if he made some effort to read brother Ayman's post till its end, he would have found the answer to his ignorant argument.

Brother Ayman said:

Now if you notice, Although the narrator is been classified as weak, scholars did not exclude all his narrations because the methodology of the Mutaqadimeen is to examin events, narrators and context case by case. thus, they may accept weak people narration in some cases because the weakness of these narrators does not invalidate all Hadith they narrate. The weakness of some narartors sometimes happen to be limited to some places or times or people or events therefore they do not accept his Hadith in related matters.

Here, we see brother Ayman has already refuted the ignorant view of the missionary showing that early scholars of Hadith can quote weak narrators because they were aware of weak reports and authentic reports in their narrations, so they were able to recognize autentic narrations of them and mention them.

But what can we say about a Christian missionary who combined both ignorance and dishonesty?

[Bassam Zawadi]

its already been taken care of on the very bottom http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/_r...im_polemicist_

[Moumen]

Exposing Lies of A Christian Missionary Against Me (Moumen)

asslamu 'alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatoh,

As a continuation of the previous post I'd like to show the Christian missionary who ignorantly quoted me thinking that I claimed Ibn Taimiyyah to be against corruption of the Torah and the Injil by Jews and Christians.

Here is his quotation:

In the same discussion thread, another poster named Moumen wrote on 09-01-2007, 05:47 PM:
However, this report has been used by some scholars to prove that there were uncorrupted copies of the Torah in hands of Jews of Madinah together with other corrupted copies. Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah used it as a proof that the corruption in the Torah is not so grave and its main teachings are still intact and pristine.
I recall these views from very ancient readings, so forgive me if I'm mistaken. (Emphasis ours)
How interesting. Even the Salafi's most celebrated scholar, Ibn Taymiyyah, used this narration to prove that the corruption of the Torah was so insignificant that it didn't call into question its essential textual purity!

When I consulted my books, I discovered that I was mistaken and that Ibn Taimiyyah didn't use this specific narration of (I believe in thee) to prove that the corruption is "so insignificant" as the missionary understood my words. Rather Sheikh al-Islam actually used *all* narrations of the story of stoning of the two Jews to show that the ruling of stoning is in the Torah and not corrupted, so he concluded that the present Torah is only parially corrupted, not in entirety, because some of Allah's rulings and words are still present in it.

This is the truth of the matter; I was mistaken and I warned everyone from taking my words for granted. But the stupid Christian missionary fueled with desperate desire to bring anything to support him quoted me not realizing that I said in post n.6 "I recall these views from very ancient readings, so forgive me if I'm mistaken".

Well, I guess it is time here to quote statements of sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah and some of his students showing corruption of the Torah and the Injil in hands of Jews and Christians to dispel any doubt regarding the views of this grand scholar of Islam.

Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah (661-728 AH) says:
The Torah and the Injil that are present nowadays are not those that were presented by the prophets Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them both). The transmission of the Torah was discontinued when Jerusalem was ruined and the children of Israel were evacuated. It was mentioned that the person who dictated it to them was a man called 'Uzir (Ezra). Some people claimed he was a prophet but others say that he was not a prophet and that a copy of the Torah had been compared to an old copy found with him. It was also said that a copy was brought from Morocco. But all these tales do not prove that the words of this Torah are authentic, nor do they disprove the mistakes in some of them, as was the case in other books copied by more than one person.

It is acknowledged by Christians themselves that the Injil in their hands these days, was not written by the Christ (peace be upon him) or even dictated directly by Christ to one of his scribes. In fact, it was dictated by Matthew and John, two of the disciples of Christ, after he (peace be upon him) left the world, for they had accompanied him. It was not known, let alone memorized, by many people.

It was also written by Mark and Luke, who had not even seen Christ (peace be upon him). These two books mentioned some of the words of Christ and some of his stories but they do not comprise his exact speech or actions.

It is likely that the transmission of two, three or four persons may contain some mistakes. They committed a previous mistake regarding Christ himself when they confused him with the man who had been crucified.
What we mean here is that Christians do not have a reliable authentic transmission from Christ concerning the exact wordings of the Injil or a reliable transmission for most of their religious laws. This is also applicable to the Jews who also do not have authentic transmission for the wordings of the Torah or the prophecies of their prophets. On the other hand, Muslims have authentic clear chains of transmitters for the Qur'an and the Sunnah, which contain facts known to non-specialized as well as specialized people.
(Ibn Taimiyyah, Al-Gawab Al-Sahih, 1/310) published by Dar al-Hadith, Cairo.

