GYM DEBATE: Mohammed is not a man of God. (De Maria vs. Ahmed_Deedat82)

[Little Shepherd]

Gym Debate Notice:

This debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

Mohammed is not a man of God.

De Maria will be defending the positive and Ahmed_Deedat82 will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as De Maria and Ahmed_Deedat82 make their first posts. The participants have agreed to allow 10 days for responses to posts once they get to the "responses" portion of their debate instead of the usual 5-day allowance. The debate will last five rounds, as follows:

Round 1: Opening statements, to be posted simultaneously.
Rounds 2-4: Responses. These responses will be posted in order, with De Maria going first.
Round 5: Closing statements, to be posted simultaneously.

From this point on, the only posts allowed in this thread are to be made by the participants and Moderators. All others will be deleted.

Spectator commentary is welcomed here.

If you are up and unable to meet your deadline please contact a moderator ASAP.
Please do not edit your post after this notice is posted.
If you are not a participant please feel free to participate in the commentary thread noted in the first post of this debate.

[De Maria]

Hello and thanks for permitting this debate.

With all due respect to my counterpart who believes in Mohammed, my part in this debate is to prove that Mohammed is not a man of God.

What is a man of God? In the Bible, a man of God is:

1. one who is given a task or a message by God.
2. one who serves God and does His Will. In other words, a righteous man.

I contend that Mohammed fits neither description because:

Against the concept that Mohammed is a man of God, a Prophet:
1. Mohammed claimed to have a message from God, but never proved that claim.
2. Mohammed's teachings which he claim are from God;

a. are at times self contradicting.
b. are at times erroneous.
c. at times contradict the Old and New Testaments.

This is important because if Mohammed's teachings are from God, they would be inerrant.

3. The religion which resulted of Mohammed's teachings, Islam, no longer exists as an organization which Mohammed established.

4. The religions which took its place, teaches unGodly practices like that of lying (i.e. Taqiyya) and suppresses freedom of religion, accepts slavery and in many countries visibly perpetuates the idea of the inferiority of women, amongst other teachings which are against God's will.

Against the concept that Mohammed is a man of God, a righteous man I will prove:

1. That Mohammed's teachings are at times self serving.
2. That history proves Mohammed was treacherous and therefore not a man of God.
3. That history proves Mohammed was a liar who taught his people to lie.

I will support my contentions with the Bible, the Quran, the Sunna and historical and present day world events.

May God bless you.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear all,

Mohammed peace be upon was definitely a man of God because he was a true prophet of God according to the test of the Bible of the true prophet.

The true prophet of God speaks what God commands in the name of God because if the person, who claims to be a prophet, speaks not what God commands him and speaks not in the name of God, this person, who claims to be a prophet of God, will be killed according to Deuteronomy 18:20.

Deuteronomy 18:20 says " But if a prophet says something I did not tell him to say as though he were speaking for me, or if a prophet speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must be killed." New Century Version

Therefore, killing is the penalty for a false prophet who speaks not what God commands him or speaks not in the name of God according to Deuteronomy 18:20.

Knowing that Mohammed peace be upon him, who stated he was a prophet of God, died naturally, Mohammed peace be upon him was a true prophet of God according to Deuteronomy 18:20. The Jewish Encyclopedia says "Mohammed's death occurred in the eleventh year of the Hegira, after he had been ill with a fever for over a week. He was buried where he died, in the apartment of 'A'ishah; and the spot is now a place of pilgrimage."(1)

Had Mohammed peace be upon him a false prophet, God would not have let him live for 23 years preaching the Qur'an beause according to Deutronomy 18:20 false prophet must be killed.

Cite:
1) http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...d=699&letter=M

[De Maria]

Hello Deedat, good to hear from you. Sorry I'm late also, I thought the debate had been closed. Anyway, without further delay...

My words in italics. Deedat's in red.

Deedat:Mohammed peace be upon was definitely a man of God because he was a true prophet of God according to the test of the Bible of the true prophet.

The true prophet of God speaks what God commands in the name of God because if the person, who claims to be a prophet, speaks not what God commands him and speaks not in the name of God, this person, who claims to be a prophet of God, will be killed according to Deuteronomy 18:20.

Deuteronomy 18:20 says " But if a prophet says something I did not tell him to say as though he were speaking for me, or if a prophet speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must be killed." New Century Version

Therefore, killing is the penalty for a false prophet who speaks not what God commands him or speaks not in the name of God according to Deuteronomy 18:20.

Knowing that Mohammed peace be upon him, who stated he was a prophet of God, died naturally, Mohammed peace be upon him was a true prophet of God according to Deuteronomy 18:20. The Jewish Encyclopedia says "Mohammed's death occurred in the eleventh year of the Hegira, after he had been ill with a fever for over a week. He was buried where he died, in the apartment of 'A'ishah; and the spot is now a place of pilgrimage."(1)

DM: Funny that you would quote a Jewish book about Mohammed's death when authentic Muslim history asserts he died of the effects of poison:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786)

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

'Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so 'AbdurRahman bin 'Auf said to 'Umar, "We have sons similar to him." 'Umar replied, "(I respect him) because of his status that you know." 'Umar then asked Ibn 'Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse:-- "When comes the help of Allah and the conquest of Mecca..." (110.1)

Ibn 'Abbas replied, "That indicated the death of Allah's Apostle which Allah informed him of." 'Umar said, "I do not understand of it except what you understand." Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, "O 'Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713)

Anas reported that a Jewess came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) with poisoned mutton and he took of that what had been brought to him (Allah's Messenger). (When the effect of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it. He (the narrator) said that they (the Companion's of the Holy Prophet) said: Should we not kill her? Thereupon he said: No. He (Anas) said: I felt (the affects of this poison) on the uvula of Allah's Messenger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 026, Number 5430)
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Respon..._mo_poison.htm


Deedat: Had Mohammed peace be upon him a false prophet, God would not have let him live for 23 years preaching the Qur'an beause according to Deutronomy 18:20 false prophet must be killed.

DM: God didn't put a deadline in this verse. He simply said the false prophet had to be killed. And so Mohammed was killed by a poison. So, your single test is easily refuted.

There is more Deedat,

21 And if in silent thought thou answer: How shall I know the word that the Lord hath not spoken? 22 Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him.

Did Mohammed make any prophecies which later were proved false?

Mohammed made few prophecies of the future. And he was incredibly mistaken when speaking of the past, so it was wise of him to restrict himself to the present so often. However, he did make one prediction in particular which did not come true. Concerning the Quran itself, he said:

Sura 15:9 Absolutely, we have revealed the reminder, and, absolutely, we will preserve it.

In other words, it is said the Quran will be preserved as revealed to Mohammed. Yet, that is not what happened. The Quran was in such a shambles when Mohammed died, that Muslims took it upon themselves to burn it and to issue another one. The new Quran is known as the Uthmanic Rescension:

Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

So, what is a man of God?

1. one who is given a task or a message by God.

Was Mohammed given a task or a message by God? No. Although he claims to have received such, no one else saw any evidence of such. If we compare to the Bible, in every case, the Prophet in the Bible either proved by miracles or by prophecy that he spoke the Word of God. In the case of the Apostles, we have four written testimonials of their witnessing Jesus Christ's miracles and teachings.

Mohammed has nothing but his own testimony. No proof, no evidence.

2. one who serves God and does His Will. In other words, a righteous man. Was Mohammed a righteous man?

