colour

Once again our Christian friends have been playing with the English translation of a certain word found in the Quran. They read the English translation of Surah 2:138, by Yusuf Ali and picked up on a word which they believe applies to the Christian belief.  They quote:

(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah. And who can baptize better than Allah. And it is He Whom we worship. (Surah 2:138 Yusuf ali translation  in English)

However the above verse is not the absolute correct translation of the Arabic word Sibgah as we will see. Below is a more accurate translation of the word Sibgah rendered in English. As well as showing the translation, we’ll also show from commentary and classical Arabic lexicon dictionary on what the word Sibgah means.

Say: “Take on Allah’s colour.” And whose colour is better than Allah’s? It is Him that we serve. (2:138)

Commentary:

This verse can be translated in two ways. One of these is: 'We have taken on Allah's colour.' The other is: 'Take on Allah's colour.' On the eve of the advent of Christianity the Jews followed the practice of bathing everyone who embraced their religion. This ritual bath signified that all his previous sins had been washed away and that he had adopted a different colour for his life. This practice was subsequently taken over by the Christians and is termed 'baptism'. Not only converts but even new-born babies were baptized. The Qur'anic remarks here refer to this institution. The Qur'an says in effect: 'Of what use is this formal baptism? What really is worth doing is to adopt the colour of God, and it is not water that gives one this colour but actual service and devotion to God.' (Islamic Studies Tahfeem)

Ibn Kathir tells is it is the  religion of Allah Swt.

(The Sibghah of Allah). Ad-Dahhak said that Ibn `Abbas commented, "The religion of Allah.'' This Tafsir was also reported of Mujahid, Abu Al-`Aliyah, `Ikrimah, Ibrahim, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak, `Abdullah bin Kathir, `Atiyah Al-`Awfi, Ar-Rabi` bin Anas, As-Suddi and other scholars. The Ayah,

(Allah's Fitrah (i.e. Allah's Islamic Monotheism)) (30:30) directs Muslims to, "Hold to it.''

In the Holy Quran, the arabic word used (approximated in
english) is "Sibghah", the root meaning of which implies a dye or colour. So the beautiful image of Baptism expressed by the Holy Quran is not merely a washing, or even an. immersion, but is instead a literal "soaking" in the Will of God, so that every fiber of ones being becomes indelibly permeated.



Let’s dwell a little deeper. It’s interesting to know that the Arabic word for Baptism found in the Bible is not Sibgah. The Arabic word is بمعمودية  (mahmudiyat), a stupendous difference.  

صبغ  sibgah in Arabic text, here’s a line from the Arbic Bible dictory website. It gives an explantion of the word Zerjun are the pillars of generosity. And comes in other meanings such as "wine" or "red dye" (صبغ). The single word "Zarjona". Interestingly when it uses the word dye in Arabic it says Sibgah صبغ

classical Arabic dictionary shows the meaning for Sibgah is, A dye used for coloring clothes. we've explained how this color in a metaphorical way means.

How old were they?

Here’s a super discrepancy found in the Torah, which korede thinks to be the actual unaltered word of God. using koredes criteria we will show how Yahweh being the one author of the Torah was not aware of his own sayings.  Note korede has admitted the Gospels were written by multiple authors. It will be foolish of him saying the same for the Torah as it was dictated to Moses by Yahweh himself, which means there was only one author for the Torah. Lets get straight to the problem:

According to Genesis Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born.

 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. (Genesis 21:5)

again we read in Genesis Abraham was hundred and seventy five when he past away.

Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years. (Genesis 25:7)

here’s where the problem kicks in. According to Genesis Isaac was 40 years old when he got married.

and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan Aram and sister of Laban the Aramean. (Genesis 25:20)

did you catch the problem? Abraham was 100 years old when he had Isaac (Gen 21:5), Abraham passed away when he was 175 years old (Gen 25:7), which means Isaac should be 75 years old, but when we get to Genesis 25:20 we are told Isaac is 40 years old? How could this be? Note Genesis 25:9 says both his sons Ishmael and Isaac buried him.

