Throw it in the Garbage

According to Rabbi yosef mizrachi and Rabbi Yaron Reuven, if one word is added or deleted in the Torah then that book should be thrown into the garbage. Let's put their book to the test.

10 commandments (one of the extended commandments).

You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.” (Exodus 20:17 Masoretic Torah)

 -------------------------

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, and not thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's. And when it so happens that LORD God brings you to the land of Caanan, which you are coming to posses, you shall set-up there for you great stones and plaster them with plaster and you write on the stones all words of this law. And it becomes for you that across the Jordan you shall raise these stones, which I command you today, in mountain Grizim. And you build there the altar to the LORD God of you. Altar of stones. Not you shall wave on them iron. With whole stones you shall build the altar to LORD God of you. And you bring on it ascend offerings to LORD God of you, and you sacrifice peace offerings, and you eat there and you rejoice before the face of the LORD God of you. The mountain this is across the Jordan behind the way of the rising of the sun, in the land of Caanan who is dwelling in the desert before the Galgal, beside Alvin-Mara, before Sechem. (Exodus 20:17 Samaritan Torah)

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

As you can read from the above two versions one is extended. Now using Rabbi yosef mizrachi and Rabbi Yaron Reuven criteria we have a problem. Both rabbis said, if a letter is added or deleted then the whole book should be thrown away, but here we have a chunk added to the commandment. The problem doesn't stop here. If adding a letter nullifies that book, then the Masoretic Torah which both rabbis and 90% Jews use must be thrown in the garbage. The Masoretic was written during the 11th century by the Masoretes, but what did the Masoretes themselves believe?  Did they believe they were perfectly preserving the ancient text?  Did they even think they had received a perfect text to begin with?

History says “no” . . .

Scribal emendations – Tikkune Soferim

Early rabbinic sources, from around 200 CE, mention several passages of Scripture in which the conclusion is inevitable that the ancient reading must have differed from that of the present text. . . . Rabbi Simon ben Pazzi (3rd century) calls these readings “emendations of the Scribes” (tikkune Soferim; Midrash Genesis Rabbah xlix. 7), assuming that the Scribes actually made the changes. This view was adopted by the later Midrash and by the majority of Masoretes.

In other words, the Masorites themselves felt they had received a partly corrupted text. 

The Samaritan on the other hand is much earlier than the Masoretic text, making is older giving it some credibility. Though we have earlier text than the Samaritan text i.e. the DSS fragments, the Samaritan Torah pre-dates the Masoretic.

This would mean the Samaritan Torah should be used by Jews not the Masoretic. The Masoretic on the other hand should be thrown in the garbage as the rabbis suggested.  Unless you say the Samaritan is corrupted which if that’s the case, then both books should be thrown in the garbage.

Take your pick which Torah should be thrown in the garbage.

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

Psalm 151 and the Dead Sea Scrollsby Peter W. Flint

The discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls near Qumran in 1947, and subsequently many more near Qumran and at other sites in the Judean desert, has revolutionized biblical studies. For example, several scrolls offer new insights on the formation and contents of various books that we now call biblical.

In the traditional Hebrew Bible, the Book of Psalms contains 150 psalms, but some early Bibles—namely, the Septuagint and Syriac Bibles—include Psalm 151 and Psalms 152-55.

Psalm 154 is represented in two Qumran scrolls: the Great Psalms Scroll and the Apocryphal Psalm and a Prayer for King Jonathan. Psalm 154 is a wisdom poem, which may be classified as a call to worship. One feature is the personification of Wisdom as a woman (verses 5 onward), which also occurs in the Hebrew Bible (Prov 8:34) and in the book of Sir 1:15. Psalm 155 is also found in the Great Psalms Scroll and may be described as a psalm of thanksgiving that incorporates a plea for deliverance. It contains a large amount of biblical vocabulary and is reminiscent of Ps 22 and Ps 51.

Psalm 151 is the last psalm in the Septuagint (Greek) Psalter and is accepted as canonical by all the Orthodox churches. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this psalm was known only as a single composition in the Septuagint and in the Latin and Syriac translations made from it. A Hebrew copy of Psalm 151 is found in the Great Psalms Scroll, but as two separate compositions—Psalms 151A and 151B.