Ibn Kathir (701-773 AH), the student/disciple of Ibn Taimiyyah, says:
Our Sheikh the notable Imam Abul-'Abbas Ibn Taimiyyah said: As for those who argued that it [the Torah] is entirely corrupted from beginning to end without sparing one letter, they are mistaken. Also, those who argued that nothing has been corrupted are mistaken. The truth is that alteration and change had reached it and they [the Jews] manipulated its words with additions and omissions as they manipulated its meanings. This is well recognized on pondering and may be explained in another occasion, and Allah knows best....

I [Ibn Kathir] say: As for the Arabic Torah in their hands, no sane person doubts its alteration, textual corruption, change of stories and words, additions and obvious clear omissions. Glaring lies and extreme errors are so abundant in it. As regards what they recite with their tongues and write with their pens, we have no access to, but it is assumed they are dishonest liars who frequently invent forgeries against Allah, His Messengers and Books.

As for Christians, their four Gospels on authority of Marks, Luke, Matthew and John are much more divergent and different by addition and omission than the Torah. They disobeyed the rulings of the Torah and the Injil in so many things they legalized for themselves.
(Ibn Kathir, Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah, 2/152-153) published by Dar al-Hadith, Cairo, 5th edition, ISBN 977-5227-18-6

More than one person stated that the Injil was transmitted by four person: Luke, Matthew, Marks and John. These Gospels are greatly divergent regarding each copy with additions and omissions. These four persons include two persons who had seen the Christ, they are Matthew and John, and two persons who are companions of his companions, they are Marks and Luke.
(Ibid., 2/102)

and says:
They disputed in transmission of the Gospels into four records with additions, omissions, corruption and alteration.
(ibid., 2/103)

Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi (657-716 AH), the student/disciple of Ibn Taimiyyah, notes:
Be acknowledged that these Scriptures [of Jews and Christians] are unreliable because we consider them corrupted and changed. Yes, alteration have not involved them entirely, but reached them after all. That is why our Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: (( Do not believe the People of the Book and do not deny them. Say: "We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you. Our God and your God is One, and to Him we have submitted.'' )).
He prohibited believing them for fear of that they may tell us something that is definitely corrupted, and disbelieving them for fear of that it may be not corrupted.
(Sulaiman ibn Abdul-Qawi al-Tufi, Al-Intesarat Al-Islamiyyah, 1/230-232)

and says:
Moreover, the same way they [i.e., Jews and Christians] do not consider our Book reliable, we do not consider their Books reliable. This is actually prior because their Books are older and much subjected to mistranslation on the contrary of our Book.
(ibid., 1/232)

and says:
Additions and omissions do not reach it [the Qur'an] on the contrary of the Torah and the Injil as I have seen myself in the two Scriptures regarding contradiction and discrepency and noted in my commentary on the two Scriptures.
(ibid., 1/294)

and says:
We believe that the Qur'an is the truth, and the Torah whom you use against us, not the one given to Moses, is falsehood and fabrication.
(ibid., 1/341)

and says:
The general answer is lack of trust in these Scriptures due to their antiquity, translation from one language to another and suspicion in honesty of Jews and Christians [in preservation] especially regarding the Injil for I explained in my commentary on it our excuses of non-trust in it concerning difference and contradiction.
(ibid., 1/350)

Al-Tufi is the author of "Ta'aliq ala Al-Anajil", i.e., Commentary on the Gospels, in which he explained that the Gospels in hands of Christians are not the Injil revealed to Jesus (peace be upon him). They are merely stories from his biography written by those whose names are mentioned in the beginnings of these Gospels, so they are actually their words, not God's, in addition to few words of Jesus (peace be upon him). They actually admit that these Gospels are not inspired.
Then, he noted that if Jesus (peace be upon him) saw what they wrote about him, he would pray to Allah to turn them into monkeys and pigs! (confer pages 2, 3, 6, 7, .. etc..)

[Bassam Zawadi]

hahaha Sam Shamoun I hope you are reading this. Since you like tracking me wherever I go online, please track this post.

[Abdulmajid]

Regarding the present Torah, the famous american historian Jewish, Max Dimont (August 12, 1912–March 1992) recognized himself:


"There are two versions of many, many other events, as the perceptive reader of Old Testament may have noticed. Are we dealing with two versions of the same story, or with two different stories merged into one ?" (Jews, God and History, New American Library, 2nd edition, p. 28).

"The final fusion of the Five Books of Moses, called the Pentateuch, occurred around 450 B.C. – in other words, not until eight to sixteen hundred years after some of the events narrated in them took place. Is it not reasonable to suppose that in that period of time [i. e. before 450 B.C.], before there were any written records, many changes and alterations must have occurred as the stories and legends were handed down orally from generation to generation ?" (Ibid., p. 31).

"As a second move toward forging a national religious and spiritual Jewish character, Ezra and Nehemia decided not only to revise the Book of Deuteronomy but to add to it four other Books of Moses. Under their direction, priest and scholar labored diligently to fuse the most important of the divergent Mosaic documents, including the Deuteronomy of Josiah, into the five books of the Pentateuch, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. All Five Books of Moses were now made divine. From here on, no deletions, changes or additions to the Pentateuch could be made, nor have any been made" (Ibid., p. 63).

[Hanbali]

Originally Posted by Bassam Zawadi

hahaha Sam Shamoun I hope you are reading this. Since you like tracking me wherever I go online, please track this post.

hahahaha hilarious!

Sam Shamoun is a doofus. EVERYTHING he has learned about Islam comes from forums LOL. What a pathetic loser.

Anyways, this thread shows how amazing a team we have here at multaqa, masha-Allah.

[Al Habeshi]

Originally Posted by Abdulmajid

Regarding the present Torah, the famous american historian Jewish, Max Dimont (August 12, 1912–March 1992) recognized himself:


"There are two versions of many, many other events, as the perceptive reader of Old Testament may have noticed. Are we dealing with two versions of the same story, or with two different stories merged into one ?" (Jews, God and History, New American Library, 2nd edition, p. 28).

"The final fusion of the Five Books of Moses, called the Pentateuch, occurred around 450 B.C. – in other words, not until eight to sixteen hundred years after some of the events narrated in them took place. Is it not reasonable to suppose that in that period of time [i. e. before 450 B.C.], before there were any written records, many changes and alterations must have occurred as the stories and legends were handed down orally from generation to generation ?" (Ibid., p. 31).

"As a second move toward forging a national religious and spiritual Jewish character, Ezra and Nehemia decided not only to revise the Book of Deuteronomy but to add to it four other Books of Moses. Under their direction, priest and scholar labored diligently to fuse the most important of the divergent Mosaic documents, including the Deuteronomy of Josiah, into the five books of the Pentateuch, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. All Five Books of Moses were now made divine. From here on, no deletions, changes or additions to the Pentateuch could be made, nor have any been made" (Ibid., p. 63).

Bismillah,
As Salaam Alaykum,

I think it is amazing, our Prophet peace and blessings be upon him, said that their scripture was curropted at a time when many of them were claiming it was eyewitness and this and that. But now their own leading scholars are proving our Prophet's words right, I find that amazing personally, that our Prophet would say something that goes so against the norm and is then proved right by their own believers right now.

[Muhammad Salman]

As-Salamu A'alykum

I hope you read this Shamoun and do not brag about disrespect! I would request the mods/admins to not to edit my post, Jazak Allah khair!

Shamoun said:

"It seems that Bassam Zawadi has been getting most of his research for his articles and "rebuttals" from this Islamic forum

For instance, the arguments which he uses here are actually taken from the responses of the Muslims in this forum."

Now, what kind of nonsensical argument is that! This clearly shows that he is intellectually challenged and how badly he was struggling. He even has problems with where and how do we learn about Islamic sources to debunk their false claims. Is he even going to complain if I learn from a scholar or anyone for that matter? Will he still say that look "islamiclife mostly gets his research from his teacher"? duh! So let me ask you genius, where do you get English translations of Arabic passages when you do not know Arabic? Let me guess someone helps you, in other words external help! Would it make sense if i say "Shamoun gets extra help from this/that person/place"? Off course not, even a 5th grader can realize it! But then again, how can I blame you when you believe in nonsense like god is 100% created and 100% uncreated and he repents and regrets.

brother Bassam, you did not respond with a stronger argument in rebuttal to his nonsensical argument; you had a wonderful opportunity to expose his stupidity. Even if we assume what he says is true then so what! What does that prove anything or has anything to do with the topic? Why does it matter to him or readers where do we get our research from as long as we reference the sources? I mean honestly, come on!

anyway, this is my first little rebuttal to Shamoun and insha'Allah more will be coming in future! I hope he liked it! btw Shamoun, try to say that I committed logical fallacy "ad hominem" and I'll show your readers how big scholar you are.