His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, (Genesis 25:9)

Can korede help solve this stupendous discrepancy (pun intended). How could the author who is Yahweh make such a mistake, and why didn’t Moses who was writing not correct it or even challenge Yahweh. If Moses can make Yahweh repent why could he not tell him how could Isaac be 40 years old? Please explain how Isaac had 35 years of his life omitted.

This super discrepancy cannot be solved at all. If Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born and when he passed away he was 175, then that should make Isaac 75 years old not 40. Do you really believe this is the actual word of God.

This also shows Abraham did not bless the two sons of Isaac. Esau and Jocob were born when Isaac was 60 years old.

After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau's heel; so he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them. (Genesis 25:26)

There is no trace of Abraham anywhere during the births of his two sons esau and Jacob. You’ll expect the grandfather to be present there or even come bless them. Even though Abraham according to Genesis 25 would of been alive and seen his grandchildren before he passed away at the age of 175. Not to mention this would give Isaac with an additional 15 years since he was 60 years old. Now korede may say Isaac was married at the age of 40, it was only mentioned after Genesis 25:9. Again using koredes standards this fails. If this really was the case then where was Abraham, and why was there no mention of Esau and Jacob? We read in Genesis 26

For all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth. (Genesis 26:15)

And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged servants of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them. (Genesis 26:18)

Notice how Genesis 26:15 and 18 both speak of the past tense for Abraham. Had Abraham been alive then would he had not visited his son and grandsons and bless them? A couple of  chapters later we read Yahweh is blessing them behalf of Abraham.

May he give you and your descendants the blessing given to Abraham, so that you may take possession of the land where you now reside as a foreigner, the land God gave to Abraham." (Genesis 28:4)

There you have it, a major inconsistency in the chronology of the story. Again without repeating myself, I want to summarise this.

Abraham was 100 years old when he had Isaac.

Abraham was 175 years old when he passed away
.

Isaac was married at the age of 40  years old after Abraham passed away.

Isaac was 60 years old and had two sons, Esau and Jacob, again that’s after Abraham passing away.

If Isaac was 60 years old when he had his two sons, then this would of make Abraham 160 years old. But it’s clear from the previous and preceding texts Abraham had already passed away, which means the dates are wrong.

Even if one argues Abraham was alive why then does the Bible never mention of Abraham coming to visit his grandsons to bless them?.

This is probably one of the major discrepancies found in the so-called God breathed Torah, which korede thinks is untampered.  Just for the record the author of Hebrews seem to suggest that Jacob did see Abraham

By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise (Hebrews 11:9 KJV)

However this is a very bad rendering of the actual translation the NIV reads

By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. (Hebrews 11:9 NIV)

I believe that the point of the verse is not to point out that Abraham lived together with Isaac and Jacob (but rather to remind the reader that all three generations lived as nomads in the land of promise during the course of their lives.

The word translated here as "tabernacle" is σκηνή - skēnē - which really means a "tent" or "temporary dwelling". It is the word, for example, in the Septuagint version of Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents (Genesis 4:20).

Let’s ask our Christian friends to help solve this problem, after all they brag they get help from the holy ghost to understand the Hebrew Bible.

So, the issue stems from the before time of Isaac's wedding. There is no mention of Abraham after Gen 25:7. Abraham did not bless his son Isaac or Rebecca, nor did he bless his grandsons; Jacob and Esau why? So, for 35 years Abraham disappeared? Follow up the timeline.

 This is known as the Documentary Hypothesis; the four different sources (D,P,E,Y). It's possible the redactor thought Abraham passed away, so he carried on with his version. Joel S. Baden scholar of the OT wrote about these theories.    

Major Contradiction

First and foremost a person should be intellectually honest with themselves when looking at the Torah and the Tanach. I say this for several reasons. 

The first reason is because the Torah, the one we have today, was not written by Moses. This is because the original Paleo-Hebrew Law "of" Moses was lost or destroyed between 586 BCE and 285 BCE. 586 BCE is when the Temple was burned to the ground by the Babylonians and the remaining people of the Kingdom of Judah were hauled off into exile, into Babylon. In 285 BCE a copy of our current Torah was translated into Greek in the Hellenistic town of Alexandria. Thus, somewhere between these two dates the real law was destroyed. What we have today is a patchwork of stories and narratives that were thought to be authentic to world history and to Jewish history. Furthermore, regarding the individual laws and statutes found in the Torah, many of them that are attributed to Moses were in fact, given by other prophets. Some Laws* in the current Torah indicate that certain manners of conduct are sinful, yet, according to the other writings outside of the Torah such things were not considered "sins" at all. This shows there is a confusion with the authors of the Torah regarding what was considered a sin.   

