Exchange: Sam Shamoun vs Ijaz Ahmed

In my opinion Sam could have picked an easier example than 17:1, but he still makes a good point and it is valid.

Do any of the verses Ijaz mentions actually say the Sacred Mosque is in Mecca? Well the closest ones are the last passages that he also quotes on a recent blog post of his reviewing his exchange, so this is what I looked at.

At first glance of reading Qur’aan 48:24-27 I agreed with Ijaz Ahmad, that at face value the text implies Al Masjid Al Haram is in Mecca, even though it doesn't explicitly state this, it seemed to be the flow of the text.

Then I noticed on his blog post he omitted verse 26, and I read it again and it wasn't so clear. Verse 26-27 according to the beginning of verse 26 do not refer to the same event as 24-25, they may refer to the same group of disbelievers, but the subject pronoun in verse 26-27 addresses the Muslims, the author may have done the same for the disbelievers for all four verses but hasn't thus it maybe a different group of disbelievers in view, the same group or even different factions of disbelievers from the whole group of disbelievers (impossible to tell with this kind of ambiguity). Muslims would not dispute this ambiguity in general either, for example when the Quran commands Muslims to kill the Mushrikoon(pagan/polytheists) many Muslims claim this does not include women and children. It is therefore fair to point out every usage of the word "Mushrikeen" is ambiguous and it CAN defer to different factions of disbelievers from the same disbelieving group.

That leaves us with 48:24-25 do these verses contextually prove Al Masjid Al Haram is in Mecca? Well the simple answer is: "Maybe, maybe not!"

Firstly assuming the Quran has a context (highly dubious assertion to make for every single verse of the Quran) , a "contextual" reading of verses 24-25 no more show the Al Masjid Al Haram is in Mecca than if I were to say a Russian Orthodox Fundamentalist said:

"God prevented us (Russians) from battle with them (Germans) within Germany until God gave us victory. They are those who hindered us from St. Basil's Cathedral"

Of course St. Basil's Cathedral is not in Germany it's in Moscow, but in both cases "Germans"  are the object or referent. It is not likely the same group of Germans who were probably killed, retreated or taken captive at Moscow were defending the borders of Germany when Russia finally invaded Germany? Chronologically No. But they are both considered "Germans". But what if many of them had retreated and end up defending Germany? Then you have the same group of Germans but still Basil's Cathedral is not in Germany.

Likewise in the Quran you could have "the same group of disbelievers" or "a different group of disbelievers" or "a faction of disbelievers from among the overall disbelievers". It's simply impossible to tell using the Quran alone which group of disbelievers verse 26-27 refer to and whether they are identical to verse 24-25.

If you read the proceeding verses and all of chapter 48 it does mention "polytheists", "disbelievers", "hypocrites" and "Bedouins" but the chapter never identifies who these groups of people are and whether they are distinct groups or all the same group? The only distinction was between "hypocrites" and "disbelievers". The rest is all to ambiguous to know whether the Bedouins are the Polytheists, or whether the Polytheists are the exact same group of disbelievers introduced in verse 22, or whether the Hypocrites are the Bedouins etc, if we were given more detail, this crisis wouldn't exist.

If you read verse 24 again:

And it is He who withheld their hands from you and your hands from them within [the area of] Makkah after He caused you to overcome them. And ever is Allah of what you do, Seeing.

One interpretation of verse 24 is God prevented the Muslims and Pagans (being generous here) from engaging battle within Mecca, until "after he caused you to over come them", the problem here is, Muslims truly didn't overcome or have victory over the Pagans until they conquered Mecca. Or does this simply refer to the victory of Hudaybiyya? And what is the timeframe here? Was there suppose to be no battle between the Muslims and Pagans within Mecca from what point in time? All of this to remains shrouded.

Of course I am being generous here when I use "Muslims and Pagans". It is not at all clear whether the Bedouins are the Polytheists, or whether the Polytheists themselves are Arabs or whether "believers" here actually mean "Muslims" when the Quran identifies several groups as believers including the Hanif, Zoroastrian/Sabieans etc.

Ultimately the Mosque could be in Mecca, but the answer from the contextual analysis is "maybe it is, maybe it isn't". Which means the Quran does not explain itself in detail. Nor has it explained the most essential and basic information I have pointed out in this post.

If I were Ijaz Ahmed I would find these verses about the Quran being fully explained in detail and attempt to reinvent there obvious meaning and save the Quran.

Atheist, Bertrand Russel On Islam:

“Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam…. Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of mind not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet…. Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism, rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, unspiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world.”

Ijaz Ahmed vs C.L. Edwards: Jesus the Christ, man, God or Both?

This debate is for entertainment value only, as neither of the debaters were any good, and the debate itself was a shambles, the topic an old repetitive and boring one. It does however remind me of many of the older classic debates I had and observed on paltalk back when I was younger.

Answering Paul Williams

Paul's latest post at bloggingtheology.wordpress.com is something he deems contreversial but his own understanding of the issue please read that before contuing. one of the passages Paul quotes claim to be Allah explictly speaking, in fact "he sent down" implies the opposite. Appealing to the Bible third person writing form wont help the Quran here since its not the verbatim direct words of God but merely inspired by him. Further more the Quran twice explictly states "This is the word of an honored messenger". The Quran also confuses so called words of God (the "We" claimed to be God by Muslims) with created angels 19:63-65 many other examples like these exist. The first chapter being another clear example of human prayer to God something disputed by early Muslims themselves if we take hadith seriously. Thus Pauls claim is largely disputable. And clearly more than two options exist. It also cannot be known ( assuming Mohammed existed) how much of the Quran he recited and whether it existed as a single unit of 114 chapters and how many times this was redacted and how many prophets , heretics and authors came up or influenced what chapters. The Quran is such a cesspool and mishmash of theologies, contradictions and errors the only way to project it as a single piece of literature is by going outside of itself something the Quran itself expictly condemns. Yes the Quran like the Bible never asserts canonical inerrancy or having a single narrow minded intrepretation of every verse of itself as its fundamental truth. Like the Bible Muslims can selectively interprete and pick canon, the only diffence is the majority of Muslims have a fixed tradition and become heretics when that tradition is violated while Christians are less bound by tradition. Paul wishes there was no third alternative by neglecting the most skeptical western scholarship, you know the kind that goes by evidence fand not fabricated political narratives?