Rebuttal to Sham Shamoun’s article “On the Quran Contradiction of Marriage to Christian Idolaters”

Rebuttal to Sham Shamoun’s article “On the Quran Contradiction of Marriage to Christian Idolaters”

By
Karim
(He is a new convert to Islam, from the Netherlands)

http://www../Responses/Osama/karim_marry_christians.htm

Sham Shamoun tried to give a response to my previous refutation of his article ‘to marry or not to marry’. Instead of bringing anyhting new into the rebuttal Sham Shamoun repeats the same arguments, but in a different way. Moreover he tries to attack islam concerning the matter of abrogation, which in the end of this article shall backfire at himself.

Blue Text = christian missionary
Black Text = my islamic response (included my old comments from part 1 , which sham shamoun quotes)

He wrote:

One of the writers of www.answering-christianity.com named Karim has tried to respond to our article on the Quran's contradictory position regarding whether a Muslim can marry an unbeliever or not. We had mentioned that the Quran allows Muslim men to marry women from the Jews and Christians despite the fact that these groups are classified as unbelievers and idolaters, and marriages with such individuals is expressly prohibited in the Quran.

The one good thing about Karim's response is that he agrees that, according to the Quran, Jews and Christians do come under the category of idolaters and unbelievers. He says:

The arabic word for ‘idolatresses’ is almushrikati which in the quran is a specific name given to the pagans, which includes all who worship others besides allah swt, like stones , prophets etc. Like christians who worhsip jesus, hindus who worsip other gods, and fire worshippers and off course the Meccan Pagans.

And regarding Sura 2:221 he writes:

So this verse tells us not to marry almushrikati , which refers to all those who worhsip others besides god, like christians, hindus, budhists, fire worshippers, stone worshippers etc.

He repeats these points a few more times:

True, the christians are not pure and clean in their worship, since they worship a prophet ! The jews who worshipped Ezra as son of Allah had the same uncleaness. Unclean is a figure way of speech which refers to the untruth and falseness of their worship, it’s not pure but unclean.

And:

True, ‘al-mushrikoona’ includes all those who worship other besides god, which are hindus, fire worshippers, budhistst, christians, meccan pagans etc.

Again:

Do christians believe in Muhammed saw as the last prophet ? No ! , so can’t a muslim call him a believer ? No ! If someone rejects jesus (as) as a prophet, do you call them a believer my christian friends ? No ! . So the term kafir / disbeliever applies to christians too, however the quran adresses them as ‘people of the book’ , which is the term used fort hem mostly in the quran.

So according to Karim's own words, both Jews and (specifically) Christians are unclean, are unbelievers, and are idolaters. In light of this admission let us see how he addresses the contradiction within the Quran regarding whether a Muslim can marry women from such groups.

Response:

Yep true. Since jews and christians reject Muhammed as the last messenger of Allah swt, they are unbelievers.

He wrote:

The unbelievers mentioned in verse 60:10 refers to the pagan-husbands in makkah, from which the muslim women fled. Let us look also look at the commentary of this verse to proof my point:

The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Abdullah Yusuf Ali) Page 1455, Note 5422.

Under the treaty of Hubaydiyah , women under guardianship (included married women), who fled from Quraysh in Makkah to the Prophet’s protection at Madinah were to be sent back. But before this Ayah was issued, Qurash had already broken the treaty, and some instruction was neccessary as to what the madinah muslims should do in those circumstances. Muslim women married to Pagan husbands in Makkah were oppressed for their faith, and some of them came to Madinah as refugees. After this, they were not to be returned to the custody of their Pagan husbands at Makkah, as the marriage of believing women with non-Muslims was held to be dissolved if the husband dit not accept Islam. But in order to give no suspicion to the Pagans that they were badly treated as they lost the dower they had given on marriage, that dower was to be repaid to the husbands. Thus helpless women refugees were to be protected at the cot of the Muslims.

NOWHERE DOES THIS TEXT COMMANDS MUSLIM MEN TO REMAIN MARRIED TO UNBELIEVERS, THIS FALSE COMMENT ON THE VERSE OF THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES PROOFS THE LACK OF ISLAMIC KNOWLEDGE ANSWERING-ISLAM REPRESENTS.

Clearly the verse means that the muslim men were commanded to divorce their women who were pagans.

The Meaning of the Holy Quran (Abdullah Yusuf Ali) Page 1456, Note 5425.