Without touching too much on that, however, the people that lived between this time frame of 586 BCE and 285 BCE are the ones that authored our current Torah. 

When reading the "Torah," it is clear that the "five books of Moses" were written by various authors, because of this, it is understandably discerned "why" there are different traditions and contradictions found in the Torah. Furthermore, while in captivity, the Judeans adopted many myths of the ancient Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians and Persians. Those myths were believed upon and then canonized into our current Torah. 

It is my opinion, that because so much time lapsed from the patriarchs to then (the time after 586 BCE), things were simply forgotten or mingled up in the minds of these authors. The authors were merely trying to preserve their culture by putting things down in writings. Yet, the authors did not know, or were unaware that several things that they are writing down were not authentic to Jewish or Israelite history. 

Moreover, if the "Torah" was truly written by a single author (Moses) in a certain time frame (1505 - 1465 BCE), the Torah would not contradict itself in its laws, nor be so vague in its narratives. Furthermore, the Torah would never have phrases like, "The LORD said unto Moses..." It would have phrases like this... "The word of the LORD came unto me in the Wilderness of Sin...." or something like that. Similarly, when reading the Law, it also does not discuss certain laws at all, whereas the other prophets do (e.g. not to conduct business during the New Moons and holy days, blowing the shofar on the New Moon and Full Moon, priests, prophets and lawyers are not allowed to take money, a righteous king can not help a wicked kingdom, and so forth.) Then on top of this, the Law is totally lacking in a lot of areas, such as modest clothing, arson, gutting the Passover so that you don't cook it with its manure in it, New Moon Laws, uncleanness laws are lacking specifics, and other things. 

Therefore, one must be honest when looking at the Torah and the Tanach for there are many contradictions. This is not necessarily the case with the writings of the prophets, for the prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos and so forth were all inspired. But one can usually find several contradictions in any writing that did not come directly from a prophet because these writings come from an uninspired simple man/historian writing things down. 

Having established that the Torah was obviously not written by Moses, but literally came almost 1000 years after Moses, I am going to share another contradiction that I have found with you.

The contradiction is found between Genesis 21:22-32 and Genesis 26:23-33.

There are several contradictions and problems...

1. Who dug the well?

2. Abimelech and his General Phichol are still alive and together (in both stories), even though it is 40 plus years later. 

3. Why was BeerSheba named Beersheba?

4. Both stories tell of an oath.

Here are the passages...

Genesis 21:22-32

22 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his host spoke unto Abraham, saying: 'God is with thee in all that thou doest. 23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son; but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned.' 24 And Abraham said: 'I will swear.' 25 And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of the well of water, which Abimelech's servants had violently taken away. 26 And Abimelech said: 'I know not who hath done this thing; neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but to-day.' 27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and they two made a covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven ewe-lambs of the flock by themselves. 29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham: 'What mean these seven ewe-lambs which thou hast set by themselves?' 30 And he said: 'Verily, these seven ewe-lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that it may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.' 31 Wherefore that place was called Beer-sheba (Well of the Oath); because there they swore both of them. 32 So they made a covenant at Beer-sheba; and Abimelech rose up, and Phicol the captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines. 

Now here is Genesis 26::23-33

23 And he went up from thence to Beer-sheba**. 24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said: 'I am the God of Abraham thy father. Fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for My servant Abraham's sake.' 25 And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there; and there Isaac's servants digged a well. 26 Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath his friend, and Phicol the captain of his host. 27 And Isaac said unto them: 'Wherefore are ye come unto me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you?' 28 And they said: 'We saw plainly that the LORD was with thee; and we said: Let there now be an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee; 29 that thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace; thou art now the blessed of the LORD.' 30 And he made them a feast, and they did eat and drink. 31 And they rose up betimes in the morning, and swore one to another; and Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace. 32 And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him: 'We have found water.' 33 And he called it Shaba'. Therefore the name of the city is Beer-sheba (Well of the Oath) unto this day. {S} 

** = This is not meant to mean that it was already named Beer-sheba. Rather, the author of this narrative lived over a thousand years after this event, and is merely pin-pointing the local of "where" this event took place.

