Edip Yuksel vs. Ali Sina
Round IV
Back
< > Next
|
Quote:
|
|
If
we had a different version completely opposite to what we
have, you would have a point. But what we have is all there
is. There is no other version of the history of Islam and
Muhammad.
|
Do
you really hear what you are saying? What about the Quran? The book
that preceded the hadith books by centuries! The Quran refers to all
major wars and conflicts and even generously quotes the allegations
and accusations of opponents. But, you are addicted with the stinky
smell of hadith narrations and you try hard to engage me in a
wrestling match in that location. No, my dear friend. I had been
there and I am grateful to God for saving me from that. You might,
however, continue enjoying your mud-slings with Sunni and Shiite
opponents there. If I have time, I will be watching you with a smile
on my face.
|
The
Quran is allegedly the message of God to Man. It is certainly not a book
of the history of Islam. From the Quran alone you can’t learn about
Muhammad, his companions, his linage, his wives and family, his deeds, his
wars, his rituals and many other stories that make Islam understandable.
Quran makes some passing mentions of the wars but certainly it is
not a book of history about Muhammad’s prophetic career. I have no
intention to “wrestle” with you using the hadith as the proof in order
to defeat you, like it was suggested in that inane remark about the
"straw man". I already said, I rejected Islam just by reading the Quran
and before even having read the hadith. The point that I am trying to make
is that without the hadith your Islam is self made. Can you explain sura
111, sura 9 and sura Sura
38:41-44, or for that mater any sura, without referring to the hadith? You have no way to do that.
Then what you say about the claim of the clarity of the Quran? (5:15)
Or when it says that it is "easy to understand” (44:58
, 54:22
, 54:32,
54:40),
is "explained in detail" (6:114), is
"conveyed clearly", (5:16,
10:15)
and there is “no doubt in it"? (2:1).
If these verses are true,
can you explain the above suras? Let me remind you once again. I am not
trying to make you revert to a hadith-believing Muslim. You have done
already half of the job by rejecting the garbage of hadith. Now is time
that you reject also the garbage of the Quran. I want you to see that the
Quran is linked to hadith. That both of them are garbage and both of them
must be thrown in the dustbin of history. But to prove the Quran is
garbage, we do not need to rely on hadith.
Furthermore, how do you
know that the Quran preceded the hadiths by centuries? All you have is an
undated book. You do not know how and when that book was written, unless
you rely on the very hadith that you disparage.
Can you tell me what
century Muhammad was born? Without hadith and sira how can you tell? You
may say that this data is available from the history written by Persians
and Romans. Why would you take the Persians and Romans sources as more
legitimate than the sources written by Muslims?
Without the haidth,
Islam can easily be dismissed as a myth. If the "corrupt
leaders" were capable to fabricate so many hadiths with so much
detail about a man and his people, (a miracle in itself) why couldn't they
fabricate the Quran?
|
Quote:
|
|
How
do you know that the Quran has not been tampered, especially
when the same Muslims who were so dishonest as to fabricate
thousands of hadiths on Muhammad and were left unchecked
were the very ones who transmitted the Quran? In fact, even
your mentor Rashed Khalifa admitted that the Quran has been
tampered. http://www.submission.org/tampering.html
If the Quran has been tampered it throws out the claim that
God has promised to preserve it. 15:9 The myth of
inviolability of the Quran has been shattered. What
guarantees we have that it has not been tampered more than
once?
|
Finally, a good
I would like to reserve a separate discussion onJquestion,
a fair criticism protection of the Quran via its numerical
structure.
|
Look
forward to that!
|
|
Quote:
|
|
Is
the entire history of Islam a fabrication? In that case what
proof we have that Muhammad himself was not a fabrication?
If the entire history of Islam is false, then what makes you
believe that Muhammad ever existed? The whole thing could
have been made up. Your first duty is to prove the very
existence of Muhammad
|
Again,
you are confusing me with your Sunni friends! If I were in an island
and found the Quran there among other books, and if I were able to
understand its message and blessed to witness its scientific
accuracy, prophecies and mathematical structure, I would not need
anything else to believe in its accuracy. Do you hear me? Do you
understand me? Besides, I am not a Muhammadan. Islam, as the system
of peace and submission to God alone, existed long before Muhammad
and will continue exists as a path for the truth-seekers long after
him.
|
We
will get to the “scientific accuracy", "prophecies" and
"mathematical
structure” of the Quran shortly. I think we should end your agony and get to it
now. But it was important that our readers, see where you are standing and
how “solid” is your position. I believe that is already established.
So let us move on to the next topic. Let us talk about the Quran. Please
answer the question I asked in the previous round page 6 of this debate.
|
|
Quote:
|
|
It
is good that you see these contradictions. However these
stories originate from the Quran. The claim that Muhammad
was illiterate is in the Quran and the claim that he split
the moon asunder is also in the Quran.
|
The
Quran does not claim that Muhammad was illiterate, but only
illiterates of the Quran claim such. Quran claims that Muhammad was
not reading any scripture, in other words, he was a gentile.
Muhammad was a literate gentile, like many of his contemporary
prominent Meccanians.
|
Let
us say your interpretation of illiterate is the correct one and all
the other Muslims are mistaken. Can you please tell me why so many Muslims
misunderstand a book that is supposed to be so clear and easy to
understand? Isn’t it fair to believe that those claims of the clarity of
the Quran are exaggerations?
|
The Quran does not claim that Muhammad split
the Moon, but only the splitters of holy lies claim such. The Quran
refers to the end of the world and gives the splitting of the Moon
as a sign for its coming close. I understand it as reference to the
splitting the Moon surface by Apollo astronauts in 1969 when they
took rocks from the Moon. I have a detailed argument on this in my
Turkish books and inshallah you will find it in my upcoming
Reformist Translation of the Quran.
|
Let us see what the
Quran says and let us use your own mentor Rashad Khalafa’s translation
The
Hour has come closer, and the moon has split.
Then they saw a miracle; but
they turned away and said,
"Old magic."
They disbelieved, followed their
opinions, and adhered to their old
traditions.(54:1-3)
Muhsin Khan translates
this verse thus:
1.
The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has been cleft asunder (the
people of Makkah requested Prophet Muhammad SAW to show them a
miracle, so he showed them the splitting of the moon).
The commentator of the Quran Maududi writes:
"The amazing and wonderful phenomenon of the splitting of the Moon
was a manifest sign of the truth that the Resurrection, of which the Holy
Prophet was giving them the news, could take place and that it had
approached near at hand. The great sphere of the Moon had split into two
distinct parts in front of their very eyes. The
two parts had separated and receded so much apart from each other that to
the on-lookers one part had appeared on one side of the mountain and the
other on the other side of it. Then, in an instant the two had
rejoined.
Obviously you will dismiss
Maududi's comments and will say he was mistaken. The problem is that he
was not the only one:
Bukhari 6.60.387 says
"During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was split into two
parts; one part remained over the mountain, and the other part went beyond
the mountain. On that, Allah's Apostle said, "Witness this
miracle."
The same theme is repeated in other hadiths: Bukhari 6.60.388, 6.60.
389 and 6.60.391
How can you explain that
a book that is supposed to be clear and easy to understand with no doubt
in it could mislead so many great scholars including Rashad Khalifa and
every other translator of the Quran? Today all the Muslims believe that
splitting the moon did really happen. Isn't it fair to say that the Quran
is not as clear as it claims?
You
say this splitting the Moon actually is a prophecy to the splitting of the
moon surface by Apollo. You seem to be willing to accept anything just to convince yourself that the
Quran contains miracles. But the event in the Quran is described in the
past tense which was given to people as a miracle and they still turned
away and said "old majic". Also the word used is Shaqqa
شَق which means split
and not landing, or anything else.
Why
would Muhammad claim such an absurdity? Obviously to pretend having
fulfilled a biblical prophecy stated in Isaiah 24:23!
"Then
the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts
shall reign in mount Zion ."
|
Quote:
|
|
That
won’t be a bad idea. I don't know whether we can prosecute
a dead man. But this surely would make a sensational trial.
If it can be done and if a lawyer is willing to joins me, it
would be a great idea to take Muhammad to court. Or at least
try to ban Islam under the anti hate law.
|
Only
an Inquisition or Taliban court would accept your evidence as
credible. But, in case you find such a court in
Texas
or
Saudi Arabia
, please let the judge appoint me as Muhammad's attorney! I would be
glad to represent him against Bukhari, Tirmizi, Ibni Majeh, Ibni
Hanbal, Taberi, Waqidi and Ali Sina, combined.
|
Well
you are acting as Muhammad’ attorney here in this court of the public
opinion. So let us see how you fair.
|
|
Quote:
|
|
Don’t
be impatient my friend. One thing at a time! First I'll pull
the stool from beneath your feet. Once that is done I will
move to discredit the Quran and use nothing but the Quran.
In fact I left Islam only after reading the Quran. I only
became familiar with the hadith afterwards.
|
Now
this is really funny. I never stood on that stool or wanted in the
first place. You are the one trying to push it under my feet and
each time I kick it you have being trying harder. Now, you are
taking credit for your failure to insert that stinky stool under my
feet? What logic are you using? In my first letter to you I invited
you to discuss the Quran and you managed to extend the introduction
with silly arguments from silly books.
|
The
stool I am talking about is the claim that the Quran is self sufficient.
That is a fallacy as it has been demonstrated.
I
know you do not base your faith on hadith. The point is that with hadith
you believe in fallacies and without hadith you believe in fallacies. Just
because you rejected the hadith you are not out of the woods. You have jumped
from the frying pan into the fire. Your total freedom will come when you
leave Islam.
So, it should
be the last round that we discuss hadith. We should now move to the
real argument. Are you ready for that, or you want to dwell more on
hadith? You will not receive any response from me if you continue
your bizarre insistence to force me to accept hadith. Then, you may
claim your victory and continue your debates based on hearsay and
ignorance.
I hope you will kick that stinky stool under
your feet. Hope Jthat
it is not the only stool keeping you standing
|
We are already talking about the Quran. I
think I have made my point clear that those who believe in the Quran only
have no leg to stand on. This is to show that even if the Quran were a
true book of God, the position of the Quran only crowd is fallacious. That
is established already. By this exercise I do not want to make you believe
in false hadiths. I want you to be honest.
Let
me put your mind at ease. I make a solemn pledge that I will not use any
hadith to prove Islam is false. I have not done it with you and will not
do it. That would be foolish. It is like holding a gun to the head of your
enemy and threaten to shoot if you do not surrender. Please give me a
little more credit. If I use the hadith it would be in conjunction with a
verse of the Quran and to explain the context of that verse. You are not
required to accept that context/tafseer. You would be required to give
your own interpretation of that verse without using the hadith. Then we
leave it to the public to decide which interpretation is more plausible.
All I am trying to do is to discredit your position and demonstrate that
the Quran without hadith is incomprehensible. Obviously that individual
who criticized me of using the straw man did not understand the difference.
I do not know whether you understand or not. But there is a huge
difference.
Nonetheless,
the fallacy of the Quran will be demonstrated by the contradictions within
the Quran and by the use of logic. No hadith will ever be used to as the
authority to disprove
the Quran. I will use the hadith for clarification, just as I did with the
word ummi. You are entitled to reject that and present your own version. I hope now you can breath easier.
Back
< > Next
Index to this debate
|