Well, no. A righteous man is one who can be trusted by friend or foe. But Mohammed could not be trusted. He taught the art of lying:

However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. The book "The spirit of Islam," by the Muslim scholar, Afif A. Tabbarah was written to promote Islam. On page 247, Tabbarah stated: "Lying is not always bad, to be sure; there are times when telling a lie is more profitable and better for the general welfare, and for the settlement of conciliation among people, than telling the truth. To this effect, the Prophet says: 'He is not a false person who (through lies) settles conciliation among people, supports good or says what is good."
http://www.islamreview.com/articles/lying.shtml

Is Mohammed a man of God, a Prophet?

We've already alluded to the fact that Mohammed never proved that he spoke to God and that Mohammed's version of the Quran was destroyed by Uthman. But we have not touched on the fact that God's Word is inerrant. Therefore anyone passing on God's Word must be able to pass it on the same way, otherwise he is not a Prophet.

Does the Quran, which is purported to be Mohammed's revelation, contain error? Yes.

The Quran says the earth is flat.

Do they not look at the camels how they are made.
And the sky how it is raised high.
And the mountains how they are fixed firm.
And the earth how it is spread out?
(Wa ilal'ardi kayfa sutihat.)
-- Sura 88:17-20

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran...arth_flat.html

Is the earth flat? No. It is not.

And finally, does the Islam which Mohammed organized truly exist today? If Mohammed had revealed the religion of God, it would still exist today. Obviously it does not.. All different Muslim countries and Muslims in different countries believe as they want. Some follow the Quran alone, some the Quran and the Sunna, some the Quran, the Sunna and the schools. Some have added other prophets to the Quran which came after Mohammed.

So, no, the Islam of Mohammed is irretrievably gone. No one knows which is the best facsimile, Shiite, Sunni, or any other version.
May God bless you.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

1) SCIENCE PROVES MOHAMMED WAS A PROPHET

To prove that Mohammed was a messenger of God, we need third party experts, who are not Muslims to verify the Qur'an that was revealed to Mohammed from God.

For example, Mohammed (peace be upon him) dictated to the scribes to write down the following verses on embryology "God created man from an extract of clay. Then God made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then God made the drop into a leech, suspended thing, and blood clot, then God made the leech, suspended thing, and blood clot into a chewed substance." (Quran, 23:12-14)

So in order to verify independently of the claim of Mohammed (peace be upon him) that what he spoke on embryology in the above-mentioned verses are from God, independent non-Muslim professional scholar of embryology from Canada and America verified then concluded as follows;

1) Dr. E. Marshall Johnson [2] Professor of Anatomy, concluded after studying verses from Quran: "The Quran describes not only the development of external form but emphasizes also the internal stages - the stages inside the embryo of its creation and development, emphasizing major events recognized by contemporary science... so I see nothing in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved…."

When Professor Marshall Johnson was asked to comment of these Verses - He is the head of the department of ‘Anatomy’ in the Daniel Institute, in Sir Thomas Jefferson's hospital in Philadelphia, USA, he said – ‘These stages has to be a Divine Revelation’.

Also he said: “As a scientist, I can only deal with things which I can specifically see. I can understand embryology and developmental biology. I can understand the words that are translated to me from the Quran. As I gave the example before, if I were to transpose myself into that era, knowing what I knew today and describing things, I could not describe the things which were described. I see no evidence for the fact to refute the concept that this individual, Muhammad, had to be developing this information from some place. So I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that divine intervention was involved in what he was able to write.”

Dr. E. Marshall Johnson, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, and the Director of the Daniel Baugh Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, USA.

2) After 4 year study of the Qur'an, Dr. Keith Moore concluded “Because the staging of human embryos is complex, owing to the continuous process of change during development, it is proposed that a new system of classification could be developed using the terms mentioned in the Quran and Sunni (what Muhammad peace be upon him said, did, or approved of). The proposed system is simple, comprehensive, and conforms with present embryological knowledge. The intensive studies of the Quran and hadeeth (reliably transmitted reports by the Prophet Muhammad’s peace be upon him companions of what he said, did, or approved of) in the last four years have revealed a system for classifying human embryos that is amazing since it was recorded in the seventh century A.D. Although Aristotle, the founder of the science of embryology, realized that chick embryos developed in stages from his studies of hen’s eggs in the fourth century B.C., he did not give any details about these stages. As far as it is known from the history of embryology, little was known about the staging and classification of human embryos until the twentieth century. For this reason, the descriptions of the human embryo in the Quran cannot be based on scientific knowledge in the seventh century. The only reasonable conclusion is: these descriptions were revealed to Muhammad from God. He could not have known such details because he was an illiterate man with absolutely no scientific training.”

Consequently, Professor Moore was asked the following question: “Does this mean that you believe that the Quran is the word of God?” He replied: “I find no difficulty in accepting this.”

Professor Emeritus Keith L. Moore is one of the world’s most prominent scientists in the fields of anatomy and embryology and is the author of the book entitled The Developing Human, which has been translated into eight languages. This book is a scientific reference work and was chosen by a special committee in the United States as the best book authored by one person. Dr. Keith Moore is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy and Cell Biology at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

The prophethood of Mohammed was testified by professional medical doctors, who were not Muslims; therefore, Mohammed peace be upon him was truly a messenger of God.

Otherwise, how could Muhammad peace be upon him have possibly known all this 1400 years ago, when scientists have only recently discovered this using advanced equipment and powerful microscopes which did not exist at that time?

2) REFUTATIONS:

Yes Mohammed peace be upon him was poisoned, but not to death.

De Maria claiming "Muslim history asserts he died of the effects of poison" is false for the following reasons;

1) The Prophet lived for four years after the poison.
Once the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe wasallam) was given food mixed with poison to eat. He who ate it first expired, but the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe wasallam) lived for four years even after taking that food. That food told the Holy Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe wasallam): There is poison in me. (Character and Conduct of Holy Prophet by Imman Ghazali)

2) The Prophet showed tremendous energy before his death, the poison had no effect on him. When the Prophet conquered Mecca, he was fasting!
AbuBakr ibn AbdurRahman reported on the authority of a Companion of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him): I saw the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) commanding the people while he was travelling on the occasion of the conquest of Mecca not to observe fast. He said: Be strong for your enemy. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) fasted himself. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 13, Number 2358)

3) Where did the Prophet acquire the strength to fast? He was truly a Prophet of God because he continued to fast during Ramadan!
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) used to count the days in Sha'ban in a manner he did not count any other month; then he fasted when he sighted the new moon of Ramadan; but if the weather was cloudy he counted thirty days and then fasted. (Narrated Aisha Ummul Mu'minin:, Sunan Abu-Dawud, Book 13, Number 2318)

4) The Prophet even had the strength to destroy the idols.
Most Meccans converted to Islam, and Muhammad destroyed the idols in the Kaaba. Henceforth the pilgrimage would be a Muslim pilgrimage and the shrine a Muslim shrine.

5) According to Aisha, the Prophet used to heal himself using the Quran:
Whenever Allah's Apostle became ill, he used to recite the Muawidhatan and blow his breath over himself (after their recitation) and rubbed his hands over his body. So when he was afflicted with his fatal illness. I started reciting the Muawidhatan and blowing my breath over him as he used to blow and made the hand of the Prophet pass over his body. (Narrated by Aisha, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 714.) Therefore, Mohammed peace be upon him was effected by the poison, but it did not kill him.