So, by this we can see that the these stories or narratives came from different authors and we cannot know for certain "who" dug the well. 

When Abimelech and Phicol came to Abraham, Isaac had just been born, thus, Abraham was 100 years old. 

When we get to Genesis 26 Isaac is beyond forty years old. Furthermore, the way the narrative reads, it would "appear" that Abraham was dead already, because in Genesis 25:9 Ishmael and Isaac bury their father. To go along with this, Genesis 25:26 tells us that Isaac's wife Rebekah gives birth to Esau and Jacob, yet, Isaac is only 60 years old at the time. 

In addition, there is another contradiction... 

According to one passage Abraham was 100 years old when Sarah has Isaac, then in another passage it says Abraham lived to 175 years old. Yet, according to Genesis 25, Abraham was dead before Esau and Jacob were born, when Isaac was only 60 years old. 

Because of this age and death discrepancy, this explains why Abraham doesn't bless Isaac, nor Jacob and Esau.

In conclusion, it is clear that there were many authors of our current "Torah" and that the historical stories were so scrambled up, to say the least, thus giving us many contradictions in the Biblical text. 

DRINKING POISON?

Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.

his original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus. You might check whatever Bible you use and see if the following verses are included–the chances are good they they will be, since the Church, by and large, found Mark’s original ending so lacking. Here is that forged ending of Mark:

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

Even though this ending is patently false, people loved it, and to this day conservative Christians regularly denounce “liberal” scholars who point out this forgery, claiming that they are trying to destroy “God’s word.”

The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.” The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.

Note

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, (Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 123. Metzger also states: “The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (? and B), 20 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, 21 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913).”

Christians often claim that drinking poison and its effects will not harm this is a sign of true faith. They say Prophet Muhammed Pbuh was poisoned and its effect was harmful towards him. As you can see Christians making such a claim towards Prophet Muhammed Pbuh, only puts them in a bigger problem. It is a well-known fact, that the ending of Mark is concocted say’s a lot about the authenticity and preservation of the Gospels. Let’s dwell a bit deeper in this subject of poison, since Christians love bringing it up a lot.

Now we’ve established that Mark’s ending starting from verse 9 – 20 was later added. Let’s see if their false claim lives up to its words. Lets pretend for arguments sake Mark 16:18 was not a later concocted addition and it really was written by Mark. What does the text say? It say’s a true believer will DRINK POISON, NOT EAT RATHER DRINK. Note eating is different to drinking, the verse is specific on what method of test is to be used. There are other verses found in the Bible which specifically says poisonous food (Psalm 69:21, Deuteronomy 29:18, Hosea 10:4 the distinction is made.

Now interestingly the same cannot be applied to Prophet Muhammed Pbuh, as his food was poisoned not drink. Note Mark explicitly says Drink poison not eat. What’s more interesting about this poison found in Mark is, the Greek word used for poison is πίωσιν (piōsin) which means drink.  θανάσιμόν (thanasimon) means deadly, so the actual text rendered in english would say “and if deadly θανάσιμόν (thanasimon) anything they drink πίωσιν (piōsin)”.The word poison is not found only deadly and drink, of course the translators would say poison as that’s the only substance that can kill a person, but if we are to be specific then poison is not used, then why use it? In modern Greek δηλητήριο dilitírio means poison. The bible also uses the word poison such as snakes venom ἰὸς (ios) Roman 3:13, James 3:8. We can see from the Greek texts Mark does not use the same word as Paul does

We can be clear that Marks poison was not intended to mean actual drinking poison, rather drinking anything deadly this could even be excess of salt mixed in water or mixer of alcohol  or even sewage water not necessarily poison we can think of many types of poison, which doesn’t have to be actual poison in a bottle which can be purchased from many illegal drug stores. 

Another claim busted!