The discovery of Psalms 151A and 151B among the Qumran scrolls is important for several reasons. As in the Septuagint, the Great Psalms Scroll Psalter ends with Psalm 151. Although the Hebrew text differs from the Greek in many ways, this “Qumran Psalter” shows that by the Common Era some Jews were using a collection of Psalms that also closed with Psalm 151. Having both the Hebrew original and the Greek translation provides important insights on the technique used by the translator. Reworking his source material, he condensed Psalms 151A and 151B into one Greek psalm of seven verses, changing the order of several verses and omitting some material. Additionally, Psalms 151A and 151B (Hebrew) and 151 (Greek) are the only psalms considered to be autobiographical in terms of clearly relating to actual events in David’s life. While some superscriptions to Psalms 1-150 include similar references to David, the actual texts of those Psalms never mention him.

A comparison of the superscriptions in the Great Psalms Scroll and the Septuagint shows the Dead Sea Scroll version to be more Davidic. The Septuagint—although ascribing the Psalm to David and mentioning his encounter with Goliath—declares it to be “outside the number” (of the book of Psalms). This seems to reflect later editors’ concerns about the place of Psalm 151 in the Greek Psalter, in the early centuries of the Common Era, when the form now represented by the Masoretic collection of 150 psalms was becoming increasingly influential for Judaism.

Psalm 151 Version Comparison
Psalm 151 A and B in 11QPsa	Psalm 151 in the Septuagint
(Psalm 151A) Hallelujah! A Psalm of David, son of Jesse.	This psalm is autographical, ascribed to David (but outside the number), after he had fought with Goliath in single combat.
1 I was smaller than my brothers, and the youngest of my father’s sons, so he made me shepherd of his flock and ruler over his little goats. 2 My hands fashioned a reed pipe, and my fingers a lyre;	1 I was small among my brothers, and the youngest in my father’s house; I would shepherd my father’s sheep. 2 My hands made a harp; my fingers fashioned a lyre.
and so I gave glory to the LORD. I said in my mind: 3 “The mountains cannot testify to him, nor can the hills proclaim— lift up my words, you trees, and my compositions, you sheep.	3 And who will tell my Lord?  The Lord himself; it is he who hears.
4 For who can announce, and who can declare, and who can recount my deeds? The Lord of everything has seen, the God of everything has heard, and he has paid attention. 5 He sent his prophet to anoint me, Samuel to raise me up. My brothers went out to meet him, handsome of figure, handsome in appearance. 6 Although they were tall of stature and handsome because of their hair, the LORD God did not choose them. 7 But he sent and fetched me from behind the flock and anointed me with the holy oil, and he made me prince of his people and ruler over the sons of his covenant. (Psalm 151B) At the beginning of po[we]r for [Dav]id, after God’s prophet had anointed him.	4 a It was he who sent his messenger 4b Then he took me from my father’s sheep, 4c and anointed me with his anointing oil. 5 My brothers were handsome and tall, but the Lord was not pleased with them. 6 I went out to meet the Philistine, and he cursed me by his idols. 7 But I drew his own sword; I beheaded him, and took away disgrace from the people of Israel.
1 Then I s[a]w the Philistine, throwing out taunts from the r[anks of the enemy]. 2 …I…the…

Peter W. Flint, "Psalm 151 and the Dead Sea Scrolls", n.p. [cited 18 Apr 2020]. Online: https://www.bibleodyssey.org:443/en/passages/related-articles/psalm-151-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls

First Bible scholars now doctors fooled by the gospel narratives

After reading an article online, I thought I had to share it with you guys. I was browsing through a Christian website where I came across question and answers section, it attracted me to read through a few questions. When I came across a specific question asked by a person, I was keen to know the answer, but when I read through it I was laughing at these bewildered Christian scholars.

Let me show u the question followed by the answer given by bible expert. ending with my comment

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

Question posed:

SWEATING BLOOD - The Bible states that Jesus perspired drops of blood. How is that possible?

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

Answer:

Before the crucifixion, as Jesus Christ prayed in the Garden of Gesthemane, the disciple and physician Luke noted that:

“And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.” —Luke 22:44 (NKJV)

This was written by the physician Luke, a well-educated man and a careful observer by profession.