6) Had the poison been killing, definitely the prophet would have punished the Jewess who wanted to poison. However, Mohammed did not punish because as Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786)

The story of the attempt to poison the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him proves that Mohammed was a prophet of God because as narrated by Abu Hurirah that "When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophets as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, "Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me." The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), "I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?'' They said, "Yes.' The Prophet asked, "Who is your father?" They replied, "So-and-so." He said, "You have told a ie; your father is so-and-so." They said, "You are right." He said, "Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?" They replied, "Yes, O AbuAl-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father." On that he asked, "Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?" They said, "We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us." The Prophet said, "You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it.'' Then he asked, "Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?" They said, "Yes, O Ab Li-AI-Qasim." He asked, "Have you poisoned this sheep?" They said, "Yes." He asked, "What made you do so?" They said, "We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 394)

De Maria claiming "it is said the Quran will be preserved as revealed to Mohammed. Yet, that is not what happened" is false because the memorizers of the Qur'an during the life of Mohammed peace be upon him were the ones who wrote the copies of the Qur'an compiled the Qur'an such as Zaid ibn Thabit and Ali Ibn Talib. Even if they were not, had any conflict arose between what was memorized and what was written, such conflict would have been reported and the memorizers and the scribes would have objected to such conflict and would not have participated into the compilation of the Qur'an. Also, they would not have used the compiled copy in their life in order to apply the commands of God in the Qur'an if the compiled was in worship and in following God commands. Therefore, the trial scenarios you have provided are not based on logic.

De Maria quoting " Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an" is true because of the non-speaking Arabic New Muslims that they used to recite the Qur'an with their own accent. But the availability of memorizers and copies of the Qur'an written by the scribes of Mohammed peace be upon him solved the problem as memorizers of the Qur'an were called on and as well as the existing copies on which the Qur'an was written. The copies were verified. The material must have been originally written down in the presence of the Prophet; nothing written down later on the basis of memory alone was to be accepted. The material must be confirmed by two witnesses, that is to say, by two trustworthy persons testifying that they themselves had heard the Prophet recite the passage in question.

Therefore, it is false to claim that the Qur'an was not preserved as can be shown below as follows;

Preservation During the Time of Mohammed

1) From the time the verses of the Qur'an began to be revealed, Mohammed (peace be upon you) had dictated its text to the scribes, who were 40.


2) Whenever verses were revealed, Mohammed (peace be upon you) would call the scribes and dictate its words to them.

3) The written text was then read out to Mohammed (peace be upon you), who, having satisfied himself that the scribe has committed no error of recording, would put the manuscript in safe custody.

4) Mohammed (peace be upon you) used to instruct the scribes about the sequence in which a revealed message was to be placed in a particular Surah (chapter). In this manner, Mohammed (peace be upon you) continued to arrange the text of the Quran in systematic order till the end of the chain of revelations.

5) Again, it was ordained from the beginning of Islam that a recitation of the Holy Quran must be an integral part of worship. Hence the illustrious Companions committed the Qur'an's verses to memory as soon as they were revealed. Many of them learned the whole text and a far larger number had memorized different portions of it.

6) By the time the first of generation of memorizers of the Qur'an died, many memorized the Qur'an.

Preservation After the Death of Mohammed

7) Abu Baker, the second Caliph of Muslims, ordered to form a committee to compile the Qur'an into a single book as a result he noted the number of the memorizers of the Qur'an decreased.

8) The compilers in this committee, in examining written material submitted to them, insisted on very stringent criteria as a safeguard against any errors as follows;
1) The material must have been originally written down in the presence of the Prophet; nothing written down later on the basis of memory alone was to be accepted.

2) The material must be confirmed by two witnesses, that is to say, by two trustworthy persons testifying that they themselves had heard the Prophet recite the passage in question

9) Therefore, the manuscript on which the Qur'an was collected, remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him, and then with Umar (the second successor), till Allah took him unto Him, and finally it remained with Hafsa, 'Umar's daughter and wife of the Prophet.

10) The Qur'an was allowed to be read in seven different dialects. However, these seven dialects were not the language in which the Qur'an was revealed or used in worship.

11) During the period of Caliph Uthman (second successor to the Prophet) differences in reading the Quran among the various tribes became obvious, due to the fact new Muslims stated to abuse seven different dialects.

12) Therefore, Uthman made an official copy in the Quraishi dialect, the dialect in which the Quran was revealed to the Prophet and was memorized by his companions. Thus this compilation by Uthman's Committee is not a different version of the Quran but the same original revelation given to the Prophet by One God, Allah.

13) Again a very stringent criterion was set up by this Committee as follows;
1. The earlier recension (Original copy prepared by Abu Bakr) was to serve as the principal basis of the new one.

2. Any doubt that might be raised as to the phrasing of a particular passage in the written text was to be dispelled by summoning persons known to have learned the passage in question from the Prophet.

3. Uthman himself was to supervise the work of the Council.

14) When the final recension was completed, Uthman sent a copy of it to each of the major cities of Makka, Damascus, Kufa, Basra and Madina.

15) The burning of the Quranic copies happened after compiling and by the approval between all the memorizers and the composers of the burnt copies, and after including what was in the burnt copies in the compiled copy.

What's important that none objected to what Othman did from the memorizers or from the composers of the burnt copies as narrated by three companions of the Mohammed who were memorizers and whose copies were burnt (peace be upon him) as follows;

Zaid ibn Thabit is reported to have said: "I saw the Companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, 'By God, Uthman has done well! By God, Uthman has done well!"

Another esteemed Companion Musab ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas said: "I saw the people assemble in large number at Uthman's burning of the prescribed copies (of the Quran), and they were all pleased with his action; not a one spoke out against him".

Ali ibn Abu Talib, the cousin of the Prophet and the fourth successor to the Prophet commented: "If I were in command in place of Uthman, I would have done the same".
Of the copies made by Uthman, two still exist to our day. One is in the city of Tashkent, (Uzbekistan) and the second one is in Istanbul (Turkey). Below is a brief account of both these copies:

The copy which Uthman sent to Madina was reportedly removed by the Turkish authorities to Istanbul, from where it came to Berlin during World War I. The Treaty of Versailles, which concluded World War I, contains the following clause: 'Article 246: Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to His Majesty, King of Hedjaz, the original Koran of Caliph Othman, which was removed from Madina by the Turkish authorities and is stated to have been presented to the ex-Emperor William II". (Fred L. Israel, Major Peace Treaties of Modern History, New York, Chelsea House Pub., Vol. II, p. 1418 )

Sir Williams Muir states, "There is otherwise every security, internal and external, that we possess the text which Muhammad himself gave forth and used". Sir William Muir continues, "There is probably no other book in the world which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so pure a text". Sir Williams Muir, Life of Mohamet, Vol.I. Introduction


De Mari claiming "The Quran says the earth is flat" is a lie because the Qur'an does not say the earth is flat.

De Maria quoting Qur'an 88:20 "And the earth how it is spread out (sutihat)" to prove that the earth is flat is an assumption because of the lack of understanding the Arabic word in question in 88:20 ( sutihat ) as well as the lack of a verification based on a Arabic linguistical expert because who claims needs to prove not from a Christian website , but from a third party expert on Arabic.

When Qur'an 88:20 says "And the earth how it is spread out (sutihat)", it means the earth is spread in plains, valleys, hills and deserts because the Arabic word (sutihat) in question means to flatten the top part of any object whether flattened or unflattened object.
De Maria go learn Arabic.

