Answering Christianity Research Center

The first mistake the author makes is when he determines the start of the 3-9 years period. The period starts from the time when the verses were revealed at the time Byzantines had suffered a major defeat and not when they started their counter-attack. According to Islamic sources, that period starts from 615 CE. In 9 years time (i.e. in 624 CE) although, the Byzantines had not achieved their final victory, but they had, nevertheless, achieved a major victory against the Sassanids.

The author apparently commits the straw man fallacy. The verses don't talk about the Cross being lost is the defeat that is being talked about. They only talk about the Byzantine defeat in that area.

"The third verse states that the Romans were defeated in 'adna al-ard'. The word adna is homonymous, and so the verse can mean that the defeat occurred in either the nearest or the lowest land. Scholarly books translate adna to nearest, because the defeat of the Romans took place in the nearest area of the Roman land to the Arab region. Islamic scholars believe that adna could also mean lowest because recent studies show that the area of the Dead Sea basin, in addition to being the nearest Roman occupied land to the Arabian Peninsula, is also the lowest point of dry land on earth, reaching almost 418 meters below sea level.
Although history does not pinpoint the exact locations of all battles, the proximity of Damascus and Jerusalem to this area presents a strong support for this interpretation."

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20140504150013/http://www.onislam.net/english/health-and-science/faith-and-the-sciences/464520-the-fulfilled-prophecy-of-surat-ar-rum.html?the_Sciences=

I don't know why the author inserts the defeat of the Byzantine empire by the Arabs in 634. The verses clearly are not talking about this event. I think he intended to include the facts about the Persian defeat by the Arabs instead of the Byzantine defeat. In which case again, the verses were not talking abut that event.

Then the author, apparently, commits a few red herrings. What was the relevance of Qur'an 9:5 or "Insha' Allah" here?

Another straw man, when was the destruction of the "Persian population" predicted? When did the verse talk about: Allah will "destroy" the Persians; they simply predict a reversal of fates, in favour of the Byzantine empire.

It apparently appears that the author is trying very hard to connect the verses about: "definite proofs" being shown to the people before their destruction, with this prediction; which I cannot see how ti could be acceptable or non-fallacious.

Additionally, reading the comments section on that website, it does seem quite odd that the only thing a critic will have a problem with in that article is the translation of the Arabic word for "definite".

The only wars whose alleged wrongness can be used to criticise Islam are the wars during the time of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs. Any other latter war or Muslim ruler may or may not be a follower of Islamic laws and guidelines.

On the matter of Spain, the Muslims were "invited" by one of the Spaniard lords. Legend has it that he sent his daughter (or his niece) to the court of one of the royals. That royal apparently had non-marital relations with her which had the effect of turning that Spaniard lord towards the Muslims and inviting them to invade Spain. If I remember correctly the ships and information for the invasion was also provided by him. Apparently, when the Muslim armies were marching through Spain, they were also joined by Jews (probably the reason they were kicked out alongside the Muslims when the Christians regained power) and other Spaniards. This is not surprising as Muslim armies in India had Hindu soldiers and generals too.

From one orientalist book I was reading, the Ummayyad Caliph of the time, when he got news of the invasion became angry and called back the Muslim commander and reprimanded him.

As I mentioned before, empires generally used to remain in perpetual war with each-other and peace treaties were the odd events.

From what I've read most of the scholars might be of the opinion that the moon was actually split, but at-least a few prominent scholars are of the opinion that this cannot be called a miracle of Prophet Muhammad or that he was the one who performed it when the disbelievers demanded a miracle. Some of these scholars are:

Maulana Moudoodi (Tafheem ul Quran)
Amin Ahsan Islahi (Tadabbure Quran)
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi (Albayan)

These are from the Indian subcontinent region, the guy in the video himself is probably not a scholar but he translates the works of Javed Ahmad Ghamidi into English.

According to Fath al Bari Ibn Hajar says: “Apart from the narration by Hadrat Anas, in no other narration of this story have I come across the theme that the incident of the splitting of the Moon had taken place on the demand of the polytheists. (Bab Inshiqaq al-Qamar)

Source: http://www.javedahmadghamidi.com/forums/viewthread/23/

According to the video I shared above (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JI0vApyi7E), the narrations which talk about, that the Prophet called the disbelievers and then with his index finger split the moon into two parts as a proof of his "Prophet-hood" are unreliable.

It would appear (according to the reliable narrations and Qur'an verse) that some extraordinary event happened (whether it be an actual splitting or whatever) and the Prophet directed the attention of the people towards it.

The Qur'an also talks about this event as evidence for the "Judgement Day" and not for the "Prophet-hood" of Prophet Muhammad.