Luke is also the only gospel writer to mention the bloody sweat, possibly because of his interest as a physician in this rare physiological phenomenon, which spoke elequently of the intense spiritual agony Jesus was suffering… (Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defenders Bible, arginal notes for Luke 22:44)

Although this medical condition is relatively rare, according to Dr. Frederick Zugibe (Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York) it is well-known, and there have been many cases of it. The clinical term is “hematohidrosis.” “Around the sweat glands, there are multiple blood vessels in a net-like form.” Under the pressure of great stress the vessels constrict. Then as the anxiety passes “the blood vessels dilate to the point of rupture. The blood goes into the sweat glands.” As the sweat glands are producing a lot of sweat, it pushes the blood to the surface - coming out as droplets of blood mixed with sweat.

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

My commentary

I must agree that was a hefty academic answer, by Dr (Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York) I regards to the sweating Blood of Jesus,

Now you may think I'm going to refute the doctors answer, but I'm afraid I'm not that qualified to so refuting a dr with such high Calibre being labeled as a (Chief Medical Examiner)

I'm no doctor, but I can refute the entire verse lol.

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

(These verses are Luke 22:43-44 “And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” )

“But those verses are missing from some of the oldest and best manuscripts of Luke's Gospel.

It turns out that the account in Luke about Jesus sweating blood as he prays in the garden is missing from our oldest and best manuscripts. scribes added that because there were debates in the second and third centuries as to whether Jesus was fully human or not. These verses were inserted to show he really was human and really did suffer.”

Pulpit Commentary

the oldest authorities omit these last two verses (43, 44). Their omission in many of these ancient manuscripts was probably due to mistaken reverence. The two oldest and most authoritative translations, the Itala (Latin) and Peshito (Syriac), contain them, however, as do the most important Fathers of the second century, Justin and Irenaeus. We have, then, apart from the evidence of manuscripts, the testimony of the earliest Christianity in Italy and Syria, Asia Minor and Gaul, to the genuineness of these two famous verses. They are printed in the ordinary text of the Revised English Version, with a side-note alluding to their absence in some of the ancient authorities.

Bible gateway footnote

Luke 22:44 Many early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.

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

"Luke 22:44 the passage about Jesus sweating blood indeed it is not found in P75
A D type text Around around 300"

Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament
By Philip Wesley Comfort

New American Bible (Catholic Comparative New Testament)
Luke 22: [ 43 And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. 44 He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground.] Footnote: These verses, though very ancient, were probably not part of the original text of Lk. They are absent from the oldest papyrus manuscripts of Lk and from manuscripts of wide geographical distribution.

The Good News Translation (Catholic Comparative New Testament) places Luke 22:43-44 in the main body of text with a footnote that says, Some manuscripts do not have verses 43-44.

The Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible (Catholic Comparative New Testament) banished Luke 22:43-44 to the footnotes. The passage is absent from the main body of text. The footnotes says, Other ancient manuscripts add verses 43 and 44: 43 And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, strengthening him. 44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground.

The New Revised Standard Version Catholic Bible (Anglicized) (Catholic Comparative New Testament) places Luke 22:43-44 in the main body of text with a footnote that says, Other ancient manuscripts lack verses 43 and 44.

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

In short, the passage of SWEATING BLOOD IN LUKE 22:44 was a later addition, fabricated, Interpolated. The embarrassing part is, this “Christian” Dr went through a hard time proving a false made up lie, the SWEATING OF BLOOD. Where was his Holy Ghost out deceiving other Christian?.

Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Bruce Metzger pp. 177

The Transmission of the Quran by Hafs bin Sulayman – Debunking the Distortions of the YouTube Video “100% Proof the Quran is False!”

Compiled, Translated and Annotated

Abu Hibban & Abu Khuzaimah Ansari

One month ago ‘Ishmail/ ismail’ posted a video on youTube titled, “100% Proof the Quran is False”

This is the response to the distortions he presented.

He also used the kunyah of Abu Adam in the past, for his reality also watch this video HERE

The video in question is,

This person has attempted to assert that Hafs bin Sulayman al-Asadi, Abu Umar al-Bazzaz al-Kufi, the reciter and transmitter from Asim was weak and thus the transmission of the Quran is also weak as it is the most widespread transmission of the Qir’ah of the Qur’an.

This is, without any doubt poor understanding of the science of hadith and riwayah, a lack of comprehension as well as sheer ignorance in understanding the difference between narrating ahadith and transmitting a qir’ah of the Quran.