[De Maria]

Ahmed_Deedat says embryology proves Mohammed was a man of God.


This was debunked in our last debate. I repeat:

However, this claim of miraculous knowledge is also disproved since the same knowledge existed since the first century A.D.

The Quranic view of development of a human embryo agrees very well with
the Galenic view. Galen wrote his book in the first century A.D. and
600 years is more than adequate for this dominant view to diffuse to the
middle east. ....
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran...mbryology.html
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=103892

[COLOR="Red" ]2) REFUTATIONS:

Ahmed said: Yes Mohammed peace be upon him was poisoned, but not to death.
[/COLOR]

According to Muslim sources, he was poisoned to death. It was a slow agonizing death, but a poisoned death nonetheless.

You admit yourself when you posted Aisha's witness:
5) According to Aisha, the Prophet used to heal himself using the Quran: Whenever Allah's Apostle became ill, he used to recite the Muawidhatan and blow his breath over himself (after their recitation) and rubbed his hands over his body. So when he was afflicted with his fatal illness. I started reciting the Muawidhatan and blowing my breath over him as he used to blow and made the hand of the Prophet pass over his body. (Narrated by Aisha, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 714.) Therefore, Mohammed peace be upon him was effected by the poison, but it did not kill him

Ahmed: De Maria claiming "Muslim history asserts he died of the effects of poison" is false for the following reasons;

1) The Prophet lived for four years after the poison.

2) The Prophet showed tremendous energy before his death, the poison had no effect on him. When the Prophet conquered Mecca, he was fasting!


That just goes to show that Muslim historians contradict themselves. However, the most important Muslim books say that Mohammed died of poison:

Ibn Ishaq's biography, the "Sirat Rasul Allah", (THE LIFE OF THE PROPHET), translated by A. Guillaume as "The Life of Muhammad", is the most authentic Sirat (biographical) literature recognized in Islam.

From Ibn Sa'd pages 251, 252: [different narrator]

The apostle of Allah lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say, "I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khaibar and I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein."

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/mo-death.htm

Ahmed: 3) Where did the Prophet acquire the strength to fast? He was truly a Prophet of God because he continued to fast during Ramadan!

Fasting proves nothing.

Ahmed: 4) The Prophet even had the strength to destroy the idols.

Unless Mohammed had a mandate from God, which is not proven, then destroying someone's statues was siimply vandalism
.
Ahmed: Most Meccans converted to Islam,

On pain of death.


and Muhammad destroyed the idols in the Kaaba. Henceforth the pilgrimage would be a Muslim pilgrimage and the shrine a Muslim shrine.

All that means is that Mohammed won a battle. But it does not prove he is a man of God.

Ahmed: 5) According to Aisha, the Prophet used to heal himself using the Quran: Whenever Allah's Apostle became ill, he used to recite the Muawidhatan and blow his breath over himself (after their recitation) and rubbed his hands over his body. So when he was afflicted with his fatal illness. I started reciting the Muawidhatan and blowing my breath over him as he used to blow and made the hand of the Prophet pass over his body. (Narrated by Aisha, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 714.) Therefore, Mohammed peace be upon him was effected by the poison, but it did not kill him.

Ahmed? Apparently you don't know the meaning of words. You have here admitted that he died of his illness. A "fatal illness" is an illness to death.

6) Had the poison been killing, definitely the prophet would have punished the Jewess who wanted to poison. However, Mohammed did not punish because as Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, "Shall we kill her?" He said, "No." I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah's Apostle. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786)

Again, Muslim historians contradict each other:
NOTE 1: There is disagreement over whether of not Muhammad had the women who poisoned him put to death. In short, he had her put to death for the death of the other Muslim - Bishr, who quickly died from the poisoning. See the reports by Ibn Sa'd, p. 250.

A4 From Ibn Sa'd page 249: [different narrator]

The apostle of Allah and his companions ate from it. It (goat) said: "I am poisoned." He [Muhammad] said to his Companions, "Hold you hands! because it has informed me that it is poisoned!" They withdrew their hands, but Bishr Ibn al-Bara expired. The apostle of Allah sent for her (Jewess) and asked her, "What induced you to do what you have done?" She replied, "I wanted to know if you are a prophet, in that case it will not harm you and if you are a king, I shall relieve the people of you. He gave orders and she was put to death. [SEE NOTE 1]
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/mo-death.htm

Ahmed: The story of the attempt to poison the prophet Mohammed peace be upon him proves that Mohammed was a prophet of God

By no means. Authentic Islamic history admits that this was a SUCCESSFUL attempt to poison Mohammed and that Mohammed died of the effects of the poison. Therefore, by your own standard, Mohammed is not a man of God.

Ahmed: De Maria claiming "it is said the Quran will be preserved as revealed to Mohammed. Yet, that is not what happened" is false because the memorizers of the Qur'an during the life of Mohammed peace be upon him were the ones who wrote the copies of the Qur'an compiled the Qur'an such as Zaid ibn Thabit and Ali Ibn Talib.

Except there was conflict between the memorizers and the written Quran and between the memorizers themselves, therefore no one knows who was right. Bukhari is the most important hadith in Islam next to the Quran itself.

[i]Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 514, p. 482; book 61

Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab:

I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listen to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me.

Ahmed: De Maria quoting " Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an" is true because of the non-speaking Arabic New Muslims that they used to recite the Qur'an with their own accent.

And there you have contradicted your previous statement that the memorizers would be able to correct the written word.

Ahmed: Therefore, it is false to claim that the Qur'an was not preserved as can be shown below as follows;

Preservation During the Time of Mohammed

1) From the time the verses of the Qur'an began to be revealed, Mohammed (peace be upon you) had dictated its text to the scribes, who were 40.


2) Whenever verses were revealed, Mohammed (peace be upon you) would call the scribes and dictate its words to them.

3) The written text was then read out to Mohammed (peace be upon you), who, having satisfied himself that the scribe has committed no error of recording, would put the manuscript in safe custody.

4) Mohammed (peace be upon you) used to instruct the scribes about the sequence in which a revealed message was to be placed in a particular Surah (chapter). In this manner, Mohammed (peace be upon you) continued to arrange the text of the Quran in systematic order till the end of the chain of revelations.

5) Again, it was ordained from the beginning of Islam that a recitation of the Holy Quran must be an integral part of worship. Hence the illustrious Companions committed the Qur'an's verses to memory as soon as they were revealed. Many of them learned the whole text and a far larger number had memorized different portions of it.

6) By the time the first of generation of memorizers of the Qur'an died, many memorized the Qur'an.


As has been shown from Muslim history, not only did the memorizers not agree with each other, but there were several versions of the written Quran. In addition, Mohammed died before compiling the Quran. So, although he may have checked several, there is no proof he checked all:

Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 509, p. 477; book 61

Narrated Zaid-bin-Thabit:

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yama-ma had been killed (i.e. a number of the prophets companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said to me, "Umar has come to me and said: `Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (ie those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the battle of Yama-ma, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra on other battle fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected'." I said to Umar, "How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do?" Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project". Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest (persuaded me) for it and I began to realise the good idea which Umar had realised.



Preservation After the Death of Mohammed

7) Abu Baker, the second Caliph of Muslims, ordered to form a committee to compile the Qur'an into a single book as a result he noted the number of the memorizers of the Qur'an decreased.

Proof the Quran was not compiled by Mohammed.

