Title: Mr. Shamoun’s Response to the Explanation of Some of the Alleged Mistakes in the Qur’an Question/Comments: The “Answering Islam” Team has started new section related to your web-site at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Learner/index.htm They have started with the following article: “Sam Shamoun's response to Alleged Mistakes in the Qur'an... by the Learner” Would you like to comment? Khalid Salem Qatar Answer: Mr. Shamoun has presented his rebuttal on three of the points that I had covered in my writing. I present below my point of view regarding Mr. Shamoun's rebuttal. Please bear in mind that due to the extra-ordinary load of work, I am only going to concentrate on the bases in Mr. Shamoun's rebuttal. In case, however, you require any clarification on any of Mr. Shamoun's points, which I have not covered in my following writing, please feel free in writing back to me, specifying the point you would like me to elaborate on. My answers follow: John the Baptist The First point, which Mr. Shamoun has covered relates to my explanation of Maryam 19: 7. Regarding this verse, Mr. Shamoun had initially objected that although the Qur'an says that no one before John the Baptist was given the name 'John', yet there are a number of references in the Bible of that name, even before John the Baptist. In response to this objection, I had written that even if the referred verse of the Qur'an is literally taken to imply the uniqueness of the name 'John', it does not say that there was no one by the name of 'John', before the Baptist, but actually states that God did not give that name to anyone before the Baptist. Mr. Shamoun, however, considers this to be an illogical explanation. He writes: The Learner thinks that this response is sufficient in rebutting my original argument but in actuality it fails to do so. The Learner begs the question by suggesting that I need to show where God named someone else John. Yet, this assumes what the Learner has yet to prove. This assumes that God is the author of the Quran and therefore entails circular reasoning on the part of the Learner. The fact is that I do not believe that the Quran is the word of God and hence do not need to show where God named someone else John since it is not God who is speaking. Hence, in its attempt to rebut my point the Learner engages in circular reasoning, assuming what it has yet to prove. I did not intend that Mr. Shamoun should 'assume' that God has written the Qur'an and thereby engage in 'circular' reasoning. I only implied that in the referred verse, the 'alleged' author of the Qur'an - which, according to the Muslim belief is God - has declared that 'He' did not name anyone 'John', before the Baptist. In other words, this verse of the Qur'an 'alleges' that God did not name anyone 'John', before the Baptist. All that Mr. Shamoun has to do now, to refute this claim of the Qur'an - without 'even making the 'hazardous assumption' of taking God as the author of the Qur'an - is to give a reference where God has, in fact, named someone 'John', before the Baptist. I had, however, stated in my response that, in my opinion, the actual implication of the verse is not that God did not name anyone 'John' before the Baptist, but that John was unique in his personality, from some aspect. In this connection, I had cited a saying ascribed to Jesus (pbuh) from the Bible, in which Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said: Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist (Matthew 11: 11) To support my interpretation of the verse, I had also cited from Adam Clarke's and the Spurgeon's commentary of Matthew. Mr. Shamoun rejecting my explanation, writes: The Learner commits several fallacies here in trying to avoid the implications of my arguments. The Learner commits a categorical fallacy in trying to implicitly suggest that Jesus' statement that none born of women is greater than John somehow nullifies the fact that John and Elijah are equal or comparable. First, you can have two persons equal in one sense, but different in another sense. John and Elijah were equal in their prophetic ministry due to the fact that they both had a similar mission, having been assigned the honor of preparing the way for the Messiah. Yet, they were not equal in position. In fact, had the Learner read Jesus' statements from Matthew in context this is precisely the point Jesus goes on to make. Here is the context of this statement in Matthew 11: "I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, HE IS THE ELIJAH WHO WAS TO COME. He who has ears, let him hear." Matthew 11:11-15 Jesus could say that John was Elijah while at the same time acknowledging that no one born of women was greater than John in position. That Jesus is referring to John's position becomes evident from what immediately follows: yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. I had absolutely no intention of 'suggesting' that Jesus' (pbuh) referred statement nullifies the fact that John and Elijah are absolutely unique and incomparable. All that I had 'implied' was that John's (pbuh) greatness - from whichever aspect it may have been - is also referred by Jesus (pbuh). The reader should also keep in mind that the referred verse of the Qur'an does not imply that John (pbuh) was unique and incomparable in absolute terms, it only implies that John (pbuh) was incomparable to others from a particular aspect. I, therefore, agree with Mr. Shamoun's point that John (pbuh) could be similar to Elijah from one aspect and yet be different and unique from another aspect. This, in fact, is the implication of the referred