We do not aim to spend too much time explaining this as the point itself is poorly constructed, with deliberate distortions, however, here are some points to consider.

Hafs bin Sulayman (90H – 180H)

There is no doubt that some of scholars of hadith and critical analysts did issue statements weakening Hafs in hadith transmission and hadith in general, however this does not apply to the transmission of the Qur’an and specifically to the Asim mode of transmission of the Quran.

Hafs was raised by Asim in his house as his stepson and thus spent a long time with him. Imam al-Dhahabi mentioned,

“Hafs was reliable in his reading (of the Qur’an), he was accurate and consistent, but not as much in the transmission of hadith.” (Imam Dhahabi, Tabaqat al-Qurra (1:140-141)

Hafs himself said,

“I did not depart from Asim (in his transmission of the mode of the Qur’an) except in ONE WORD..” (Imam Dhahabi,Tabaqat al-Qurra (1:140-141)

Imam al-Dhahabi repeated this point that Hafs was accurate and consistent in his transmission of the Qur’an. It was the norm of the latter day hadith specialists to summarise the view of the earlier scholars, and this is what Imam al-Dhahabi did. (Imam al-Dhahabi, al-Kashif(1:240)

Imam al-Dhahabi also said,

 “Hafs was a trustworthy reciter of the Quran and weak in reporting of Hadith because he was not grounded in Hadith like he became very proficient in Quran recitation. Otherwise, he was upright and truthful” (Imam al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-Ei’tidal Fi Naqd al-Rijal (2:319 no.2124)

Furthermore, Shu’bah-Abu Bakr ibn A’yaash also transmitted the mode of the Qur’an transmission from Asim, and thus was a support for this mode of transmission. So, if for arguments sake even if Hafs had some weakness in his transmission of the Qur’an, which of course he did not, he would still be supported by the transmission of Shu’bah.

The scholars have differed as to who was more precise in transmission of the Quran from Asim, whether Shu’bah or Hafs. However, yet still despite this difference they still supported each other.

Imam Ibn Adiyy transmit from Saji, from Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Baghdadi from Yahya ibn Ma’in who said,

“Hafs bin Suleiman and Abu Bakr bin Ayyash were the most knowledgeable amongst anyone in the mode of transmission from Asim, Hafs was more accurate in his transmission of the mode of the Quran transmission but a liar but Abu Bakr ibn Ayyash was truthful.”(Imam Ibn Adiyy, al-Kamil Fi Du’afa al-Rijal (2:275), Hafiz al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal (7:15 no.1390), Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib(2:361).

Imam Abu Bakr Khatib al-Baghdadi said, 

“The earlier scholars of the Quran declared Hafs to be more precise and accurate than Abu Bakr bin Ayyash (ie Shu’bah) in terms of memorisation (ie transmission) of the Quran..” (Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Madinah al-Baghdad(8:186-188), see also his Muwdeh al-Awham al-Jam’a (2:47-48). Abu Shamah has also transmitted this in his Sharh al-Shatibiyyah)

The detractors, who are ignorant of the sciences of hadith, say Hafs was declared to be a liar. The significance of this is that a narrator being being weak is different from being called a liar as the latter is a severe form of criticism. A narrator being weak in hadith transmission is addressed based on the sciences of hadith but being accused of lying carries a greater sin as well as far reaching implications in the science of narration.

What is further strange and also amusing at the same time, is that the detractor who presents this youtube video (Ishmail, or whatever his name is) inadvertently preserves the sciences of Islam, ie the tajwid or Arabic, and in this way he contributes to the preservation of the Islamic sciences.

Furthermore, whatever religion he follows, will most certainly not have any specialty or special characteristics like Islam does, ie Jarh Wat Ta’dil, Mustalah Hadith, Tarikh, biographical sketch of narrators and so on. Praise be to Allah, The Mighty and Majestic who sent men of standing to contribute and aid the preservation of Islam.