@Abdullah Almadi, sincerest apologies!
I confused the lunar eclipse with the solar eclipse. The event I was referring to, included the solar eclipse, whose date apparenlty was: "29 Shawwal AH 10, as 27 January" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_calendar)

On the matter of splitting of the moon, the theory FARHAN_UDDIN above has quoted (i.e. the actual splitting will happen near the day of judgement) has been one opinion of Muslim scholars. Al-Zamakhshari (a Mutazalite) and Yusuf Ali give this as one possible interpretation.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_moon

A brief analysis on the reliability of the pertinent Hadiths is done here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JI0vApyi7E

قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ ...
... Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful."
(Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqarah(2):111)

I am not saying that you are wrong, but unless there is unequivocal proof for your assertion, it is not the "Islamic" way to accuse others of lying.

Over the internet, there are many such theories. One that caused a lot of harm was the denial of the scientific concept that HIV causes AIDS. It is estimated that 330,000 people could've been saved if the South African government had accepted the opinion of the scientific majority. Today these HIV deniers still exist, and they use very similar arguments like, this is all just a hoax in order to fill the pockets of Pharmaceutical companies.

... Christine Maggiore was the most prominent spokesperson for HIV deniers. (And in fact, Maggiore was also famous for not vaccinating her children.) An HIV-positive woman who had been a successful businesswoman and promoted alternative medicine, Maggiore was an appealing presence, and she played well in the media, said Tara C. Smith, a professor of Public Health at Kent State who blogs about HIV at ScienceBlogs. One of Maggiore’s biggest defenders, the journalist Celia Farber, wrote a 2006 cover story for Harper’s Magazine, in which she more or less accused drug companies of inventing AIDS in order to sell lethal drugs. “Maggiore appeared in various media outlets after she refused to take medications while pregnant and breast-feeding her children,” said Smith. “She was in the media again when her [3-year-old] daughter, Eliza Jane, died of AIDS.” (...) [Maggiore had not taken medication to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to her daughter during pregnancy, and she did not have Eliza Jane tested for HIV during her daughter's lifetime.] And then Maggiore herself died in 2008 of AIDS-related pneumonia.

(...)

In 2010, Kalichman did a survey of 266 men and 77 women living with HIV/AIDS, and found that one out of five of them agreed with statements like “there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS” or “HIV treatments do more harm than good.” The more frequently someone used the internet, the readier they were to believe that there was no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

Source: http://gizmodo.com/the-deadly-legacy-of-hiv-truthers-1737928027

What you are claiming, requires a conspiracy on a very massive scale. Basically, all the scientists and doctors in all the countries, which would probably be in the thousands, are in on this lie. Such a scenario, although not impossible, is extremely unlikely.

Answering-Christianity.com rebuttal:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/umar/true_face_of_ali_sina_2.htm

For future reference, if you are uncomfortable using this site's search, try using http://searching-islam.com/.

Asslam-o-Alaikum,

You know the Arabic words for "Peace be upon you", which you two are fond of using but is clear to everyone that you don't really mean it.

Both of you, should take a step back. We have a saying in my country, if the rope is taut or stretched from one end the other end should be let loose, meaning that if one person is being rigid or angry or unreasonable or whatever, the other person should up-to an equal, amount become more flexible, understanding and patient. This is usually an advice for a married couple but obviously it is a sound advice for every one.

Mufti Shafi' Usmani in his commentary on the Qur'an Tafseer-e-Maariful Quran quotes an incident during the caliphate of one of the Abbasids. An old man came to the Caliph and said to him, I am going to strongly rebuke you. The Caliph became troubled and answered the old man that neither he was better than the Prophet Moosa nor was he, the Caliph, worse than the Pharaoh; for when Allah sent Prophet Moosa to the Pharaoh, He sent him with the following instructions:

And speak to him [i.e. Pharaoh] with gentle speech that perhaps he may be reminded or fear [Allah]."
(Qur'an, Surah Taha(20):44)

Additionally, from the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad himself:

... So by mercy from Allah , [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them. And if you had been rude [in speech] and harsh in heart, they would have disbanded from about you. So pardon them and ask forgiveness for them and consult them in the matter...
(Qur'an, Surah Al-Imran(3):159)

There is usually huge amounts of misinformation about every nation, some negative spread by inimical nations and some positive propaganda spread by the governments themselves. While most of it is because people are usually too lazy to actually do a deep enough study about something before making concrete opinions in their minds (one of the primary reasons for the hate regarding anything "Islamic"). In cases like these we should remember:

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.
(Marcus Aurelius)

And follow the common-sense guidance from the Qur'an:

قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ ...
... Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful."
(Qur'an, Surah Al-Baqarah(2):111)

And when adequate proof has been provided, we should change our original positions or (because it is usually very difficult to do so) at the very-least take a neutral stand on the matter before things are said and done which cannot be "unsaid" and "undone".