The famous incident from the life of Khalid ibn Waleed is an extraordinary feat in Tawakkul:

Khalid ibn Walid (RA) once besieged an enemy fort in Syria. When the total blockade had taken its toll upon the people inside they sent their chief to Khalid ibn Walid (RA) to negotiate for peace. When this man came into the presence of Khalid ibn Walid (RA) it was noticed that he was carrying a small bottle. Khalid ibn Walid (RA) enquired from the emissary what it contained. He replied that it was concentrated poison and that if the negotiations failed he would drink it and die rather than return to his people with news of failure. Uppermost in the minds of the companions was the objective to preach Islam, so Khalid ibn Walid (RA) found an ideal opportunity to further this aim.

He asked the emissary: “ are you sure that you will die instantly by swallowing the poison?” The emissary said: “ I have no doubt what so ever. This poison is so strong that no one has so far been able to describe its taste for the moment anyone sips it he dies. He does not live long enough to even describe how it tastes. There is no question I will die instantly once it enters my mouth.”

Khalid ibn Walid (RA) asked for the bottle and taking it in his hands said: “Nothing in this world can hold any effect unless Allah gives it efficacy.” He took the name of Allah and made this supplication: “In the name of Allah and with the mention of which there is not a think in the heaven or on earth that can do harm. And he is the All-Hearing and All-Knowing.”

Saying this he turned to the emissary and said: “I shall swallow this poison and you see if I die or not.” The emissary, astonished, exclaimed: “You are torturing yourself. The poison is so strong and swift even if a small amount manages to enter the mouth you will perish. And here you are threatening to swallow all of it.” Khalid ibn Walid (RA) said: Inshallah, nothing will happen to me.” And with that he swallowed the whole bottle down and Allah did indeed take away the poison’s effect. The emissary seeing the truth of Allah’s power submitted himself to Allah and embraced Islam.”

Mufti Taqi Uthmani Discourses on the Islamic Way of Life. P.34. (THE FIQH OF DA’WAH A Commentary on 40 Hadiths Page 96-97)

Notice from the above narration, how Khalid ibn Walid (RA) swallowed a whole bottle of poison and nothing happened to him by the permission of Allah, Allah Swt saved him. The above narration is solid proof that Muslims have passed the test of faith. Now going back to Mark’s verse on taking deadly drink and surviving, there is no mentioned on whether if one was poisoned without him knowing? It says if deadly anything they drink which tells us that the believer should take the deadly drink willingly to prove he is a true believer. Which unfortunately none of the disciples attempted to do, not even Paul himself.  

We read from the above narration how Khalid ibn Walid (RA) willingly swallowed the poison to show that Allah Swt would save him, and how he has 100% faith in Allah Swt. Why do we not find such test of faiths by any of the disciples, or everyday Christians What are they afraid of? Truly we have no come across a single Christian who has willingly drank poison live in public how come.

what was Abraham's (Pbuh) response?

WHAT WAS ABRAHAM’S (Pbuh) RESPONSE?

Recently I came across a Facebook post written by a Christian Nigerian Apologist by the name of Korede. I normally don’t pay attention to his post as it makes no sense at all, and all he does is seek attention to build an audience so he can get many likes. What grasped my attention was, when korede posted 3 verses from the Quran thinking he found inconsistency demanding an answer. Let’s read what out Christian friend posted, before we refute it. Just for the record he also made a meme, which I shall add to my blog along side this article In Shaa Allah.

This is what Korede posted :

What EXACTLY was Abraham's RESPONSE?

Just about two weeks ago, I showed an example of how Allah when intends to narrate an incident, ending up presenting a CONFLICTING stories altogether, I gave an example with Lot and his people according to the Qur'an.

Here is another example, we ask, what exactly did Abraham say in response to this Angels? and is this a single event or three different scenary?

---------------------
ONE
And certainly did Our messengers come to Abraham with good tidings; they said, "Peace." He said, "PEACE," and did not delay in bringing [them] a roasted calf.

Quran 11:69

TWO
When they entered upon him and said, "Peace." [Abraham] said, "INDEED, WE ARE FEARFUL OF YOU."

Quran 15:52

THREE
When they entered upon him and said, "[We greet you with] peace." He answered, "[And upon you] peace, [you are] A PEOPLE UNKNOWN.

Quran 51:25
---------------------------

What exactly was his response?

Now, I can understand the Gospel account narrating event from different point of views of the authors, but SINCE Allah is the ONLY AUTHOR of the Qur'an, why are these conflicting issues away? or could it that I need to understand Arabic in order to COMPREHEND this?

Now I know Christian have a problem with the Oneness of God Almighty. They normally try to make silly posts here and there, twisting scriptures making seem like they found an error or discrepancy, which always backfires on them after they get refuted. However on this occasion, im very baffled why a Christian would even try to make such a post, when this type of language and phrases are found throughout the Quran in many places. I’m glad Korede admitted that the Gospels have narrated DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEWS? Note korede said DIFFERENT POINT VIEWS, i.e. their own opinions, views nothing inspirational.  Let’s stick to the topic and refute such a weak claim made by Korede.

korede used 3 verses from the Quran of the same event. He claims if the story are the same why are there differences in other chapters? Why cant the same story be repeated throughout. AND WHAT WAS ABRAHAM (Pbuh)  ACTUAL RESPONSE?.

And certainly did Our messengers come to Abraham with good tidings; they said, "Peace." He said, "PEACE," and did not delay in bringing [them] a roasted calf. (Quran 11:69_

When they entered upon him and said, "Peace." [Abraham] said, "INDEED, WE ARE FEARFUL OF YOU." (Quran 15:52)

When they entered upon him and said, "[We greet you with] peace." He answered, "[And upon you] peace, [you are] A PEOPLE UNKNOWN. (Quran 51:25)

Lets analyse these verse’s and see if there is any such problem like Korede claims, and address what was the actual response of Abraham Pbuh to the angels. Quran 11:69 tells us the angels came Abraham Pbuh and greeted Peace, and so did Abraham Pbuh greet peace, he did not delay in bringing them a roasted calf. Lets move on to Quran 15:52 The angels entered and greeted him with Peace, ' He said: "Indeed we are frightened of you.' And in Quran 51:52 when the angels entered and greeted him Abraham Pbuh he also greeted them with Peace  and said: "You are a people unknown to me.''.

Now when you read all those verses individually, then it’s natural for a non Muslim who is not familiar with the language of the Quran to question it. But one has to understand each of those verses are summarising the actual event which happened. They are small snippets of information being told to different audience’s during the time of revelation. 

The diversity of the words of the stories in the Quran does not require that all those very words were said exactly the same, and no one says this; rather, narrating stories and sayings in many cases is with the meaning, it is for this reason that the words of the stories in the Quran differ from one place to another.

There is no problem with this at all, because what is important about the accuracy of reporting statements and narrating them is to render the content of the statement and its meaning, and it is not a condition that this be with the same exact words as were said by the speaker. It is for this reason that the style of the Quran varies and that its words vary about the narration of one single story and one single incident.

Indeed, Imaam Ibn Jamaa’ah elaborated on this issue in his book Kashf Al-Ma’aani, as he said:

"Issue: What is the reason for the difference of words and providing more or less meanings about some stories about Aadam (Adam) but not in some other stories, as well as in other stories like the story of Moosa (Moses) with Pharaoh, the story of Nooh (Noah), Hood (Hud) and Saalih with their people and the like? Answer: The difference in the terms (wording) is because what is intended is the meanings, because the words that signify this meaning, firstly, were not from the Arabic language but in the language of the speakers when that meaning took place; and when that meaning was conveyed to this nation, it was conveyed with Arabic words that mean that meaning while the wordings are different but the meaning is the same, so there is no difference between {…he refused to be with those who prostrated…} [Quran 15:31], and {He was not of those who prostrated.} [Quran 7:11] in conveying the same meaning which is the lack of prostration [i.e. he did not prostrate]. Also, there is no difference in meaning between {O Iblees, why do you not prostrate...} [Quran 38:75] and {What prevented you from prostrating...} [Quran 7:12] As regards providing more meaning in some stories while not providing it in some other stories then this is because the meaning mentioned in some stories is different so some of it is mentioned at a particular place and some other is mentioned at another place for several benefits.”