So, the detractors resonate with the words of Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in that he declared Hafs to be a liar, as the guy raves in the youtube video. However, we find that other people who narrate the view of Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in on Hafs do not mention the word liar, and thus is seems it was Imam Yahya ibn Ma’ins earlier or lone view. We have the report of Ali bin al-Hussain bin Hibban who said that Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in said,

“Abu Umar al-Bazzaz’s (ie Hafs) recitation (ie transmission) is more accurate and authentic than Abu Bakr bin Ayyash’s but Abu Bakr is more trustworthy than Abu Umar.” (Hafiz al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal(7:13), Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib(2:360 no.1478), Imam al-Dhahabi,Mizan al-Ei’tidal Fi Naqd al-Rijal (2:320)

So, here there is no mention of Hafs being a liar. In another report from Yahya ibn Ma’in via Layth bin al-Ubaid, he said

“Abu ʻUmar Al-Bazzaaz (i.e. Hafs), the Quran reciter, is not trustworthy; however, his recitation is more accurate and correct than that of Abu Bakr ibn ʻAyyaash, and Abu Bakr is more trustworthy than him…” (Imam Ibn Adiyy,al-Kamil Fi Du’afa al-Rijal (2:275)

No mention of liar, furthermore, there is yet another report from Imam Uthman al-Darimi who also asked Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in about Hafs and he said,

“He is not trustworthy.” (Imam Uthman al-Darimi, Tarikh Ibn Ma’in (no.269), Imam al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-Ei’tidal(2:320), Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (2:360).

Abu Qudamah al-Sarkhasi also transmitted the same from Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in. (Imam Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wa’l Ta’dil (no.744)

Imam al-Dhahabi in the Mizan transmits from Ahmad bin Muhammad al-Hadhrami, who said,

“I asked Yahya ibn Ma’in about Hafs bin Sulayman-Abi Umar al-Bazzaz, he said, “He is nothing.” (Imam al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-Ei’tidal (2:320)

This shows the view of Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in in Hafs being a liar was not consistent. Furthermore, even if this held to be true it was in relation and specific to hadith transmission.

Another angle to this argument which they put forward is the view of Abdul Rahman bin Yusuf bin Khirash, who also said Hafs was a liar. (Imam Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Madinah al-Baghdad (8:188), Hafiz al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal (7:15), Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (2:361).

Again, there are a number of responses, the first being as mentioned earlier, this criticism is specific and restricted to the science of hadith and its transmission, it cannot be applied unrestrictedly to the transmission of the mode of the Quran from Asim.

The criticism of Khirash needs to be reviewed, again for two reasons, no one has accused Hafs of being a liar except an odd report from Imam Yahya ibn Ma’in, which we have explained and secondly the criticism of Khirash is unacceptable because of his Shia roots and thus being biased in it. Any biased criticism is unacceptable especially if they belong to an ardently extreme sect due to the lack of fairness. Although Khirash was a scholar of hadith, any criticism levied against someone based on sectarianism in not accepted unless it is supported by other critical analysts.

Hafiz Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani said,

“Criticism levied against someone as a result of animosity, based on difference in creedal matters must be treated with reservation and one must abstain….. This is the affair with Abdur Rahman bin Yusuf bin Khirash, the scholar of hadith and a Hafiz, for he was from the Ghulatish-Shi’ah (extreme shi’a), rather he had attribution to al-Rafdh (ie Rafidah Shi’a)..” (Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Lisan ul-Mizan(1:108-109).

The statement of these scholars of hadith regarding Hafs were specific to hadith transmission and not the transmission of the Quran. Even if Hafs was considered to be a liar, it is to be restricted and limited to hadith. The same applies to the criticism of Khirash.

An evidence for this is what Imam Abdur Rahman ibn Abi Hatim asked his father, Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi, Ibn Abi Hatim said,

“I asked my father concerning him, he said, “Do not write his HADITH as he is weak in HADITH, he is not truthful (in hadith) and matruk al-Hadith. So I said to him, “What is his affair in the al-Haruf (ie mode of transmission of the Quran).?” He replied, “Abu Bakr bin Ayyash is more grounded than him.” (al-Jarh wa’l Ta’dil(no.744), Hafiz al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal Fi Asma al-Rijal (7:14-15), Hafiz Ibn Hajr, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib (2:361).

Let us assume for arguments sake that Hafs was weak in transmitting the Quran, we say this is not problematic at all because Abu Bakr bin Ayyash ie Shu’bah followed up Hafs’s transmission of the Quran and thus acts as a supporting narrator. What must be duly noted and understood well is that, the transmission of the Quran was not like the transmission of hadith. With the ahadith varying with so many different chains and narrators etc, the transmission of the Quran was exact, it was the transmission of oft repeated words. Unlike the hadith, the wording of the Quran was fixed, permanent and universal.