I know that, you probably know all these things, but it was obvious that some things needed to be reminded.

Now, regarding Saudi Arabia, no country in the world is ideal. Every nation has its fair share of corruption and proud-full moments and I doubt Saudi Arabia is any different. The people there, whether they be the ruling monarchy or the common people also likely to have both, good and bad people.

There is a method in argumentation called Moral Reframing which is basically: Because of the reason different groups of people endorse different moral values to varying extents, it is effective to use moral arguments reframed to fit the moral narratives of the target audience.

As, obviously, you have huge difference of opinion on the matter of Al-Saud, I would humbly (very humbly) suggest that you make the Islamic ideals as the "moral narrative" to judge who is more right. (Remember neither of you are likely to be completely right or completely wrong about everything here).

I will start this discussion, by saying very respectfully to Osama Abdullah, to keep in mind the first two verses mentioned above. After this I will try to criticize a few of both of your points so that you can direct some of that "excitement" towards me instead of each-other.

To Abdullah Almadi,

I don't think any Muslim, who knows about history, does not appreciate the contributions of King Faisal. The Pakistanis changed the name of their third largest city after his name. His loss was indeed a great loss for the Ummah. But from the point-of-view of a comparatively objective, albeit ignorant, person; the question remains, why did the following rulers not pursue the policies with the same enthusiasm? I understand to some small extent the need to keep alliances with the US, and it would go against Islam for the Saudis to go against a covenant they might have made in the past with the Americans, but again from what I know of King Faisal he wouldn't have supported such alliances especially with the most important supporter of Israel.

Increasing the size of Masjid Al-Haram is of course a valuable contribution, but it would not be entirely correct to say that this is done completely altruistically. From what I understand the revenue generated by the in-coming pilgrims provides economic activity for the country.

Regarding Egypt (or any other country, for that matter) allowing alcohol and swine meat, as far as I have read about Islam, does not go directly against Islam as such things are allowed for non-Muslims living under Muslim rulers.

The Al-Saud's using their family name might not go directly against Islam, but it isn't idealistic either. Similarly, Islam might not explicitly and absolutely prohibit Monarchy, but it is definitely against the methodology set-up by the Rashiddun Caliphate.

To Osama Abdullah,

You gave a lot of statements but no references to back them up.

Regarding "... even if the ruler DOES LEWDNESS AND DRINKS ALCOHOL IN MECCA NEAR THE KAABA, his rule would still be valid." I believe the Sheikh was using the narrations such as the following as support for his ruling:

Prophet Muhammad said, “There will be leaders after me who will demand their rights from you but will withhold your rights from you.” They said, “What do you command us then O Messenger of Allāh” He said, “Fulfil the rights you owe to them and supplicate to Allāh for your rights.” He also said, “Whoever amongst you sees from his ruler something (objectionable), let him have patience with him for whoever separates from the main body by a handspan has thrown the yoke of Islām from his neck.”

He also said, “Whoever departed from obedience and separated from the main body will have died a death of Jāhiliyyah (days of pre-Islāmic ignorance).”

He also said, “The best of your leaders are those whom you love and who love you, and whom you pray for and they pray for you. The worst of your rulers are the ones whom you hate and who hate you, and whom you curse and who curse you.” They said, “Shall we not fight them?” He said, “No, so long as they pray”.

All of these traditions are in the Ṣaḥīḥ (of al-Bukhārī) along with other traditions like them.

---

I am having internet problems at the moment, so I am unable to search for the exact references.

Anything and everything I say could be completely and unequivocally incorrect, for which I apologize in advance.

And lastly,

Anas bin Malik told that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "(O! Muslims) Do not hate each other, do not envy one another, and do not be hostile to one another (standing back to back), rather be brothers (as) servants of Allah. A Muslim is not allowed to desert his brother (Muslim) more than three days." This means, as explained in the Sunan: To avoid whatsoever may cause hatred, and none of you should wish the termination of other's amenity, whether you wish it for yourself or not, and do not break off from one another more than three nights with their days.

It has also been stated in Sunan Abu Dawood by Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "The Muslim is not allowed to abandon a Muslim brother more than three (nights). If three days pass and he meets him, he should greet him. If he (the other believer) returns his greeting, then they share the reward; but if he does not return it, he (alone) will incur the sin." Ahmad added: 'And the Muslim is then freed from the desertion.' In another Hadith (it says): "He who breaks off from his (Muslim) brother more than three and dies (during this period) will go to Hell." In another Hadith (it says): "He who deserts his (Muslim) brother for a year is like shedding his blood."

Source: http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=86772