8) The compilers in this committee, in examining written material submitted to them, insisted on very stringent criteria as a safeguard against any errors as follows;
1) The material must have been originally written down in the presence of the Prophet; nothing written down later on the basis of memory alone was to be accepted.

Proof there were many versions of the Quran.

2) The material must be confirmed by two witnesses, that is to say, by two trustworthy persons testifying that they themselves had heard the Prophet recite the passage in question

This just proves that the Quran had to be standardized. Otherwise there would be many more than two witnesses.


9) Therefore, the manuscript on which the Qur'an was collected, remained with Abu Bakr till Allah took him unto Him, and then with Umar (the second successor), till Allah took him unto Him, and finally it remained with Hafsa, 'Umar's daughter and wife of the Prophet.

But this is not the same one revealed by Mohammed, but Uthman's rescension.

10) The Qur'an was allowed to be read in seven different dialects. However, these seven dialects were not the language in which the Qur'an was revealed or used in worship.

More proof that the Quran was not standardized by Mohammed.

11) During the period of Caliph Uthman (second successor to the Prophet) differences in reading the Quran among the various tribes became obvious, due to the fact new Muslims stated to abuse seven different dialects.


Seems as though you are proving my case.

12) Therefore, Uthman made an official copy in the Quraishi dialect, the dialect in which the Quran was revealed to the Prophet and was memorized by his companions. Thus this compilation by Uthman's Committee is not a different version of the Quran but the same original revelation given to the Prophet by One God, Allah.

And he burned the rest. Thereby making it impossible for future generations to verify if his decision was correct.


13) Again a very stringent criterion was set up by this Committee as follows;
1. The earlier recension (Original copy prepared by Abu Bakr) was to serve as the principal basis of the new one.

Principal basis. In other words, just one of many.

2. Any doubt that might be raised as to the phrasing of a particular passage in the written text was to be dispelled by summoning persons known to have learned the passage in question from the Prophet.

And they would succumb to Uthman's forceful tactics.

Uthman ordered the compilation of a single official text of the Koran, and the violent suppression, the destruction by fire of all other copies existing in the provinces.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Books/Caetani/uthman.htm

3. Uthman himself was to supervise the work of the Council.


By force no doubt.

14) When the final recension was completed, Uthman sent a copy of it to each of the major cities of Makka, Damascus, Kufa, Basra and Madina.

15) The burning of the Quranic copies happened after compiling and by the approval between all the memorizers and the composers of the burnt copies, and after including what was in the burnt copies in the compiled copy.

Here is the truth:

Uthman appointed a committee, which collected what they could of Muhammad’s teachings - a third attempt, one from each of the two previous caliphs. Uthman's ordered the destruction of rival collections that differed in any way from his committee’s work, which brought upon him the wrath of various people and communities across Arabia who had become wedded to rival interpretations. Many argued that Uthman did not have the authority to establish an official version of Muhammad's teachings. And one of Muhammad's oldest companions charged that the version produced by Uthman’s committee was false and incomplete. [note]
http://www.fsmitha.com/h3/h03is.htm

And that only makes sense. If anyone came around today and said he was going to edit and correct the Quran, no one would agree. Uthman revised the Quran by force.

Do you really believe, if you were a companion of Mohammed and he had revealed to you a passage that you would give it up for anyone?

What's important that none objected to what Othman did from the memorizers or from the composers of the burnt copies as narrated by three companions of the Mohammed who were memorizers and whose copies were burnt (peace be upon him) as follows;


History disproves that statement.

Zaid ibn Thabit is reported to have said: "I saw the Companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, 'By God, Uthman has done well! By God, Uthman has done well!"


Sounds like a chant. Perhaps Uthman was forcing them to say this.

Muslim: vol. 4, hadith 6022, p. 1312; book 29

`Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported that he (said to his companions to conceal their copies of the Qur'an) and further said: He who conceals anything he shall have to bring that which he had concealed on the Day of Judgement, and then said: After whose mode of recitation do you command me to recite? I in fact recited before Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) more than seventy chapters of the Qur'an and the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) know it that I have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do), and if I were to know that someone had better understanding than I, I would have gone to him. Shaqiq said: I sat in the company of the Companions on Muhammad (may peace be upon him) but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it.

Obviously that Companion did not want Uthman to take his Quran.

Another esteemed Companion Musab ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas said: "I saw the people assemble in large number at Uthman's burning of the prescribed copies (of the Quran), and they were all pleased with his action; not a one spoke out against him".

Knowing human beings as I do, that doesn't even make sense. People complain.

It seems that Ibn Mas'ud never accepted Uthman's Qur'an and Uthman may have even had Ibn Mas'ud publicly whipped for this.

Ibn Mas'ud refused to deliver his copy to the committee whose president, although one of the readers of the word of God, had earned much less trust and authority than he. This refusal incited such a level of indignation from the Khalif that he publicly whipped the "old saint". One notes that the old companion of the prophet had two ribs broken from the violence of the strikes and that he died after three days. This cruelty, that drew upon Othman the hatred of his contemporaries, is today regarded by the "schutes" as an atrocious crime. (T. J. Newbold, Journal Asiatique, December 1843, p. 385)


Ali ibn Abu Talib, the cousin of the Prophet and the fourth successor to the Prophet commented: "If I were in command in place of Uthman, I would have done the same".
Of the copies made by Uthman, two still exist to our day. One is in the city of Tashkent, (Uzbekistan) and the second one is in Istanbul (Turkey). Below is a brief account of both these copies:

The copy which Uthman sent to Madina was reportedly removed by the Turkish authorities to Istanbul, from where it came to Berlin during World War I. The Treaty of Versailles, which concluded World War I, contains the following clause: 'Article 246: Within six months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, Germany will restore to His Majesty, King of Hedjaz, the original Koran of Caliph Othman, which was removed from Madina by the Turkish authorities and is stated to have been presented to the ex-Emperor William II". (Fred L. Israel, Major Peace Treaties of Modern History, New York, Chelsea House Pub., Vol. II, p. 1418 )

Sir Williams Muir states, "There is otherwise every security, internal and external, that we possess the text which Muhammad himself gave forth and used". Sir William Muir continues, "There is probably no other book in the world which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so pure a text". Sir Williams Muir, Life of Mohamet, Vol.I. Introduction


Obviously this person knew nothing about evidence. We can put it very simply in an everyday example. Lets say that your rich relative died and he left you in possession of a will. A cousin of yours says, "Hey, he left me a will also. Why don't you let me have your copy so I can check them and make sure yours is correct?"

Would you give him your copy? Not if you are smart.

De Mari claiming "The Quran says the earth is flat" is a lie because the Qur'an does not say the earth is flat.

De Maria quoting Qur'an 88:20 "And the earth how it is spread out (sutihat)" to prove that the earth is flat is an assumption because of the lack of understanding the Arabic word in question in 88:20 ( sutihat ) as well as the lack of a verification based on a Arabic linguistical expert because who claims needs to prove not from a Christian website , but from a third party expert on Arabic.

When Qur'an 88:20 says "And the earth how it is spread out (sutihat)", it means the earth is spread in plains, valleys, hills and deserts because the Arabic word (sutihat) in question means to flatten the top part of any object whether flattened or unflattened object.
De Maria go learn Arabic.

In other words, you agree that "sutihat" means that the world is flat and not round. Thanks for confirming my argument.