The chains of Hafs and Shu’bah both went back to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ through the companions and hence both transmission of the same mode support each other. Moreover, the core transmission of the different modes of the Quran was similar except where they differed and even for that Hafs had support, Hafs himself said that Asim told him,

“The reading which I have taught you is the one I learned from Abu Abdur Rahman al-Sulami who transmitted it from Ali (bin abi Talib). And the reading that I taught Abu Bakr bin Ayyash is the one that I presented to Dharr bin Hubaysh, which is the transmission he received from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.”(Imam al-Dhahabi, Tabaqat al-Qurra(1:88,92)

Let us now look at Shu’bah, who supported the transmission of Hafs from Asim. Shu’bah-Abu Bakr bin Ayyash, he was born in 95H and died around 193-194H. had recited the transmission to Asim three times, also to A’ta bin Sa’ib and Aslam al-Manqari. He continued to recite and teach until 7 years before his death, ie around until 186H-187H. He had recited the Quran 18,000 times. Imam al-Dhahabi, Tabaqat al-Qurra (1:138)

What we find from this is that based on simple maths it is apparent that Shu’bah completed the recitation of the Quran every 2-3 days. For over 90 years. With this level of recitation, there is only but precision, accuracy and meticulousness. It is not like some bible missionary book that is read a few times and the bible basher thinks he has reached the epitome of memorization, one must apply his common sense.

Both reciters supported each others transmission from Asim, with the time, effort and decades they devoted to the Quran, the experts they had become in every aspect of precision and accuracy was perhaps second to none based on approximately 185 years of dedication to the Quran. Shu’bah lived longer and hence continued teaching the mode of the transmission even after Hafs had passed away.

How is it then, that the likes of Ishmail, the self styled detractor, in his clumpy presentation of this video glossed over these facts and research. When a person is filled and fuelled by hate and enmity, the human mind will resent and reject all truth and reality based on academic research, do not push yourselves away by watching ponzy, poorly researched and deliberately distorted video’s.

Let us show you a few examples in how the presenter of this video, deliberately distorts and manipulates the facts to suit his whims and desires in order to prove his dejected argument.

Remember dear readers, the clumsy presenter says the reliability, trustworthiness and honesty of Hafs is the most important question and then digresses into his points, but dear readers we will show you how he himself has been deceptive, dishonest and deliberately distorted the facts in the video.

Point 1 (Time stamp 4:02)

He presets and reads from English translation of the Musnad Ahmad, hadith no.1268 and says the respective hadith is Da’if Jiddan ie very weak and then goes onto disturbingly deceptively lie by saying the weakness is due to Hafs. However, in the comments it clearly says the chain is weak due to the weakness of Amr bin Uthman, Hafs bin Abu Umar al-Qari and that Kathir bin Zadhan is majhul ie unknown. So he lies and presents his arguments as if the hadith is very weak only due to the presence of Hafs, when there are other problems with the chain, with the more problematic one being that of Kathir, as he was unknown.

Point 2 (time stamp 4:36)

The clumsy dude reads from the Arabic notes to the hadith and questions and reads the words Matruk al-Hadith ie he is rejected in HADITH, while this dude is presenting his flimsy argument about Hafs’s Quran transmission. How does that even make sense?

Then he goes onto mention the charge that Hafs would borrow books to copy them without returning them. He, for whatever reasons, does not mention the charge is by Shu’bah, so that the non Arabic listeners are none the wiser. The charge was levied by Shu’bah, who was from his Mu’assirin, Ie his contemporary, and we know from hadith sciences that criticism levied by contemporaries is not accepted without evidence and neither is this considered detailed criticism. (Refer to the general books of hadith sciences).

The point by Muhammad Mustafa al-A’zami is the same point, that Hafs would borrow books from other people and add them to his own books. This is nothing strange and most certainly not plagiarism because this was the norm. Everyone would borrow books from each other and copy them into their books ie ahadith and so on. If one was to read the biographical notes on well known and powerful narrators, they will see that this was the norm. How can this clumsy chap even claim this was plagiarism? Such levels of immature, desperate and frantic deductions are laughable and outright shoddy, to be quite frank.