verse of the Qur'an. Sacrifices Commanded upon All The second point, which Mr. Shamoun has commented upon relates to his objection, in which he had stated that the Qur'an says that God commanded sacrifice upon all nations, which, according to Mr. Shamoun, is incorrect because sacrifice was not prescribed for the Christians. In response, I had stated that the prescription of sacrifice in the Mosaic Law is enough to confirm the referred statement of the Qur'an, as Jesus (pbuh) is reported to have said that the Mosaic Law remains binding upon himself and his followers as well [1] . Mr. Shamoun is obviously not willing to accept this argument. Mr. Shamoun's first comment on this argument is: We are actually disappointed to see Jesus' statements wrenched out of their immediate context since Jesus was not commenting on sacrifices as something binding upon his disciples. I never implied, through this reference, that Jesus (pbuh) was commenting on sacrifices. My reference to Jesus' cited saying was only to establish that Jesus did not alter the directives entailed in the Mosaic Law (which included sacrifice). This reference is clearly not out of context, though Mr. Shamoun has all the right to disagree with it. Mr. Shamoun further writes: "Jesus' meaning was not that he had come to fulfill in the sense that he came to obey, which he certainly did. Rather, it entailed fulfillment in the sense of both interpreting and exegeting the Law. ... Hence, it is the Law as interpreted by Christ that is binding on all believers. This is the sense in which Jesus fulfills the Law, in bringing it to its desired goal. In order for Christ to bring the Law to its spiritual perfection, it became necessary for him to both reinterpret and reinforce certain aspects of it, purifying it from the false interpretation that had evolved around it by the religious sects of his day." I would only request Mr. Shamoun to help me understand how can 'abrogation' (whatever the concept may be) be taken as 'interpretation' of a directive. I do acknowledge that explaining the spirit of a directive does come under the ambit of 'interpretation' and 'explanation'. Nevertheless, explaining the spirit of the directive is one thing and restricting the directive to "only" its spirit is quite another thing. The former does come under the scope of the word 'fulfillment', but the latter can only be termed as alteration, which obviously is different from 'fulfillment'. I had also referred to the following saying of Jesus (pbuh): So, when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. This saying, in my opinion, clearly evidences the fact that Jesus (pbuh) did not abolish sacrifice. However, this too is unacceptable to Mr. Shamoun. He writes: We have already commented on the Learner's error in using Matthew 5. I do not see any error in my using the referred saying of Jesus (pbuh) to substantiate my point. In fact, the referred saying of Jesus (pbuh) is clearly relevant to the point under consideration. Commenting further on this reference, Mr. Shamoun writes: The other error that the Learner commits is an anachronistic or chronological fallacy. Jesus' statements were made while the Old Covenant regulations were still binding. It wasn't until Jesus' death that the New Covenant was inaugurated, canceling out the Old Covenant regulations I would request Mr. Shamoun to excuse my ignorance in asking him what he means by 'until Jesus' death'? Does he mean 'immediately preceding Jesus' death'? or is it 'immediately after Jesus' death'? If the former is true, then Mr. Shamoun is requested to kindly provide a reference to any of Jesus' statement, in which he has clearly abolished the referred practice. If the latter is true, then it only supports the Muslim concept that the prevalent concept of Christianity is not based on the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) but is actually based upon the incorrect and unfounded interpretations of those teachings by St. Paul and his disciples. Queen of Sheba and Sun Worship The Third point covered by Mr. Shamoun relates to whether the Queen of Sheba and her people worshipped the sun or not. As a rebuttal to my earlier response, Mr. Shamoun writes: No one is denying that the people of Sheba worshiped the sun. But rather, that the primary deity worshiped during that time was the moon. Hence, it would have been more accurate for the Quran to mention this fact since the impression given is that the sun was the primary deity worshiped. Yet, I agree with the Learner's assessment that this in itself does not prove conclusively that the Quran is mistaken at this point. I do not intend to add anything to my previous response. In my referred response, I had also alluded to the story of the Queen of Sheba as given in the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Kebra Negast. In response, Mr. Shamoun writes: The only problem with the Learner's appeal to the above Jewish references is that these sources are not primary documents. Rather, as in the case of Kebra Negest , the Jewish story is nothing more than a Talmudic fable written centuries after the fact. In fact, this introduces another problem namely that the Quranic story about the Queen of Sheba is nothing more than a rehashing of an older and yet even more unreliable Jewish fable. I would just like to remind my readers that Mr. Shamoun's calling something a 'fable' does not automatically mean that everything entailed in it is false. I hope this helps. Regards, Moiz Amjad September 27, 2001 [1] Matthew 5: 17 reports Jesus (pbuh) as saying: " Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill."