Truth behind the veil

Tuesday, 9 April 2019

Myth of Quran's lost verse about stoning answered. Stoning sheep / goat

Christian missionaries and other anti-Islamic polemics try to question the authority of the Quran by misinterpreting the following Hadith about the punishment of stoning.
----------------"In the meantime, 'Umar sat on the pulpit and when the call makers 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." (Bukhari, Hadith 6328) ------------------

The problem with all these anti-Islamic polemics is that they only pick up a tradition or two and base all their arguments on their own explanations not understanding that Islamic treasury of traditions is quite rich and well able to expose any self styled hallow research scholar. Let's make a detailed study of the issue at hand.

Truth about the origin of the alleged verse:

Some traditions suggest that the wording of that verse is 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them (to death)'. But the fact, which becomes evident looking at all the various traditions, is that this was never meant to be part of the Quran. The word 'revealed' is used about this only in a metaphorical sense. This was perhaps a verse from one of the Books of the Jews and it was not revealed as a part of the Quran but its order was upheld through revelation so it remains in place.

The following tradition recorded by Tabari in his Tafsir points to the fact that it was a part of earlier revelations.

Ibn Jarir Tabari relates in his commentary of Surah Maida in connection to the incident of stoning of Jews."
The Holy Prophet (pbuh) said to them: 'Who is the most learned of the Law among you?'. They replied, 'so and so Al-A'war (i.e. Abdullah bin Souriya)'. He was called upon and he came. So the Prophet (pbuh) said: 'Are you the most learned of the Law among them?' He said, 'Jews think so.' So the Prophet (pbuh) said to him; 'By Allah and by the Law that He gave Moses on the day at Sinai, (tell me) what you find in the Law regarding adulterers?' He said: 'O Abul Qasim (i.e. Prophet), they stone the despicable (adulterer), and make the rich (if he does it) sit on the camel, blacken his face and make him face camel's back and stone the despicable if he commits adultery with a rich woman and they do the same to her.' So (again) the Prophet (pbuh) said to him: 'By Allah and by the Law that He gave Moses on the day at Sinai, (tell me) what you find in the Law?' He started to beat around the bush and the Prophet (pbuh) urged him by Allah and by the Law that He gave Moses on the day at Sinai till he said: 'O Abul Qasim, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them.' So the Prophet (pbuh) said: 'It is like that, take them (the Jews who committed adultery) and stone them.' (Tafsir Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari 10/328 Narration 11976)

Now it's clear this verse as Abdullah bin Souriya spoke is similar to a verse in the Law (i.e. Torah). Even today we can find similar injunctions in the Bible i.e. Deuteronomy 22.

Meanings of the Hadith in question:

Let it be known that in Islam revelation is not only what constitutes the Holy Quran, infact there were other revelations as well as Holy Prophet (pbuh) did not speak on his own. (Quran 53:3)

Having said this, now lets analyze the wording of the Hadith in question.

Firstly it says, 'Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth', here 'Truth' refers to all forms of revelation i.e. both Quran and Prophet's sayings. Next we read, 'and revealed the Holy Book to him', here the first word is 'and' which is used as i.e. in conjunctive sense (separating the two phrases) and it continues 'revealed the Holy Book to him' i.e. the Quran. Then it reads, 'and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajm (stoning)', here 'what Allah revealed' includes both types of revelation and not only the Book as we again have the conjunction 'and' separating the two phrases. And we do find the 'verse' about stoning in a saying of the Holy Prophet (pbuh):
Narrated by 'Ajma, she said: I heard that Messenger of Allah say; 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both to death.' (Tabarani Kabeer, Hadith 20321. Ibn Hajr graded it as Hasan in his work Muwafaqatul Khubr al-Khabr 2/304. Same is found in al-Mustadrak, 8070. Hakim classified it as Sahih. al-Dhahbi agreed with him)

It was never meant to be a part of the Quranic text:
There are more proofs that it was not at all meant to be the part of the Quranic script.

1-It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)', (hearing this) Amr said,

'When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.' (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih. al-Dhahbi agreed with him)

2- About this 'verse' Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:

"'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'" (Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)
Who could stop the Prophet (pbuh) from writing this verse in the Quran if it was supposed to be? Indeed it was not meant to be written in the Quran and that's why Holy Prophet disliked its idea of its being written down.

Why is it called a 'verse'?

Infact it was a verse from an earlier book as proved from Tabari's narration above and since its instruction was upheld through revelation so it is referred to as a 'verse' and the words 'sent down' or 'revealed' are used for it.

Is stoning (rajm) mentioned in the Quran today?
And as to Caliph Umar's statement 'the people may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah.', it only refers to categorical mentioning otherwise Quran does point to the punishment of stoning. Infact Quran 5:43-44 were revealed about punishment of stoning and the words 'Command of Allah' (v.43) and 'What Allah hath revealed' (v.44) refer to punishment of stoning. This becomes absolutely clear considering the traditions that Ibn Kathir, Tabari and Qurtubi etc. have brought in commentary to these verses.

And when Caliph Umar said, 'Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book'he perhaps only referred to verses 43-44 of Surah 5 as mentioned above. Also we need to know that the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh) used to consider something proved from Hadith as important and as authentic as being in the Quran. The following tradition testifies to it.
'Abdullah (bin Masud) said. "Allah curses those ladies who practice tattooing and those who get themselves tattooed, and those ladies who remove the hair from their faces and those who make artificial spaces between their teeth in order to look more beautiful whereby they change Allah's creation." His saying reached a lady from Bani Asd called Um Yaqub who came (to Abdullah) and said, "I have come to know that you have cursed such-and-such (ladies)?" He replied, "Why should I not curse these whom Allah's Apostle has cursed and who are (cursed) in Allah's Book!" Um Yaqub said, "I have read the whole Quran, but I did not find in it what you say." He said, "Verily, if you have read it (i.e. the Quran), you have found it. Didn't you read: 'And whatsoever the Apostle gives you take it and whatsoever he forbids you, you abstain (from it).' (59.7). She replied, "Yes, I did," He said, "Verily, Allah's Apostle forbade such things. (Bukhari, Hadith 4507)

And as we know that punishment of stoning is clearly established in Hadith so Caliph Umar's statement can well be taken on that account.

Did Caliph Umar actually think some verse was missing?
Most certainly Caliph Umar knew well and understood that the particular words 'When a married man or woman commit adultery, stone them (to death)'are not meant to be the part of the actual text of the Holy Quran. This is clear from another tradition in which he said:

"Had it not been that people would say Umar has made an addition to the Book of Allah, I would have written it on the margin of the Quran."(Musnad Ahmad Hadith 151. Ahmad Shakir classified it as Sahih)
And according to the wording in Sunan Nasai Al-Kubra Hadith 7151 , he said 'I would have written and appended it to the Quran.'

Now idea of writing at the margin of the Quran or adding as an appendix clearly shows that he only meant to add it as side note or commentary to the Quran to tell the future generations explicitly about the punishment of stoning whom he feared rejecting this commandment and going astray.

The above detail makes it absolutely clear that never was there any verse about stoning a part of the Quranic text.

Scholars' intake:

The idea that there was never any verse on stoning revealed to be a part of the Qur'an and then abrogated is not my brainchild. Infact the above is based on Shaykh Taqi Usmani's explanation (see Takmala Fath al-Mulhim vol.2 p.354-61).

Sayyid Maududi held the same view (see his answer to the question HERE -its in Urdu)

al-Alusi quotes Ibn Humam (d. 861 A.H.) to have argued for the same (See Ruh al-M'ani 9/278)

al-Baqilani (403 A.H.) also refused to accept the idea of its once being a part of the Qur'an and then getting abrogated in his al-Intisar. Shaykh Shu'aib Arnaut quoted it in his notes to Hadith 21636 of Musnad Ahmad and seemingly agreed to it.

Moreover, this explanation puts to death all queries and questions on the issue.

The institution of Stoning (Rajm):

Regardless of the issue at hand the ruling of stoning is indeed valid. It is proved through Mutawatar Ahadith reported by around 52 companions (see Takmala Fath al-Mulhim vol.2 p.362 for all the references). The Mutawatar Ahadith decide the scope of the Qur'anic verse in Surah Nur about lashing and limit it to unmarried people. Just like Qur'an gives the general ruling that anyone who steals, man or woman, his/her hand should be amputated. The ruling is general and literally applies to a something worth a single cent even. But Mutawatir Ahadith limit it to above a certain amount.

About the narrations which say it was part of Surah Ahzab see THIS

INDEED ALLAH KNOWS THE BEST!

In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful
There was a verse that was revealed to the Prophet (ṣ) and was recited by the companions, which mentioned stoning the adulterer, but its recitation was abrogated even though its ruling remained. Some Muslims are confused about this issue. Is the Quran really missing a verse?
In reality, the ‘verse’ was something that the Prophet (ṣ) stated but which was never part of the written Quran. Stoning the married adulterer, who was seen in public by four witnesses, is part of Islamic law as established in the Sunnah.
The purpose of the law is to convey the enormity of adultery, which severs families and causes turmoil in society, but the burden of proof is so impossibly high that very few stonings ever occurred in Islamic history. In this way, the law protects society from the breakdown of public morals while at the same time includes mitigating factors to protect individuals from its abuse by tyrannical governments.
Consequently, the law was considered very important by the leading companions. Umar ibn Al-Khattab, the second rightly-guided Caliph, felt that the law of adultery was so important that he wanted to write it in the Quran, except that he did not want to add anything to the Quran.
Umar ibn Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, said:
رَجَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَرَجَمَ أَبُو بَكْرٍ وَرَجَمْتُ وَلَوْلَا أَنِّي أَكْرَهُ أَنْ أَزِيدَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ لَكَتَبْتُهُ فِي الْمُصْحَفِ فَإِنِّي قَدْ خَشِيتُ أَنْ تَجِيءَ أَقْوَامٌ فَلَا يَجِدُونَهُ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ فَيَكْفُرُونَ بِهِ
The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, stoned (the married adulterer), Abu Bakr stoned, and I stone. Were it not that I hate adding to the book of Allah, I would have written it in the copy of the Quran. I fear that people will come and not find it in the book of Allah, so they will disbelieve in it.
Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1431, Grade: Sahih
In another narration, Umar said:
وَلَوْلَا أَنْ يَقُولَ قَائِلُونَ زَادَ عُمَرُ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ لَكَتَبْتُهُ فِي نَاحِيَةٍ مِنْ الْمُصْحَفِ
Were it not that some would say Umar has added to the book of Allah what does not belong in it, I would have written it in the margins of the Quran.
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 157, Grade: Sahih
Hence, the stoning verse was never part of the official Quranic text, although some companions may have written it in the margins of their personal copies.
Umar, in fact, had asked the Prophet (ṣ) for permission to write this verse in the Quran, but he was refused.
Zaid ibn Thabit reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
الشَّيْخُ وَالشَّيْخَةُ إِذَا زَنَيَا فَارْجُمُوهُمَا الْبَتَّةَ
The married old man and old woman, if they commit adultery, then stone them irrevocably.
Umar said, “When this was revealed, I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said:
فَكَأَنَّهُ كَرِهَ ذَلِكَ
It was as if the Prophet disliked that.
Source: Musnad Aḥmad 21086, Grade: Sahih
In another narration, the Prophet said:
لا أَسْتَطِيعُ ذَاكَ
I cannot have it written.
Al-Bayhaqi comments on this statement, saying:
فِي هَذَا وَمَا قَبْلَهُ دَلالَةٌ عَلَى أَنَّ آيَةَ الرَّجْمِ حُكْمُهَا ثَابِتٌ وَتِلاوَتُهَا مَنْسُوخَةٌ وَهَذَا مِمَّا لا أَعْلَمُ فِيهِ خِلافًا
In this, and what came before it, are evidence that the ruling of the verse of stoning is affirmed and its recitation is abrogated. This among matters of which I do not know of any disagreement.
Source: al-Sunan al-Kubrá 15553
And Al-Baqilani also comments on this incident:
إنه مما نُهيَ عن رسمه، ولو كان مما أمِرنا بإثباته لاستطاعَ أن يثبته ولم يكن لتركه
Indeed, it was among what he was prohibited to inscribe. Were we commanded to affirm it, then surely he would have been able to affirm it and he would not have left it out.
Source: al-Intiṣār 1/364
And Abu Muhammad said:
لِأَنَّ آيَةَ الرَّجْمِ إذْ نَزَلَتْ حُفِظَتْ وَعُرِفَتْ وَعَمِلَ بِهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إلَّا أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكْتُبْهَا نُسَّاخُ الْقُرْآنِ فِي الْمُصْحَفِ وَلَا أَثْبَتُوا لَفْظَهَا فِي الْقُرْآنِ وَقَدْ سَأَلَ عُمَرُ بْنُ الْخَطَّابِ ذَلِكَ كَمَا أَوْرَدْنَا فَلَمْ يُجِبْهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إلَى ذَلِكَ
When the verse of stoning was revealed, it was memorized, acknowledged, and it was acted upon by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, except that he did not have it written in the copies of the Quran, nor did he affirm its wording in the Quran. Umar ibn Al-Khattab asked about that, as we have related, and the Prophet did not obligate him to do it.
Source: al-Muḥallá 12/177
Therefore, the verse was ‘abrogated’ in the sense that it was no longer recited and it was never written as the Quran. The ruling of stoning still applied as part of the Sunnah. We can only speculate the wisdom behind such abrogation. Perhaps, Allah does not intend for us to focus on criminal punishments to the detriment of more important religious matters, such as the five pillars of Islam, the six articles of faith, and personal moral and spiritual development.
It is worth repeating, as we have done elsewhere, that the hudud punishments in Islamic law appear harsh on their face, but in their details they contain many mitigating factors. For example, the Prophet (ṣ) encouraged Muslims to find legitimate excuses not to apply the maximum punishments when possible.
Aisha reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:
ادْرَءُوا الْحُدُودَ عَنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ فَإِنْ كَانَ لَهُ مَخْرَجٌ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُ فَإِنَّ الْإِمَامَ أَنْ يُخْطِئَ فِي الْعَفْوِ خَيْرٌ مِنْ أَنْ يُخْطِئَ فِي الْعُقُوبَةِ
Avoid applying legal punishment upon the Muslims if you are capable. If the criminal has a way out, then leave him to his way. Verily, it is better for the leader to make a mistake forgiving the criminal than it is for him to make a mistake punishing the innocent.
Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1424, Grade: Sahih
Thus, it became a principle of Islamic law that any doubt in the prosecution’s case would waive the maximum punishment.
As-Suyuti writes:
القاعدة (في الفقه) الحدود تسقط بالشبهات
A principle of law states that legal punishments are suspended by doubts.
Source: al-Ashbāh wal-Naẓāʼir 2/122
As such, the correct approach to this issue is to maintain the validity and importance of the hudud punishments as social statements against the worst forms of crime, but along with all of their mitigating factors which greatly reduce the likelihood of their application. This is how we can understand the verse of stoning, and maybe it is the reason why it was never written in the Quran to begin with.
Success comes from Allah, and Allah knows best.

-----------------

Myth of Qur'anic verses eaten by a goat / sheep
نشرت بواسطة: Waqar Akbar Cheema 11:42 AM في Alleged Variants and Lost Verses , Breastfeeding , Qur'an Preservation and Compilation , Quran. goat. eat , stoning , suckling , ten , verses 11 تعليقات
Using a report from Sunan Ibn Majah the Christian missionaries allege that some verses of the Qur’an were lost as they were eaten by a goat. Let’s analyze the narration and try to find out the truth.

The narration goes as;

عن عائشة قالت لقد نزلت آية الرجم ورضاعة الكبير عشرا ولقد كان في صحيفة تحت سريري فلما مات رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وتشاغلنا بموته دخل داجن فأكلها
Reported 'Aisha (RA): ‘the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.’ (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)

1- Authenticity of the narration:

Whenever we have a narration we ought to see whether it is authentic or not? The narration infact has some problems.
The particular chain given in Sunan Ibn Majah finds one of the narrators Muhammad bin Ishaq narrating it using the word عن ('an) which is rather an ambiguous way of narration and renders the narration weak when used by a narrator known for practicing Tadlis [practice of subtly missing a link] and Muhammad Ibn Ishaq is indeed such a narrator. Thus through particular chain of narration in Sunan Ibn Majah the narration is weak and unauthentic due the above mentioned defect though it has other issues as well as mentioned in the lines to follow. This is clarified by Shaykh Muhammad Taqi Usmani in Takmala Fath Al-Mulhim 1/69 pub. Darul Ahya Al-Turath Al-Arabi, Beirut.

In Musnad Ahmad the same narration is given through the same chain but with an explicit way of narration i.e. it does not have the defect like the narration in Ibn Majah’s collection. But the narration is exposed to more criticism because many other narrators have related from 'Aisha (RA) about the suckling/breastfeeding but no one has narrated the words found in this chain even though the narrators in those cases are more reliable and consistent than Muhammad bin Ishaq. And due to thefact of these words being narrated solely by him and in defiance to other much more reliable narrators, scholars have questioned its authenticity. Shaykh Shu’aib Arnaud has classified it as Da’if in his classification of Musnad Ahmad. See Musnad Ahmad 6/269 Hadith 26359.

2- The narration no way questions Qur’an infallibility:

Even if the narration were authentic it no way questions the claim of Qur’an being totally preserved and here are my evidences for this;

1- One of the two allegedly lost verses as per this narration was about stoning i.e. punishment of married adulterers. But other narrations prove that a commandment was revealed about stoning but the Holy Prophet (PBUH) did not allow it to be written as a part of the Qur’an implying that it was not meant to be Qur’an integral part. Following narrations testify to this;

a-It is reported in a narration from Kathir bin Salt that: Zaid (b. Thabit) said: 'I heard the Messenger of Allah say, 'When a married man or woman commit adultery stone them both (to death)', (hearing this) Amr said,

فقال عمرو : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت : أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك

'When this was revealed I came to Prophet and asked if I could write it, he (the Prophet) disliked it.' (Mustadrik Al-Hakim, Hadith 8184. Hakim called it Sahih)
b- About this 'verse' Kathir bin Salt says that he, Zaid bin Thabit and Marwan bin Hakam were discussing as to why it is not written in the Quranic manuscript and Umar bin Khattab was present with them and listening to their discussion he said he knew it better then them and told them that he came to Messenger of Allah and said:

يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال فأتيته فذكرته قال فذكر آية الرجم قال فقال يا رسول الله أكتبني آية الرجم قال لا استطيع ذاك
"'O Messenger of Allah, let the verse about stoning be written for me.' He (the Prophet) said, 'I can't do this.'"(Sunan Al-Kubra Baihiqi 8/211 & Sunan Al-Kubra Nasai Hadith 7148. Albani (in Sahiha 6/412) said Baihiqi pointed to its authenticity)
Had it meant to be a part of the Qur’an why would Holy Prophet (PBUH) dislike its being written and who could stop him from doing it?

2- The second allegedly lost verse was about suckling of an adult ten times but in this case too we have other narrations which categorically say that the verse was abrogated. And interestingly those narrations come through 'Aisha (RA) only. In Sahih Muslim we read;

عَنْ عَائِشَةَ أَنَّهَا قَالَتْ كَانَ فِيمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ عَشْرُ رَضَعَاتٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ يُحَرِّمْنَ ثُمَّ نُسِخْنَ بِخَمْسٍ مَعْلُومَاتٍ فَتُوُفِّيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَهُنَّ فِيمَا يُقْرَأُ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings ... (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2634)
This narration explicitly says that verse about ten sucklings was abrogated. For further queries about this issue and the narration from Sahih Muslim see THIS.
Having known that neither of them was meant to be part of the Qur’an; even if we accept the narration in question we will have to say that perhaps 'Aisha (RA) had kept them with her as a historical record and nothing more. Thus even if the goat actually ate them up no part of the Qur’an was lost.

Moreover 'Aisha (RA) lived through the whole period of Qur’an compilation during the time of Abu Bakr (RA) and Usman (RA) while she was unanimously considered an authority for herself so if she had any thought about some verses missing she would have brought it to attention of other Companions of the Prophet (PBUH). Infact we have evidence of Usman (RA) making special endeavor of consulting 'Aisha (RA) and her records for verifying the official compilation. See Ibn Shabba’s Tarikh Al-Madinap.997. Despite all this she never raised the issue supporting our conclusion that no part of the Qur’an was lost even if the narration is considered reliable.

Indeed Allah Knows the best!

(This Academic Paper is Taken from "Let me Turn the Tables" website)

-------------

The Quranic Verse On Stoning

By
Bassam Zawadi

Note: FIRST READ THIS ARTICLE (*)

Some of the hadith that talk about the verse on stoning...

Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816: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."

Saheeh Muslim
Book 017, Number 4194:'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

Christian missionaries tend to argue that this verse was removed from the Quran and they claim that this is proof that Muslims corrupted the Quran. Let's see if this argument holds any water.

The alleged verse is...

الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة

The old man and the old lady if they committed adultery then stone them

Another opinion is that it is...

الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله والله عزيز حكيم

The old man and the old lady if they committed adultery then stone them as a punishment from Allah and Allah is the Most Mighty, Most Wise

Imam ibn Hajar Al Asqalani says in his commentary on Saheeh Bukhari...

فقال عمر : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك , فقال عمر : ألا ترى أن الشيخ إذا زنى ولم يحصن جلد , وأن الشاب إذا زنى وقد أحصن رجم

Umar said: "When this verse came down I approached the Prophet peace be upon him so I asked him: Should I write it down?' It is as if he hated that" Then Umar said: "Cant you see that if the old man if he commits adultery he does not get the whip, and that if the young man if he commits adultery he gets stoned?" (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Al I'tiraaf bil Zina,Commentary on Hadith no. 6327, Source)

Here we clearly see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not want the verse to be written down because it was never meant to be part of the text of the Quran. The scholars of Islam are unanimous that the recitation of this verse has been abrogated but its ruling still remains in effect.
However, the only reason why Umar got emotional and wanted to put the verse in the Quran was because he was afraid that one day people would think that its ruling had been cancelled. However, the companions did not allow him to because they all knew that its recitation had been abrogated. In order to put a verse in the Quran there needed to be two witnesses and Umar was all by himself. Umar himself knew that its recitation was abrogated but he was getting emotional, for he feared that people in the future would not believe in the ruling of stoning the adulterers.

Imam ibn Hajar Al Asqalani has in his commentary...

أي في الآية المذكورة التي نسخت تلاوتها وبقي حكمها , وقد وقع ما خشيه عمر أيضا فأنكر الرجم طائفة من  الخوارج أو معظمهم وبعض المعتزلة

In the verse whose recitation has been abrogated but its ruling remained, and it has happened what Umar feared. A tribe from the Khawarij or most of them and some of the Mu'tazilites rejected the stoning.

وقد أخرج عبد الرزاق والطبري من وجه آخر عن ابن عباس أن عمر قال " سيجيء قوم يكذبون بالرجم "

And it was reported by Abd al Razzaq and Al Tabari from another view that Ibn Abbas said that Umar said "There will come a people that will lie (or disbelieve) in the stoning" (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani,Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Hublah min Zana Eezha Ahsanat, Commentary on Hadith no. 6328, Source)

Imam Nawawi says in his commentary in Saheeh Muslim...

وهذا مما نسخ لفظه وبقي حكمه

And this is whose recitation has been abrogated and its ruling remained.

وفي ترك الصحابة كتابة هذه الآية دلالة ظاهرة أن المنسوخ لا يكتب في المصحف , وفي إعلان عمر بالرجم وهو على المنبر وسكوت الصحابة وغيرهم من الحاضرين عن مخالفته بالإنكار دليل على ثبوت الرجم

And the companions of the Prophet abandoning the writing of this verse is clear evidence that the abrogated should not be written in the Quran and that Umar's statement about the stoning as he is on the pulpit and the silence of the companions and other than them from who were present from opposing him is evidence about the ruling of the stoning (still being implemented) (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Thayb fil Zina, Commentary on Hadith no. 3201,Source)

Al Sindi says in his commentary on Sunan Ibn Majah...

أي آية الرجم وهذه الآية مما نسخ لفظها وبقي حكمها
The verse of stoning: Its recitation has been abrogated and its ruling still remains in effect. (Al Sindi,Sharh Sunan Ibn Majah, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Al Rajam, Commentary on Hadith no. 2543,Source)

Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi says in his commentary on Sunan Abu Dawud...

وهذا مما نسخ لفظه وبقي حكمه

And this is whose recitation has been abrogated but ruling remains in effect. (Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi, Awn al-Mabud Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Fil Rajam, Commentary on Hadith no. 3835, Source)

Conclusion
We can clearly see that there was a consensus amongst the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the scholars that the recitation of the verse on stoning was abrogated and that they did not corrupt it. How can all the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who sacrificed everything they had for this religion just happen to decide to come together and purposely corrupt the Quran by removing this verse? What motive would they have in doing so if its law was to remain being implemented? So there can't be a motive to remove this verse simply because they wished to not follow its ruling since the ruling still remains in effect up to this day.

So clearly the evidence shows that this recitation was always meant to be abrogated while its ruling remains in effect.

-------------------------------

‘Abdur-Rahman bin ‘Awf narrated that 'Umar bin al Khattab رضي الله عنه addressed the people and he heard him say:
Some people say: what is this stoning? ín the Book of Allah it mentions flogging.But the Messenger of Allah ﷺ stoned [adulterers] and we stoned [them] after him. Were it not that some people would say that 'Umar added something to the Book of Allah that is not part of it, I would have written it the way it was revealed.
حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، حَدَّثَنَا الزُّهْرِيُّ، عَنْ عُبَيْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُتْبَةَ بْنِ مَسْعُودٍ، أَخْبَرَنِي عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَبَّاسٍ، حَدَّثَنِي عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ عَوْفٍ، أَنَّ عُمَرَ بْنَ الْخَطَّابِ، رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ خَطَبَ النَّاسَ فَسَمِعَهُ يَقُولُ أَلَا وَإِنَّ أُنَاسًا يَقُولُونَ مَا بَالُ الرَّجْمِ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ الْجَلْدُ وَقَدْ رَجَمَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَرَجَمْنَا بَعْدَهُ وَلَوْلَا أَنْ يَقُولَ قَائِلُونَ أَوْ يَتَكَلَّمَ مُتَكَلِّمُونَ أَنَّ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ زَادَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ لَأَثْبَتُّهَا كَمَا نُزِّلَتْ‏.‏
Grade: Sahih (Darussalam) [ al-Bukhari (2462) and Muslim (1691)} (Darussalam)
Reference : Musnad Ahmad 197
In-book reference : Book 2, Hadith 114

Friday, 5 April 2019

Scientific Error in the Bible

3 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. (Deuteronomy 22:13-17)

The above virginity test is false and cannot be a divine judgment from God. The test says if a man accuses his wife of misconduct, i.e. his newly wed wife was found not to be a virgin the first time they had sexual intercourse. He has the right to inform the elders of the city, including her parents who have to verify if she really was a virgin by showing the elders of the city the blood stains on the bed sheet she was laying on with her husband. This indeed is an embarrassing moment for the girl who is accused of misconduct.

a commandment by the god of the bible to the children of Israel on how to identify a chaste woman. Well. little did this god of the bible know that not every girl or woman will bleed during their first time sexual intercourse.

This is scientifically proven not every girl bleed during first time sex, NHS.uk has this to say:

The hymen can break quite easily before a woman has sex for the first time, through:

activities such as horse riding and other sports
using tampons

A woman may not know her hymen has broken, because it doesn't always cause pain or noticeable bleeding.

So, if a virgin can break her hymen without knowing, then naturally she won't bleed during her first time sex. Why then is she going to be accused of not being a virgin when her hymen can naturally break with ease without her knowing? Did not the god of the bible know that? How can yahweh be god if he didn't know the biological make up of a female?

Imagine how many women and girls have been mistreated for such a false text in the bible from ancient times. This god whom the Jews and Christians worship cannot be a true God. The bible cannot be trusted this scientific error has proved it.

Wednesday, 3 April 2019

A Symposium on Psalm 137:9 Psalm 137 small A Verse to Criticize A Historical-Critical Reading

Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler

Personal Preface: The Difficulty with
Dispassionate Analysis of Horrific Texts

Many believe that scholars of antiquity, including biblical scholars, are supposed to be objective, and that they should convey the meaning of the past to the present generation dispassionately. For me this is impossible when exploring texts such as Psalm 137:9, one of the most horrific biblical texts, which to paraphrase Alice (of Alice in Wonderland), only gets worser and worser the more deeply it is examined.
Given that the Bible functions as a source of inspiration, it is not sufficient to ask the typical scholarly questions about this verse—what the text meant in context, how v. 9 fits in the broader psalm, what the psalm’s structure is, when and why Psalm 137 was written, how its sentiments relate to other ancient psalms from this period, etc.—all the sorts of questions that biblical scholars are taught to ask. Nevertheless, the immediate horror of the verse does not obviate the need to ask these questions, some of which I explore below.

Composition History

Scholars debate the compositional history of Psalm 137, and how its final verses relate to the larger whole. Many, quite plausibly to my mind, suggest that vv. 1-6 comprised the original psalm, to which the last three verses have been appended. The evidence for this is suggestive, but not definitive. Vv. 1-6 must derive from the post-exilic period—Babylon is שָׁ֣ם, “there,” implying that the author is already back in Judah. On the other hand, the raw sentiments of vv. 7-9 imply a setting soon after the Babylonian exile.^[1] In other words, vv. 7-9 likely existed as part of (separate) composition, written in the Babylonian exile, and they were later appended to vv. 1-6 of the psalm, resulting in the current nine verse psalm incorporated in the Psalter.
Yet, vv. 7-9 are now well-integrated into the psalm, through the repetition of the root ז-כ-ר, “to remember.” In its current form the psalm suggests that God must remember (ז-כ-ר) and punish Babylonian babies in return for “our” remembering Zion so very effectively: v. 1, בְּזָכְרֵ֗נוּ אֶת־צִיּֽוֹן (as we remembered Zion) and v. 6, תִּדְבַּ֥ק־לְשׁוֹנִ֨י ׀ לְחִכִּי֮ אִם־לֹ֪א אֶ֫זְכְּרֵ֥כִי (let my tongue stick to my palate if I cease to remember you). Additionally, in its final form, Ps 137 is a measure for measure (מידה כנגד מידה) psalm, as is made explicit in v. 8b, which leads right into v. 9: אַשְׁרֵ֥י שֶׁיְשַׁלֶּם־לָ֑ךְ אֶת־גְּ֝מוּלֵ֗ךְ שֶׁגָּמַ֥לְתְּ לָֽנוּ׃, “a blessing^[2]on him who repays you in kind what you have inflicted on us.” The root ג-מ-ל is used in the Bible to express measure for measure retribution.

אַשְׁרֵ֤י שֶׁיֹּאחֵ֓ז וְנִפֵּ֬ץ אֶֽת עֹ֝לָלַ֗יִךְ אֶל הַסָּֽלַע
Lexical Observations

The Use of the Word אשרי
Verse 8b lexically and syntactically prepares us for v. 9. It begins as well with אַשְׁרֵ֤י, a strong exclamatory form, which may be rendered as “O for the happiness of!” or “Blessings upon!” Elsewhere, אַשְׁרֵ֤י expresses joy for those who are saved by God (e.g. Deut 33:9), patiently wait for God’s deliverance (e.g. Isa 30:8), follow the path of the righteous (e.g. Ps 1:1), trust in God (e.g. Ps 34:9), reside in the Temple (e.g. Ps 84:5) or have lots of children (e.g. Ps 127:5).
Like the אַשְׁרֵ֤י of 8b, the same word in 9 is followed by the (late Biblical Hebrew) relative particle שֶׁ (rather than the earlier אֲשֶׁ֖ר), an imperfect (future) verb (שֶׁיְשַׁלֶּם שֶׁיֹּאחֵ֓ז) and a third person singular pronoun (לָ֑ךְ and the suffix of עֹ֝לָלַ֗יִךְ). This connects verses 8 and 9, thereby anchoring v. 9 well into the psalm.^[3]
Seizing and Dashing
Uniquely in the Bible, v. 9 uses in conjunction the two verbs א-ח-ז, “to seize” and נ-פ-צ, “to smash or dash.” Seizing is not sufficient, smashing is not sufficient—both of these actions need to be accomplished for true happiness or blessing (אַשְׁרֵ֥י) to reign.
Furthermore, the second verb נ-פ-צ is in the pi‘el conjugation. It is not the case, as so many might have been taught in Hebrew school, that the main function of the pi‘el is to intensify the qal. One function of the pi‘el is “pluralising,” namely indicating “the action…involves either multiple subjects or objects.”^[4] In other words, the pi‘el of נ-פ-צ draws a picture of fragmentation; it is not just that the babies are smashed, but that this dashing results in shattered baby fragments.

Children or Babies
It is hard to determine exactly what age range עֹלָלַ֗יִךְ designates, though Lamentations 4:4, עוֹלָלִים שָׁאֲלוּ לֶחֶם (“little children beg for bread”), suggests that these are not babes, but old enough to speak, likely toddlers. Thus, grasping them and smashing them again and again against a rock would require significant effort, and extreme callousness, as they are old enough to understand what is being done to them, and old enough to ask for mercy.

The Rock: A Geographical Location
The final word of the psalm is marked as definite (הַסָּֽלַע)—literally, “the rock.” Yet, English and Hebrew use definite articles such as “the” very differently. Furthermore, does the singular סלע indicate one rock, or is it being used generically or collectively, as “rocks”? These different possibilities are reflected in various translations, e.g. the JPS translates, “and dashes them against the rocks!” while the NRSV renders, “and dash them against the rock!”
To complicate matters even further— הַסָּֽלַע is known as a geographical location in Edom—The Rock. Near there, according to 2 Kings 14:7, the Judean King Amaziah massacred 10,000 Edomites; according to the parallel version in 2 Chr 25:12,

וַעֲשֶׂ֨רֶת אֲלָפִ֜ים חַיִּ֗ים שָׁבוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י יְהוּדָ֔ה וַיְבִיא֖וּם לְרֹ֣אשׁ הַסָּ֑לַע וַיַּשְׁלִיכ֛וּם מֵֽרֹאשׁ־הַסֶּ֖לַע וְכֻלָּ֥ם נִבְקָֽעוּ:

Another 10,000 the men of Judah captured alive and brought to the top of Sela. They threw them down from the top of Sela and every one of them was burst open.

Thus, this psalm may conclude with a macabre pun: the Babylonian children are being smashed to pieces either on (a/the) rock(s) or at Sela, an important site of their Edomite allies.^[5] A smashing baby pun!

Parallel Language with Jeremiah
A careful look at the uses of the vocabulary of v. 9 elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible brings us to Jeremiah 50-51, a long oracle against Babylon, which at some point originally concluded the book.^[6] Most significantly, about half of the uses of the verb נ-פ-צ are found in Jeremiah 51:20-23:

^נא:כ מַפֵּץ־אַתָּ֣ה לִ֔י
כְּלֵ֖י מִלְחָמָ֑ה
וְנִפַּצְתִּ֤י בְךָ֙ גּוֹיִ֔ם
וְהִשְׁחַתִּ֥י בְךָ֖ מַמְלָכֽוֹת:
^נא:כא וְנִפַצְתִּ֣י בְךָ֔ ס֖וּס וְרֹֽכְב֑וֹ
וְנִפַּצְתִּ֣י בְךָ֔ רֶ֖כֶב וְרֹכְבֽוֹ:
^נא:כב וְנִפַּצְתִּ֤י בְךָ֙ אִ֣ישׁ וְאִשָּׁ֔ה
וְנִפַּצְתִּ֥י בְךָ֖ זָקֵ֣ן וָנָ֑עַר
וְנִפַּצְתִּ֣י בְךָ֔ בָּח֖וּר וּבְתוּלָֽה:
^נא:כג וְנִפַּצְתִּ֤י בְךָ֙ רֹעֶ֣ה וְעֶדְר֔וֹ
וְנִפַּצְתִּ֥י בְךָ֖ אִכָּ֣ר וְצִמְדּ֑וֹ
וְנִפַּצְתִּ֣י בְךָ֔ פַּח֖וֹת וּסְגָנִֽים:

^51:20 You are My war club,
[My] weapons of battle;
With you I clubbed nations,
With you I destroyed kingdoms;
^51:21 With you I clubbed horse and rider,
With you I clubbed chariot and driver,
^51:22 With you I clubbed man and woman,
With you I clubbed graybeard and boy,
With you I clubbed youth and maiden;
^51:23 With you I clubbed shepherd and flock,
With you I clubbed plowman and team,
With you I clubbed governors and prefects.

The vocabulary overlap between our psalm’s last three verses and Jeremiah 50-51 suggests that the author of Ps 137:7-9 likely knew Jeremiah 50-51, and based his addition, imprecating Babylon and Edom, on these chapters.^[7] In other words, the images he uses and develops are traditional, and he is not at all original; like many ancient authors, in the Bible and elsewhere, he reuses earlier sources.

Smashing Babies in the Bible

Our authors’ dependence on the passage in Jeremiah likely explains why he pairs‘עולל with נ-פ-צ, rather than the expected ר-ט-ש, the more common verb used for describing smashed toddlers:

2 Kings 8.2	וַיֹּ֣אמֶר חֲזָאֵ֔ל מַדּ֖וּעַ אֲדֹנִ֣י בֹכֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֡אמֶר כִּֽי־יָדַ֡עְתִּי אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־תַּעֲשֶׂה֩ לִבְנֵ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל רָעָ֗ה מִבְצְרֵיהֶ֞ם תְּשַׁלַּ֤ח בָּאֵשׁ֙ וּבַחֻֽרֵיהֶם֙ בַּחֶ֣רֶב תַּהֲרֹ֔ג וְעֹלְלֵיהֶ֣ם תְּרַטֵּ֔שׁ וְהָרֹתֵיהֶ֖ם תְּבַקֵּֽעַ:	“Why does my lord weep?” asked Hazael. “Because I know,” he (=Elisha) replied, “what harm you will do to the Israelite people: you will set their fortresses on fire, put their young men to the sword, dash their little ones in pieces, and rip open their pregnant women.”
Hosea 14:1	תֶּאְשַׁם֙ שֹֽׁמְר֔וֹן כִּ֥י מָרְתָ֖ה בֵּֽאלֹהֶ֑יהָ בַּחֶ֣רֶב יִפֹּ֔לוּ עֹלְלֵיהֶ֣ם יְרֻטָּ֔שׁוּ וְהָרִיּוֹתָ֖יו יְבֻקָּֽעוּ:	Samaria must bear her guilt, for she has defied her God. They shall fall by the sword, their infants shall be dashed to death, and their women with child ripped open.
Nahum 3:10	גַּם־הִ֗יא לַגֹּלָה֙ הָלְכָ֣ה בַשֶּׁ֔בִי גַּ֧ם עֹלָלֶ֛יהָ יְרֻטְּשׁ֖וּ בְּרֹ֣אשׁ כָּל חוּצ֑וֹת וְעַל נִכְבַּדֶּ֙יהָ֙ יַדּ֣וּ גוֹרָ֔ל וְכָל גְּדוֹלֶ֖יהָ רֻתְּק֥וּ בַזִּקִּֽים:	Yet even she was exiled, she went into captivity. Her babes, too, were dashed in pieces at every street corner. Lots were cast for her honored men, and all her nobles were bound in chains.
Isaiah 13:16	וְעֹלְלֵיהֶ֥ם יְרֻטְּשׁ֖וּ לְעֵֽינֵיהֶ֑ם יִשַּׁ֙סּוּ֙ בָּֽתֵּיהֶ֔ם וּנְשֵׁיהֶ֖ם (תשגלנה) [תִּשָּׁכַֽבְנָה]:	And their babes shall be dashed to pieces in their sight, their homes shall be plundered, and their wives shall be raped.

In Kings and Hosea, the graphic parallel of ripping babies out of pregnant women is used, and in Isaiah—also an oracle against Babylon—the horrific element of לְעֵֽינֵיהֶ֑ם, “in their sight” is added. Some modern scholars, viewing such smashed baby verses as a group, suggest that they partake in a common literary trope that would not have been distressing to those who heard it. I find this suggestion apologetic and even offensive. Do such images ever lose their power?

Conclusion: Two Senses of the Phrase “Bible Critic”

Too often people accuse me of being a “Bible critic” because I engage in historical-critical research on the Bible. But in that phrase, “critical” does not mean to criticize, but to examine in a free and independent fashion, without particular religious preconceptions.^[11] Thus, my main goal in using the tools of historical-critical methodology is to understand the Bible, in its wonderful and extensive variety—the good and bad, the beautiful and the ugly, within its ancient contexts.

But at times I am also a Bible critic, criticizing what the Bible says—and I would like to criticize Psalm 137:9 with all my heart, soul, and being. Applying critical tools to understand it well shows that it is even worse than it seems:

It is worse than the Assyrian texts to which it is often compared,
It makes a bad pun while discussing smashing toddlers to pieces,
It exalts this action in the same way that elsewhere the Bible lauds having lots of children or following the divine path (אשרי).

Heaven help us all if we ignore the savageness of this text, and instead discuss it only as historical-critical philologists, in a dispassionate manner.

Violent Retribution in the Bible

If the psalm empathizes, it stops short of mandating violent retribution on Israel’s enemies. Nevertheless, other parts of the Bible do precisely that.

Genocide of Canaanites – Deuteronomy, at the same time as it sets out an idealized system of law designed to establish an equitable and compassionate society, calls for the extermination of the tribes of Canaan (7:2; 20:16-18).

Genocide of Amalekites – Saul kills every Amalekite other than their king, Agag, including women and children, and is only castigated for failing to kill the king and for taking spoils (1 Sam 15).

Slaughtering Midianite women and children – Moses (Numbers 31:2, 15-18) orders the cold-blooded slaughter of the captive women and boys of Midian.

Indiscriminate killing of enemies – David (1 Samuel 27:9) “leaves no man or woman alive” on his random raids into Geshurite, Amalekite, and Gizrite territory, which he does to deceive Achish about where he has been campaigning.

Capital punishment for religious infractions – The Torah mandates death sentences for Sabbath breaking (Exod 31:14, Num 15:35), male homosexual acts (Lev 20:13), and a host of other transgressions.

The modern ‘believers’, nurtured on ideals of religious freedom and universal human rights, is left bewildered and uncomfortable, cornered by their own conscience into a defensive position.

Rabbinic Critique of Biblical Texts

Although reading the Bible with a critical moral eye may seem untraditional, in fact it is a time-honored exegetical method of many rabbinic commentators and much of halakhic tradition.

Akeidat Yitzhak – Talmudic rabbis didn’t hesitate to claim that Abraham was in error in his attempt to sacrifice his son (b. Ta’anit 4a; Genesis Rabbah 55:5 and 56:8; Pesikta Zutra 44), while later liturgists transformed the message of the akedah into a prayer for God’s kindness and compassion.

Slaughter of Shechemites – Jacob cursed the unrestrained violence of Shimon and Levi (Gen 49:5-7).

Pinchas’ Zealotry – In a remarkable inversion of Bible’s praise of Pinhas, the Babylonian and Palestinian sages claimed his zealotry ran counter to the wisdom of the rabbis and it was only the direct intervention of the divine voice that saved him from execution as a murderer (b. Sanhedrin 82a; j. Sanhedrin 9:7).

Annihilating Amalekites and the Seven Nations – The Babylonian sages effectively rendered inoperative the commandment to exterminate the Canaanites and Amalekites ( Yadayim 4:4; b. Berakhot 28a), and later in the 12^th century Maimonides redefined this disturbing mitzvah to refer only to enemies implacably committed to war on Israel (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and their Wars, 6:1 and 6:4).

The Beautiful Captive – The rabbis understood the law of the captive war bride as a lamentable concession to the aggressive “evil urge” that is unleashed in war (BT, Qiddushin 21b).

David’s Adultery – While one talmudic rabbi, Shmuel bar Nahmani, tried to exonerate David for his adultery and lethal scheming (b. Shabbat 56a), the Bible itself makes abundantly clear that David’s sin is grave (2 Samuel 12:9-14) and the Talmud considers his fit punishment to be nearly unbearable (b. Yoma 22b).

→ Critiquing the Moral Failings in the Bible:
by Rabbi Dr. Eugene Korn

_____________

Professor Marc Zvi Brettler is Bernice & Morton Lerner Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies (Emeritus) at Brandeis University. He is author, most recently, of How to Read the Jewish Bible (also published in Hebrew), co-editor of The Jewish Study Bible and The Jewish Annotated New Testament, and co-author of The Bible and the Believer, all published by Oxford University Press. He is cofounder of Project TABS (Torah and Biblical Scholarship) -TheTorah.com.

02/28/2015
[1] See most recently John Ahn, “Psalm 137: Complex Communal Laments,” Journal of Biblical Literature 127 (2008), 285-6.
[2] This is not the place for discussing when אַשְׁרֵ֤י should be translated as “blessed” versus “for the happiness of,” and the relation between these two possibilities.
[3] Note also the use of אַשְׁרֵ֤י in consecutive verses elsewhere in the Psalter (Pss. 32.1-2; 84.5-5; 119.1-2).
[4] See e.g. Paul Joüon and T. Muraoka, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute 2006), 144.
[5] For more on Sela and its location, see http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/the-edomite-stronghold-of-sela/. The fact that both Chronicles and Psalms share certain details may be a coincidence; these details are not sufficient to prove that the two texts are related. If, however, one did know the other, it seems more likely that Chronicles was aware of our psalm and made use of its imagery to write a new scene, not found in Kings, in the war between Amaziah and the Edomites (as was the Chronicler’s wont). It seems unlikely to me that the story in Chronicles is historical or preserves an old tradition that the psalmist might have known.
[6] Ch. 52 is an appendix, added mostly from the Book of Kings; it deals with the final years of Judah and its destruction, proving that Jeremiah was a true prophet since his predictions of doom came true. Note that Jer 51:64b reads: עַד־הֵ֖נָּה דִּבְרֵ֥י יִרְמְיָֽהוּ׃, “Thus far the words of Jeremiah.”
[7] For other commonalities between these units, see e.g. Frank-Lotha Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011), 520 and Erhard S. Gerstenberger, Psalms, Part 2, and Lamentations (FOTL 16; Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2001), 393, with additional supporting literature cited there.
[8] Many of these are collected in http://faculty.uml.edu/ethan_Spanier/Teaching/documents/CP6.0AssyrianTorture.pdf , from which this is quoted.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Nor do they, like the Bible, highlight ripping open pregnant women; see Mordecahi Cogan, “‘Ripping open Pregnant Women’ in Light of an Assyrian Analogue,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983), 755-7. Concerning children, on p. 755 he does mention a text from Assurnasirpal that states “I burnt their adolescent boys (and) girls,” but the emphasis in these Assyrian documents is on more general horror, rather than horror perpetrated against the very young.