[Ahmed_Deedat82]

Dear brothers and sisters,

As you have seen, De Maria failed miserably to refute the testimonies of third party scholarly scientists such as Keith Moore and Marshall proving that Mohammed was a messenger of God. PROOFS

What I will do I will continue to give more third party proofs that the Qur'an which was revelaed to Mohamed was from God; therefore, Mohammed is a messenger of God.

• Edited by a Moderator •

2) THE CITY OF IRAM (Quoted from http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/historical_07.html)
At the beginning of 1990, press-releases in the well-known newspapers of the world declared "Fabled Lost Arabian city found," "Arabian city of Legend found" and "The Atlantis of the Sands, Ubar." What rendered this archaeological find particularly intriguing was the fact that this city is mentioned in the Qur'an. Many people had previously suggested 'Ad was a legend or that the location in question could never be found. Such people could not conceal their astonishment at this phenomenal discovery.

It was Nicholas Clapp, a noted documentary filmmaker and a lecturer on archaeology, who found this legendary city mentioned in the Qur'an.225 Being an Arabophile and a winning documentary film maker, Clapp had come across a very interesting book during his research on Arabian history. This book was Arabia Felix, written by the English researcher Bertram Thomas in 1932. Arabia Felix was the Roman designation for the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula which today includes Yemen and much of Oman. The Greeks called this area "Eudaimon Arabia" and medieval Arab scholars called it "Al-Yaman as-Saeed."226 All of these names mean "Happy Yemen," because the people living in that region used to serve as middlemen in the lucrative spice trade between India and places north of the Arabian Peninsula. In addition, the people living in this region produced and distributed "frankincense," an aromatic resin from rare trees.

• Edited by a Moderator •

As you can brothers and sisters that when De Maria tried to refute my arguments, he never dared to refute the scholarly testimonies of biological scholars of the world such Keith Moore from Canada and John Marshall from the US testifying that the Qur'an talked about embryology in advance of the science ahead of the Greek and Modern Science.

Hereunder are again the testimonies of Keith Moore and John Marshall reproduced on Qur'an 23: 12, 13, 14 ""God created man from an extract of clay. Then God made him as a drop in a place of settlement, firmly fixed. Then God made the drop into a leech, suspended thing, and blood clot, then God made the leech, suspended thing, and blood clot into a chewed substance." (Quran, 23:12-14)

• Edited by a Moderator •

The prophethood of Mohammed was testified by professional medical doctors, who were not Muslims; therefore, Mohammed peace be upon him was truly a messenger of God.


Refutations:

1) De Maria claiming that " However, this claim of miraculous knowledge is also disproved since the same knowledge existed since the first century A.D" is false because the neither Greeks nor Galen never wrote about the stages mentioned by the Qur'an such as the leech-like substance.

2) De Maria claiming "The Quranic view of development of a human embryo agrees very well with the Galenic view. Galen wrote his book in the first century A.D. and 600 years is more than adequate for this dominant view to diffuse to the Middle East" is assumption because neither Galen nor Greeks talked about the stages of the embryo that the Qur'an talks such as the leech-like substance.

3) Yet De Maria cites neither the original Greek text of Galen nor the Arabic of the Qur'ân; nor does he provide a sufficiently thorough analysis of the two accounts in order to substantiate his claim. And neither does De Maria cite any eye-witnesses accounts to prove that the Qur'an embryology agrees wit the ancient Greek literature. Where then is the proof that Qur'an plagiarized or took the Galenic stages of development?

4) De Maria claiming "according to Muslim sources, he was poisoned to death. It was a slow agonizing death, but a poisoned death nonetheless" is refuted by other Muslim sources which testify that Mohammed peace be did not die because of poison. Because of that De Maria admits that "Muslim historians contradict themselves."


5) Muslim historians are human beings then it is natural that they do not agree. Therefore, I will quote the Qur'an which given the clear cut answer in Quran 39:30 in which God speaks to the Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him saying " Lo! thou wilt die, and lo! they will die." Note that God promises that Mohammed peace be upon him will DIE not be killed.

6) There are seven different pronouciations of some specific words in the Qur'an as quoted correctly by you in Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 514, p. 482; book 61
Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab:

I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listen to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me.

7) The conflict that arose between Hisham and Omar was due to the fact they both did not know that specific words in the Qur'an can be read in seven different ways. However, this was clarified when they went to the prophet peace be upon him.

8) De Maria claiming "Except there was conflict between the memorizers and the written Quran and between the memorizers themselves, therefore no one knows who was right. Bukhari is the most important hadith in Islam next to the Quran itself" is false because the written Qur'an was based on the memorizers.

9) De Maria claiming "And there you have contradicted your previous statement that the memorizers would be able to correct the written word" is false because the new Muslims were not the memorizers of the Qur'an.

10) De Maria claiming "there were several versions of the written Quran" is wrong because had there been versions of the Qur'an, there would been arising conflict when compiling the Qur'an as what verses should be included or deleted from the Qur'an.

11) De Maria claiming "This just proves that the Quran had to be standardized. Otherwise there would be many more than two witnesses" is false because there were many eyewitnesses as Qur'an was recited in congregations by the prophet peace be upon him. However, two eye witnesses was the minimum.

12) De Maria claiming" But this is not the same one revealed by Mohammed, but Uthman's rescension" is false because companions of the prophet peace be upon him would have objected and would not have used the compiled Qur'an in their worship though some of the memorizers had political interest with Othman.

13) De Maria claiming "And he burned the rest. Thereby making it impossible for future generations to verify if his decision was correct" is false because the most of the memorizers of the burned copies were alive and the burned copies were burned after the compilation of the Qur'an, so people had access to them. Had there been differences between the compiled Qur'an and the burned copies, they would have objected and told the common people after the death of Othman.

14) De Maria claiming "And they would succumb to Uthman's forceful tactics" is false because many of the compilers had political problems, lived in far place and continued to live after the death of Othman. Therefore, any doubt that might be raised as to the phrasing of a particular passage in the written text was to be dispelled by summoning persons known to have learned the passage in question from the Prophet.

15) De Maria claiming that "Othman revised the Quran by force" is false because even after the death of Othman people never raised a doubt in the compiled Qur'an by Othman.

16) De Maria saying "Obviously that Companion did not want Othman to take his Quran" is true, but that companion gave the Qur'an to Othman.

17) De Maria claiming "It seems that Ibn Mas'ud never accepted Uthman's Qur'an" is true because he was not selected to be one of the compilers. However, Ibn Masoud accepted the Qur'an even after the death of Othman.

18) De Maria claiming "Othman may have even had Ibn Mas'ud publicly whipped for this" is assumption unless you quoted an authentic Muslim source.

19) De Maria claiming that "Obviously this person knew nothing about evidence" is a baseless assumption because an eye-witness of the prophet peace be upon himDe Mari claiming "The Quran says the earth is flat" is a lie because the Qur'an does not say the earth is flat.

20) De Maria claiming "you agree that "sutihat" means that the world is flat and not round" is a lie because as I said before " And the earth how it is spread out (sutihat)", it means the earth is spread in plains, valleys, hills and deserts because the Arabic word (sutihat) in question means to flatten the top part of any object whether flattened or unfastened object." Therefore, the verse never says the earth is flat, but the top or the upper part of the earth is flat.

Moderated By: Rayado

Ahmed_Deedat82, plagiarism is expressly forbidden under Theologyweb rules. Even if you provide a source for what you're quoting, it has to be within fair use limits.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[De Maria]

Hi folks,

Ahmed only had one criteria for this discussion and it seems that has been handily disprovoen. Not only did my references from Muslim historians rebut his claim but he also contradicted himself. Lets have a quick review.

In his first post, Ahmed claimed that "
Knowing that Mohammed peace be upon him, who stated he was a prophet of God, died naturally, Mohammed peace be upon him was a true prophet of God according to Deuteronomy 18:20. The Jewish Encyclopedia says "Mohammed's death occurred in the eleventh year of the Hegira, after he had been ill with a fever for over a week. He was buried where he died, in the apartment of 'A'ishah; and the spot is now a place of pilgrimage."(1)


So, according to Ahmed, Mohammed is a man of God if he died of natural causes.

Never mind that authentic MUSLIM history says that Mohammed himself recognized that he was poisoned

The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say: I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khaybar and I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein, which is a vein in the back… (Ibn Sa'ad's Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. (Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India], Volume II, pp. 251-252; bold and italic emphasis ours)
http://www.answering-islam.org/Respo..._mo_poison.htm

(See also Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 47, Number 786 and Sahih Muslim, Book 026, Number 5430). Ahmed inadvertently proved this also when he quoted this from

And Ahmed's own reference calls this a fatal illness:
According to Aisha, the Prophet used to heal himself using the Quran: Whenever Allah's Apostle became ill, he used to recite the Muawidhatan and blow his breath over himself (after their recitation) and rubbed his hands over his body. So when he was afflicted with his fatal illness. I started reciting the Muawidhatan and blowing my breath over him as he used to blow and made the hand of the Prophet pass over his body. (Narrated by Aisha, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 714.)

So, by Ahmed's own criteria, Mohammed was not a man of God since he died of the effects of poison.

OK, enough about Ahmed. So far, Ahmed has done nothing to address my point. Lets review my pont.

A man of God is:

1. one who is given a task or a message by God. In other words, a Prophet.
2. one who serves God and does His Will. In other words, a righteous man.

Mohammed has proved to be neither. He never proved that God spoke to him. Nor did he ever complete the task given him by God, and the message which he allegedly submitted can't be proven to be from him and contains so much error and contradiction that it could certainly not be from God. In addition, Mohammed taught the value of lying and a man of God does not.

The Qur'an and the formation of sperm error

"Now let man but think from what he is created! He is created from a drop emitted-Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs," (Qur'an 86:5-7).

At first reading of this Qur'anic verse, it is obvious that the error is that sperm comes form in a man's chest. After all, the chest is "between the backbone and the ribs"? The abdomen is below the backbone and ribs, and the male testicles are far below that.
This error is important because in Islam, if one thing in the Qur'an is false, then Islam is false. In Islam the Qur'an was supposedly transmitted directly to Muhammad from God through the angel Gabriel. Therefore, it cannot have even a single mistake. But, as you can see, it does.
http://www.carm.org/islam/sperm.htm

So, although only one error is necessary and I have already proven that the Quran says the earth is flat, there are many more errors of which the above is only one more example.

Ahmed: As you have seen, De Maria failed miserably to refute the testimonies of third party scholarly scientists such as Keith Moore and Marshall

Actually Ahmed, I think I did an excellent job of refuting the volumes of pages which you posted. And I did it very briefly and succinctly.

What I will do I will continue to give more third party proofs that the Qur'an which was revelaed to Mohamed was from God; therefore, Mohammed is a messenger of God.

You're welcome to keep trying. But so far, you've provided nothing.

2) THE CITY OF IRAM (Quoted from http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/historical_07.html)
At the beginning of 1990, press-releases in the well-known newspapers of the world declared "Fabled Lost Arabian city found," "Arabian city of Legend found" and "The Atlantis of the Sands, Ubar." What rendered this archaeological find particularly intriguing was the fact that this city is mentioned in the Qur'an.

And that is all it is, intriguing. It is a non-sequitur to jump to the conclusion Mohammed is a man of God because this city was mentioned in the Quran. There are far too many problems with Mohammed's personal character and with the Quran itself.


Ahmed: De Maria tried to refute my arguments, he never dared to refute the scholarly testimonies of biological scholars of the world such Keith Moore from Canada and John Marshall from the US testifying that the Qur'an talked about embryology in advance of the science ahead of the Greek and Modern Science.

Thats already been refuted in a previous debate and in this one. It is simply not true. The Quran comparing an embryo to a "leech or a chewed substance" is simply not credible as scientific proof and a similar description was given centuries before as already noted.

Hereunder are again the testimonies of Keith Moore and John Marshall ...

Contrary to the opinion of some, a lie repeated often does not make it true.

The prophethood of Mohammed was testified by professional medical doctors, who were not Muslims; therefore, Mohammed peace be upon him was truly a messenger of God.

This is a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, expertise, or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

1) De Maria claiming that " However, this claim of miraculous knowledge is also disproved since the same knowledge existed since the first century A.D" is false because the neither Greeks nor Galen never wrote about the stages mentioned by the Qur'an such as the leech-like substance.

Lol!!! Did you say that with a straight face?

Remember Ahmed, the Quran is supposedly God's Word. Would God say that an embryo was a leech like substance? I would say the Greeks and Galen are more credible than the Quran for not describing an embryo as a leech-like substance.

2) De Maria claiming "The Quranic view of development of a human embryo agrees very well with the Galenic view. Galen wrote his book in the first century A.D. and 600 years is more than adequate for this dominant view to diffuse to the Middle East" is assumption because neither Galen nor Greeks talked about the stages of the embryo that the Qur'an talks such as the leech-like substance.

An assumption? No.

However 1) it is a credible possibility. And 2) it proves that man already had as much knowledge of embryology as that stated in the Quran. Therefore that which was included in the Quran is unremarkable and hardly proof of a revelation of God.

3) Yet De Maria cites neither the original Greek text of Galen nor the Arabic of the Qur'ân; nor does he provide a sufficiently thorough analysis of the two accounts in order to substantiate his claim. And neither does De Maria cite any eye-witnesses accounts to prove that the Qur'an embryology agrees wit the ancient Greek literature. Where then is the proof that Qur'an plagiarized or took the Galenic stages of development?

It is unnecessary to do any of that. I have already proven that:
1. Mohammed did not do the will of God by teaching the value of lies.
2. Mohammed did not prove that he received a message from God when he provided no third party evidence of his encounters with the angel, when he failed to complete the task allegedly assigned by God, when he included so many errors in the Quran. Also, Muslims proved that Mohammed was not a prophet by rejecting his Quran and admitting instead Uthman's rescension.
3. Galen is simply proof that man did not need the assistance of Divine Revelation to learn about embryology.

4) De Maria claiming "according to Muslim sources, he was poisoned to death. It was a slow agonizing death, but a poisoned death nonetheless" is refuted by other Muslim sources which testify that Mohammed peace be did not die because of poison. Because of that De Maria admits that "Muslim historians contradict themselves."

Correction, De Maria PROVES that Muslim historians contradict themselves. However, the earlier, more influential historians who wrote their versions in the hadith (or sunna) show that Mohammed was poisoned. These hadith are so important to some Muslims that they are required to be believed second only to the Quran and are included in Islamic law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunnah

5) Muslim historians are human beings then it is natural that they do not agree.

So you prefer Jewish historians to the Muslim sunna and hadith?

Therefore, I will quote the Qur'an which given the clear cut answer in Quran 39:30 in which God speaks to the Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him saying " Lo! thou wilt die, and lo! they will die." Note that God promises that Mohammed peace be upon him will DIE not be killed.