Ar-Raazi  said:

"If it was asked: How did Allaah say when narrating about the magicians who believed and about Pharaoh: {They said, We have believed in the Lord of the worlds.} [Quran 7:121] until the saying of Allaah in the same Chapter {…and let us die as Muslims [in submission to You].} [Quran 7:126]; then Allaah reported this meaning about them in Soorahs Taaha and Ash-Shu’araa with some increase (more details) and decrease (less details) in the words attributed to them; and this incident took place only once, so how is it that its wording varied? We say: The answer is: they spoke about that in their own language and not in the Arabic language, and Allaah told that about them repeatedly in the Arabic language, for a wisdom that required repetition, so at a time Allaah narrated it identical to their wording in translation as a way of keeping the same wording, and then Allaah narrated it with the meaning as a way of being in conformity with the speech of the Arabs in diversity in speech and style so that the listener would not be bored when he listens to the same thing repeated.” [Excerpted from his book: Unmoothaj Jaleel fi As’ilah wa Ajwibah ‘an Gharaa’ib Aay At-Tanzeel]

Now that we’ve cleared, how different chapters have different sayings. Lets clear koredes query on WHAT WAS THE RESPONSE OF ABRAHAM PBUH TO THE ANGELS?. It’s disappointing to see why korede would play hide and seek with his followers on facebook, and other media streams. Why didn’t korede post each and every chapter, which speaks of the story of Abraham Pbuh and the angels? Is it because he knew he would get exposed there and then?. I would like to ask my friend Korede why didn’t you not add Surah Hud verse 69-76?

Indeed Our messengers came to Abraham, bearing glad tidings. They greeted him with 'peace', and Abraham answered back to them 'peace', and hurriedly brought to them a roasted calf.  When he perceived that their hands could not reach it, he mistrusted them, and felt afraid of them. They said: 'Do not be afraid. We have been sent to the people of Lot. And Abraham's wife was standing by and on hearing this she laughed. And We gave her the good news of (the birth of) Isaac, and after Isaac, of Jacob. She said: 'Woe is me! Shall I bear a child now that I am an old woman and my husband is well advanced in years.⁸This is indeed strange!' They said: 'Do you wonder at Allah's decree?  Allah's mercy and His blessings be upon you, O people of the house. Surely, He is Praiseworthy, Glorious.' Thus when fear had left Abraham and the good news had been conveyed to him, he began to dispute with Us concerning the people of Lot.   Surely Abraham was forbearing, tender hearted and oft-turning to Allah. Thereupon (Our angels) said to him: 'O Abraham! Desist from this, for indeed your Lord's command has come; and a chastisement which cannot be averted⁸⁴ is about to befall them.' (Surah 11:69-76)

SubhanAllah the entire story of the angels are told in this one chapter, which our friend korede kept hidden. Notice how the angels greeted Abraham pbuh he greeted back, he hurried and brought them roasted calf. He was afraid because they did not eat the food. In surah 15:52 Abraham Pbuh told the angels is he afraid, in surah 11 the angels tell him not to be afraid. Now coming Surah 51:52, which would have been said after the initial greetings took place by both sides. Here’s a commentary behind it. In view of the context in which this sentence has occurred, it can have two meanings:

(1) That the Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) himself said to the guests: I have never had the chance to see you before, you are perhaps new-comers in this land.

(2) That after responding to their salutation, the Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) said these words to himself, or to his servants, while going inside the house for arranging the feast: They appear to be strangers, people of their noble nature and appearance have not been seen before in this land.

This again falls directly in line with the events, which were being made mention of in other chapters. so the response by Abraham Pbuh cannot be taken by as one statement, rather it was an ongoing conversation which is told to use in different chapters making up the entire story.

Let me elaborate more

If I narrate to you one story in 4 different ways, I may say 1 narration in its entirety and the rest of the three narration in a summarised way. E.g

Narration 1

An old man took his Dog out for a walk, he bumped into his neighbour said hello how are you spoke for a while, then soon after he went to the local shop tied his dog outside, brought milk and newspaper. On his way back sat on the bench whist his dog was playing in the park. Read his paper and went back home.

Narrarion 2

An old man took his dog out for a walk met his neighbour went to the shop, went home.