[11] See John Barton, The Nature of Biblical Criticism (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2007).

Jesus of the Bible does not love you!

God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. (2 Thessalonians 1:6-8)

--------------

The above passage raises a couple of serious problems for Christians. Notice how the texts read during the second coming of Jesus he will have alongside with him powerful Angels who will punish those who do not obey the gospel of Jesus. Think about this for a moment, Christians tell us Jesus is a loving peaceful man who never hurt a fly. Yet this passage portrays a very evil dangerous figure no less than Hitler who was trying to dominate the world.

One of the other problem found in this passage is the short time span? What do we mean by that let me elaborate. According to the passage when Jesus arrives with his angels and finds anyone who is not obeying him should be destroyed seems very unfair, why because from a historical point the story of Jesus did not reach each and every person. Which means hundreds and thousands were unaware of Jesus and his gospel. If that's the case and Jesus was supposed have arrived those innocent people who knew him not would have been destroyed!. Paul himself wrote in Thessalonians that he is expecting Jesus anytime which says a lot if Paul was living during the 1st century. There are other passages found in the bible which reads that the second coming of Jesus will be a very violent one.

at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,.....(Philippians 2:10-11)

But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.'" (Luke 19:27)

I want to point out that the above passage says anyone who doesn't obey the gospel of Jesus will be destroyed. You can say Luke 19:27 is a parable which is true, but note this is talking of Jesus's second coming

Now coming back to the initial passage 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 if Christians were going to apply this standard of Muslims them we will pass with flying colours. How did I come to this concludes well Muslims believe in the Gospel of Jesus Pbuh, we do not believe In the gospels (plural) rather the singular Gospel which was originally given to Jesus Pbuh. And in the Gospel of Jesus we find the true message where Jesus Pbuh himself said to worship Allah Swt the true God and not to associate partners with him if anyone does then paradise will be forbidden for him. Every Muslim on the planet accept and obey such command.

However on the other hand Christians believe in what Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John said they don't have the gospel of Jesus. This is a fact which Christians admit to. So in short Jesus of the bible returns he will bring Angels and kill whosoever doesn't obey him. This also means the freedom of religion will be taken away.

Ask yourself this question, is Jesus of the bible loving and peaceful or violent taking away all religious freedom killing innocent people!

Hitler was a Christian

Here Hitler uses the Bible and his Christianity in order to attack the Jews and uphold his anti-Semitism:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is quite obvious here that Hitler is referring to destructing the Judaism alters on which Christianity was founded.)

"The personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (The idea of the devil and the Jew came out of medieval anti-Jewish beliefs based on interpretations from the Bible. Martin Luther, and teachers after him, continued this “tradition” up until the 20th century.)

"With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired Jewish youth lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (It is common in war for one race to rape another so that they can “defile” the race and assimilate their own. Hitler speaks about this very tactic here.)

“The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present- day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.”–Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"…the fall of man in paradise has always been followed by his expulsion." -Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (See Genesis Chapter 3 where humankind is cast from Eden for their sins. Hitler compares this to the need to exterminate the Jews for their sin against Christ.)
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” –Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

“The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race. That is why many German Jews died in WW2 regardless of their Aryan nationality.)

“Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (Here Hitler is admitting that his war against the Jews were so successful because of his strong Christian Spirituality.)

Friday, 29 March 2019

Rabbi Ben Abrahamson on Isaiah

Although there are many passages in the Torah which have been traditionally understood by Islamic scholars to describe the Prophet (pbuh), Tabari quotes only one, because it was the basis of a sahih hadith and not anyone's personal opinion:

Narrated Ata bin Yasar: I met `Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`As and asked him, "Tell me about the description of the Messenger of God in the Torah. He said, "Yes, by God, he is described in the Torah in the same way that he is described in the Qur'an: in the Qur'an: 'O Prophet, We have sent thee as a witness, and good things to bear, and warning' [Surat 33:45]; a refuge to the nations. Thou art My Messenger, I have named thee the trusting. He is neither harsh nor rough, nor crying in the streets. He does not reward evil with evil, but pardons and forgives. We shall not take him until through him We have caused the crooked nation to say, There is no god but God, and through him We shall open uncircumcised hearts, deaf ears, and blind eyes." (Sahih Bukhari 3, 34, 335)

The first part of the hadith "witness..warner..refuge to the nations" reminds of these verses in Isaiah:

20. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness to the Lord of Hosts in the land of Egypt, for they shall cry out to the Lord because of oppressors, and He shall send them a savior and a prince, and he shall save them.

21. And the Lord shall be known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord on that day, and they shall serve [with] a sacrifice and a meal offering, and they shall make vows to the Lord and they shall fulfill [them]. (Isaiah 19:20-21)

The second part reminds me of these verses, also in Isaiah.

1. Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations.

2. He shall neither cry nor shall he raise [his voice]; and he shall not make his voice heard outside.

3. A breaking reed he shall not break; and a flickering flaxen wick he shall not quench; with truth shall he execute justice.

4. Neither shall he weaken nor shall he be broken, until he establishes justice in the land, and for his instruction, islands shall long.

5. So said God the Lord, the Creator of the heavens and the One Who stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and what springs forth from it, Who gave a soul to the people upon it and a spirit to those who walk thereon.

6. I am the Lord; I called you with righteousness and I will strengthen your hand; and I formed you, and I made you for a people's covenant, for a light to nations.

7. To open blind eyes, to bring prisoners out of a dungeon, those who sit in darkness out of a prison. (Isaiah 42:1-7)

The verses in Isaiah end with a reference to the desert and the villages of Kedar:

10. Sing to the Lord a new song, His praise from the end of the earth, those who go down to the sea and those therein, the islands and their inhabitants.

11. The desert and its cities shall raise [their voice]; Kedar shall be inhabited with villages; the rock dwellers shall exult, from the mountain peaks they shall shout.

12. They shall give glory to the Lord, and they shall recite His praise on the islands. (Isaiah 42:10-11)

--------------------------

Isaiah 42:1 says

Behold My servant, I will support him, My chosen one, whom My soul desires; I have placed My spirit upon him, he shall promulgate justice to the nations.

Mathew 12:18 says

Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

It doesn't look like anything is left out

Behold My servant (hen avdi) = Behold my servant (idou ho pais)

I will support him (etmakh) = of whom I prefer (mou hon heretisa)

My chosen one (bo bechiri) = my beloved (ho agapetos)

whom My soul desires (ratzeta nafshi) = in whom my soul delights (mou eis hon eudokesen he psuche)

Actually, IMHO what would have immediately become apparent to Jews and proto-Muslims of the 6th century is that "in whom My soul desires" and " in whom my soul delights" are conceptually equivalent with Daniel 10:19, "O man of delights" where the word HaMuDot which shares the same root as the name of the Prophet muHaMaD (pbuh). It is possible that Aramaic and Arabic translations of Isaiah 41:1 used the word "hamudot".