But we have proven there are errors in the Quran. So this inference of yours, if true, is open to question. But your inference is a non-sequitur. Since in the reference you provide, the Quran does not say that Mohammed will die of natural causes. As you know, people who are killed also die.

6) There are seven different pronouciations of some specific words in the Qur'an as quoted correctly by you in Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 514, p. 482; book 61
Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab:

I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listen to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me.

Thanks for admitting the contradiction in the memorization of the Quran.

7) The conflict that arose between Hisham and Omar was due to the fact they both did not know that specific words in the Qur'an can be read in seven different ways. However, this was clarified when they went to the prophet peace be upon him.


But many other contradictions were never clarified and it got to the point that Uthman decided it was best to be rid of Mohammed's Quran and to modify the memorized versions of the Quran.


8) De Maria claiming "Except there was conflict between the memorizers and the written Quran and between the memorizers themselves, therefore no one knows who was right. Bukhari is the most important hadith in Islam next to the Quran itself" is false because the written Qur'an was based on the memorizers.

Who conflicted with each other. Therefore they conflicted with each other and with each others written words.

9) De Maria claiming "And there you have contradicted your previous statement that the memorizers would be able to correct the written word" is false because the new Muslims were not the memorizers of the Qur'an.

Excellent point!!! Thanks for agreeing with me. Mohammed's version could not be correct by the newer memorizers. They were taught a different version by Uthman.

10) De Maria claiming "there were several versions of the written Quran" is wrong because had there been versions of the Qur'an, there would been arising conflict when compiling the Qur'an as what verses should be included or deleted from the Qur'an.

If there were not different versions of the Quran, it would have been unnecessary for Uthman to have burned the other copies.

11) De Maria claiming "This just proves that the Quran had to be standardized. Otherwise there would be many more than two witnesses" is false because there were many eyewitnesses as Qur'an was recited in congregations by the prophet peace be upon him. However, two eye witnesses was the minimum.

The main point of that statement is that the Quran had to be standardized. And if, as you claim, all eyewitnesses agreed, then there would have been no need to standardize the Quran.

12) De Maria claiming" But this is not the same one revealed by Mohammed, but Uthman's rescension" is false because companions of the prophet peace be upon him would have objected and would not have used the compiled Qur'an in their worship though some of the memorizers had political interest with Othman.

It is noted that at least one companion objected and there is no proof that Uthman's rescension is the same as Mohammed's original. We have no point of reference since all originals were burned.

13) De Maria claiming "And he burned the rest. Thereby making it impossible for future generations to verify if his decision was correct" is false because the most of the memorizers of the burned copies were alive and the burned copies were burned after the compilation of the Qur'an, so people had access to them. Had there been differences between the compiled Qur'an and the burned copies, they would have objected and told the common people after the death of Othman.

It has been proven that the memorizers had a faulty memory even during Mohammed's time. What makes you think they would remember anything after Uthman died. And Uthman had all copies destroyed in his lifetime, therefore there was no point of reference.

Besides, Uthman was killed exactly because he changed the Islamic faith when he changed the Quran::

Ibn Jarir al-Tabari
reported:

When the people saw what Uthman was doing, the companions of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Prophet in Medina wrote to other companions who were scattered
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
throughout the frontier provinces: "You have gone forth but to
struggle in the path of Almighty God, for the sake of Muhammad's
religion. In your absence the religion of Muhammad has been corrupted
and forsaken. So come back to reestablish Muhammad's religion." Thus,
they came from every direction until they killed the Caliph (Uthman).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://al-islam1.org/encyclopedia/chapter5a/9.html

14) De Maria claiming "And they would succumb to Uthman's forceful tactics" is false because many of the compilers had political problems, lived in far place and continued to live after the death of Othman. Therefore, any doubt that might be raised as to the phrasing of a particular passage in the written text was to be dispelled by summoning persons known to have learned the passage in question from the Prophet.

Again, the memory of the memorizers has already been proven false. That is precisely why Uthman felt he had to standardize the Quran.

15) De Maria claiming that "Othman revised the Quran by force" is false because even after the death of Othman people never raised a doubt in the compiled Qur'an by Othman.

I've already provided proof that not all the Companions were happy with Uthman's changes in the Quran. That is why he was killed.

16) De Maria saying "Obviously that Companion did not want Othman to take his Quran" is true, but that companion gave the Qur'an to Othman.

After he was beaten.

17) De Maria claiming "It seems that Ibn Mas'ud never accepted Uthman's Qur'an" is true because he was not selected to be one of the compilers. However, Ibn Masoud accepted the Qur'an even after the death of Othman.

Ahmed, you like to paint a rosy picture of Muslim relations after Mohammed died. But the facts are not so:

Ibn Masood arrived in Medina, and went into the Mosque. When he entered the Mosque, Uthman was reading the sermon. When Uthman saw him entering the Mosque, he said: "A foul and despicable beast is coming toward you." Ibn Masood said: "That is not so. I am the companion and friend of the Apostle of God. I fought at Badr, and I am a Companion of the Tree." Ayesha also heard in her chamber what Uthman had said, and she cried out: "Is this the kind of language you use for a companion of the Apostle of God?".... As noted before, Abdullah ibn Masood had made his own collection of the verses of Qur’an, and he had arranged them in chronological order. But Uthman had appointed his favorite, Zayd bin Thabit, to collect and to arrange the verses of Qur’an. He did not "recognize" the collection of Ibn Masood, and ordered him to surrender his copy. Abdullah ibn Masood refused to do so whereupon the slaves of Uthman broke into his house, and forcibly seized the copy of Qur’an from him. This copy was burned at Uthman's orders.
http://www.al-islam.org/restatement/58.htm

18) De Maria claiming "Othman may have even had Ibn Mas'ud publicly whipped for this" is assumption unless you quoted an authentic Muslim source.

Now you require an authentic Muslim source. Yet when claiming that Mohammed was not poisoned you quoted a Jewish source?

Strange indeed!

19) De Maria claiming that "Obviously this person knew nothing about evidence" is a baseless assumption because an eye-witness of the prophet peace be upon himDe Mari claiming "The Quran says the earth is flat" is a lie because the Qur'an does not say the earth is flat.

Sure it does.

Do they not look at the camels how they are made.
And the sky how it is raised high.
And the mountains how they are fixed firm.
And the earth how it is spread out?
(Wa ilal'ardi kayfa sutihat.)
-- Sura 88:17-20

Interpretation given in Al-Jalalein:

At the earth how it is spread out(*) (Arabic: sutihat): meaning it was stretched, so they can see in it a sign for the power of Allah ... and his saying sutihat makes it obvious that the earth is flat, and this is certified by Ulama' ash-shar'a (the shari'a theologians), not a globe as it is said by ahlul-hay'a (the laymen)." (Tafseer Al-Jalalein. printed in Damascus 1964. Al-Mallah Printshop and Bookstore)
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran...arth_flat.html

20) De Maria claiming "you agree that "sutihat" means that the world is flat and not round" is a lie because as I said before " And the earth how it is spread out (sutihat)", it means the earth is spread in plains, valleys, hills and deserts because the Arabic word (sutihat) in question means to flatten the top part of any object whether flattened or unfastened object." Therefore, the verse never says the earth is flat, but the top or the upper part of the earth is flat.

As shown above, other Muslims scholars who have no quarrel with Islam believe that Mohammed said the earth was flat.

[Kelp]

Moderated By: Kelp

This debate has been abandoned. Thread closed.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.