Narration 3

An old man took his dog out whilst on his way to the shop, met his neighbour shook hands had a chat. They both went to the shop he bought a couple of items and left.

Narration 4

An old man took his dog out for a walk, went to his neighbours house, they both went to the shop together, he bought milk and newspaper, they both went to the park sat had a chat then they set off home

Now can korede tell me if there is any problem with my narrations? It seems like they contradict right. But taking a closer look which korede fails on doing shows no discrepancies. Lets add all narration together and see if they contradict.

Notice how narration 2 hardly gives an explanation of the full event, yet reading all the accounts gives a broader and much clear picture of what happened. Narration 3 says they shook hands which could be done even if narration 1, 2, 4 makes no mention of. An event could take place without it being made mention of.

For the sake of korede let’s dwell deeper in the verse.

Tell them about the guests of Abraham. When they entered his presence and said, "Peace!" He said, "We feel afraid of you!" They said: "Fear not! We give thee glad tidings of a son endowed with wisdom." (Surah 15:51-53)

Has the story reached thee, of the honoured guests of Abraham? Behold, they entered his presence, and said: "Peace!" He said, "Peace!" (and thought, "These seem) unusual people." Then he turned quickly to his household, brought out a fatted calf, And placed it before them.. he said, "Will ye not eat?" (When they did not eat), He conceived a fear of them. They said, "Fear not," and they gave him glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge. (Surah51:24-28)

As if they had never dwelt and flourished there. Ah! Behold! for the Thamud rejected their Lord and Cherisher! Ah! Behold! removed (from sight) were the Thamud! There came Our messengers to Abraham with glad tidings. They said, "Peace!" He answered, "Peace!" and hastened to entertain them with a roasted calf. But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not: We have been sent against the people of Lut." And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob. (Surah 11:68-71)

Surah 15:52 is addressing the later part of what Abraham Pbuh said to the angels, which they replied in response do no be afraid. You can see from the aboves passages, the story was a snippet in Surah 15:52, as the roasted calf is not mentioned. According to commentary we read for Surah 51:25 When they came to him, they said: “Peace”; he said: “Peace also be to you; (you seem to be) a group of strangers.”
In view of the context in which this sentence has occurred, it can have two meanings:

(1) That the Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) himself said to the guests: I have never had the chance to see you before, you are perhaps new-comers in this land.

(2) That after responding to their salutation, the Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) said these words to himself, or to his servants, while going inside the house for arranging the feast: They appear to be strangers, people of their noble nature and appearance have not been seen before in this land. (Islamic studies Tafheem)

Korede did you read Tafsir Al Jalayn? You favorite tafsir scholar what did he say regrading surah 15:52

[how] when they entered unto him, and said, ‘Peace!’, that is, [they said] this very word (salām). He, Abraham, said, after having offered them food which they did not eat: ‘Lo! we are afraid of you’.

AFTER HAVING OFFERED THEM FOOD WHICH THEY DID NOT EAT: LO WE ARE FRAID OF YOU.

Again this was after the food was brought them and the Tafsir from Islamic studies tafheem says “That after responding to their salutation, the Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) said these words to himself, or to his servants, while going inside the house for arranging the feast: They appear to be strangers, people of their noble nature and appearance have not been seen before in this land.” Which explains the we are afraid speakin a plural sense including his family and households.

Why would you not share Tafis Al Jalayn? Why hide is like you did Surah 11?

The story of Abraham Pbuh and the angels, were summarized in different chapters to different audiences. Surah 11 tells us completes the entire story. There is no inconsistency it’s only the ones with perversity in their hearts make up lies, but get refuted. Allah Swt has made mention of those people :

It is He Who has revealed the Book to you. Some of its verses are absolutely clear and lucid, and these are the core of the Book. Others are ambiguous.⁶ Those in whose hearts there is perversity, always go about the part which is ambiguous, seeking mischief and seeking to arrive at its meaning arbitrarily, although none knows their true meaning except Allah. On the contrary, those firmly rooted in knowledge say: 'We believe in it; it is all from our Lord alone.' No one derives true admonition from anything except the men of understanding. (Surah 3:7)

Allah Swt knows Best.