It is possible only Shu’bahs book was not returned, for whatever reason, and the charge was changed to the notion that he would borrow books from people (plural) and never return them, when in actual reality the charge was an isolated incident. Dear readers, furthermore, if a friend borrows a book from you and they forget to return it for whatever reason, or they posted it via normal post, or sent it via courier and you don’t receive it, you don’t start labelling that person etc.

This is why when contemporaries have personal differences, their points against each other need to be objectively reviewed. There are many examples like this in the biographical notes of the narrators and the scholars of Islam have alluded to them in their respective books.

This is the reality of this debunked and flimsy youtube video, that the criticism levied against Hafs is specific to Hadith transmission and not his transmission of the Quran. Perhaps the chap can, in the future, keep his ground breaking research private and not embarrass himself.

FISH PROVES TORAH IS DIVINE?

Rabbi Yaron Reuven proves the Torah is Divine by a fish? What's worse he lies by claiming the Torah says, "you'll find a fish with just fins, but you'll never find a fish with just scales". A blatant lie by the rabbi, no such saying is found anywhere in the Torah, if so maybe the rabbi can show us. Why didn't the rabbi quote the chapter and verse or even the book? Interestingly, this saying is found in the Talmud, which the rabbis takes as the Torah.

We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Nidda 51b): Any fish that has scales certainly has fins, but there are fish that have fins and do not have scales. Any fish that has scales and fins is a kosher fish. If it has fins but no scales, it is a non-kosher fish. (Talmud Chullin 66b)

If this is the way to prove the Torah by lying, then well done. Rabbis used the Oral Law to prove the Torah? We'll ignore the first part about kosher, which really took the biscuit.

Even if we take the rabbis Talmudic saying as proof, does it really stand the test? The answer is no.

Okay so a fish is a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water. So, saying you will never find a fish without fins is contradicting the definition of a fish. There are plenty of fish without scales, but none without fins, why? Because that's the sole definition of a fish. So next time a rabbi uses this as proof, ask him this. What is a fish? If a fish is still considered a fish even when it doesn't have fins, then whats a fish? If a "fish" is animal that lives in the ocean than I can give you hundreds with scales and no fins.

what a joke!

DSS exposes John 1:1

12 Yahweh said to Moses and Aaron, “Because you didn’t believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.”

13 These are the waters of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with Yahweh, and he was sanctified in them. And Moses said, “Lord Yahweh, you have begun to show your servant your greatness and your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can act according toyour works, and according to your mighty deeds? Please let me cross over and see that good land that is beyond the Jordan, those good mountains, and Lebanon.” But Yahwehsaid to Moses, “Enough. Speak to me no more about this matter. Go up to the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes to the west and to the north and to the south  and to the east, and see it with your eyes, for you shall not cross over this Jordan. (Numbers 20:12-13 DSS 4Q27 fragment)

The above scripture was taken from the DSS fragments found in the Qumran caves. The interesting part is in verse 13. The Masoretic version does not have the following section.

“And Moses said, “Lord Yahweh, you have begun to show your servant your greatness and your strong hand; for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can act according to your works, and according to your mighty deeds? Please let me cross over and see that good land that is beyond the Jordan, those good mountains, and Lebanon.” But Yahweh said to Moses, “Enough. Speak to me no more about this matter. Go up to the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes to the west and to the north and to the south and to the east, and see it with your eyes, for you shall not cross over this Jordan.”

Take in account what Moses said to Yahweh.

“for what god is there in heaven or on earth who can act according to your works, and according to your mighty deeds?”

If Jesus was with God from the beginning as found in the gospel of John, why then didn’t Yahweh declare it to Moses? Was this not the best time to announce and make mention of his son who is also God with him as John claimed? Why was Yahweh silent? This goes to show Yahweh had no son with him from the beginning of time. John 1:1 was nothing but a lie.

In fact the verse carries on showing the anger Yahweh had towards Moses after he allegedy disobeyed God.

“But Yahweh said to Moses, “Enough. Speak to me no more about this matter. Go up to the top of Pisgah and lift up your eyes to the west and to the north and to the south and to the east, and see it with your eyes, for you shall not cross over this Jordan.”

This would have ideally been the moment when Yahweh could have revealed his “son Jesus” to Moses. Yahweh had the chance to show Moses his “son” would not disobey him and complete his work.  It’s clear from the text, Yahweh had no knowledge of another God or son who was side by side with him. John 1:1 is nothing but a fraud and deceptive saying which has no support from the Hebrew Bible.