Unbelieving women in a Muslim society would only be a clog and a handicap. There would be neither happiness fort hem, nor could they conduce in any way to the healthy life of the society in which they lived as aliens. They were to be sent away, as their marriage was held to be dissolved, and the dowers paid tot hem were to be demanded from the guardians to whom they were sent back, just as in the contrary scase the dower of believing women were to be paid back to their Pagan ex-husbands

RESPONSE:

Usually when a person starts attacking a straw man this is because he or she is unable to deal with the arguments. We never said that this reference commanded Muslims to remain married to unbelievers. Here is what we said before quoting this specific text, this time with added emphasis:

The next text commands Muslim men NOT TO remain married to unbelievers:

In light of Karim's candid admission that Jews and Christians are unbelievers he has basically conceded the fact that Muslim men cannot marry women from them, and yet elsewhere the Quran says they can marry such unbelievers! Notice what he says a little later:

Now later on the quran mentions, that there is one exception from the almushrikati that can me married , namely the peopke[sic] who had been given a book before, which refers to the jews and christians, since they are called the ‘people of the book’ in the qu’ran all over, all scholars agree about this.

S. 5:5 Arberry

Today the good things are permitted you, and the food of those who were given the Book is permitted to you, and permitted to them is your food; Likewise believing women in wedlock, and in wedlock women of them who were given the Book before you if you give them their wages, in wedlock and not in licence, or as taking lovers. Whoso disbelieves in the faith, his work has failed, and in the world to come he shall be among the losers.

Correction. Karim has assumed that this is an exception as opposed to an actual contradiction. He has assumed that these texts are conciliatory as opposed to being contradictory. These texts were composed at different times and are found in different sections, which strongly indicates that the author of the Quran didn't realize that he had contradicted himself. He wasn't aware that by stating that Jews and Christians were unbelievers and idolaters and yet permitting Muslim men to marry their women, he would be violating the prohibition he himself had given regarding not marrying unbelievers and idolaters. After all, if Jews and Christians are unbelievers and idolaters then their women are not lawful for marriage. Note how this works out:

A. Muslim men are forbidden from marrying unbelievers and idolaters.

B. According to the Quran, Jews and Christians are unbelievers and idolaters.

C. Therefore, Muslim men are forbidden from marrying Jewish and Christian women.

Even Karim admits that the Quran classifies Jews and Christians as unbelievers and idolaters so he has no logical basis for rejecting this syllogism.

Response:

Correction. With the revelation of soerah 2:221 Muslims men were forbidden to marry ‘almushrikati’ . Almushrikati are the stone worshippers, fire worshippers, pagan meccans, hindus, bhudists etc. Almushrikati could also include jewish and christians women, but it could also exclude them here. Now let’s take a look at Soerah 5:5 and it’s context:

5:3 Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than God; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, God is indeed Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

5:4 They ask thee what is lawful to them (as food). Say: lawful unto you are (all) things good and pure: and what ye have taught your trained hunting animals (to catch) in the manner directed to you by God: eat what they catch for you, but pronounce the name of God over it: and fear God; for God is swift in taking account.

5:5 This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book, revealed before your time,- when ye give them their due dowers, and desire chastity, not lewdness, nor secret intrigues if any one rejects faith, fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good).

From the context and text itself we clearly see that the verse speaks about ‘this day’. We see that ‘this day’ refers to day islam was COMPLETED ! Everything was revealed and all the rules etc had been revealed, the religion was made complete this day ! Now Allah clearly did knew what he revealed before ‘this day’.Notice how the verse says:

This day are (all) things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the People of the Book is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them. (Lawful unto you in marriage) are (not only) chaste women who are believers, but chaste women among the People of the Book,

So here we clearly see that the jews and christians are still viewed as unbelievers, but out of mercy and the fact that the poeple of the book as unbelievers are the closests to islam and have the closests relationship and similarities with muslims, Allah swt made that day besides ‘chaste women of the BELIEVERS’ also women from among the ‘people of the book’ lawfull to marry. This was the only exception given. The rest of the ‘‘almushrikati’ women like stone worshippers, fire worshippers, hindus etc were and are still forbidden for muslims to marry. Notice how Allah specificly uses the word ‘people of the book’ instead of ‘‘almushrikati’ , so clearly Allah swt tells us here in one of his last messages that ONLY the ‘people of the book’ THIS DAY are made lawfull for marriage too. Theres no contradiction at all.

For example a father forbids his son to go on holiday with friends because he’s too young. Later on when the son has attained majority the father allows him (made it lawfull) for him to go on holiday with his friends. Now can we say that the father contradicts himself ? Just because he forbade the son a few years back to go on holiday, and now allows him to go (because the son had attained majority) ? Off course not, the father doesn’t contradict himself, this can never be called even a contradiction. Same can be applied to some commands in islam and also christianity (which i shall point out in the end of this article), which were revealed in different steps and contexes / situations of the society. At the time Allah swt revealed soerah 2;221 islam can be viewed as the son or daughter who had not yet attained majority, why ? At the time of the revelation of soerah 2:221 islam wasn’t complete ! The ummah was in danger back then and muslims had to avoid anything that could weaken the ummah or their belief (and the development of it), which was not complete yet and therefor weak. Now later on when the Ummah was strong/big enough and the religion finally was completed and safe from any danger, influences, wars etc. (and the imaan of the muslims was complete and strong) Allah as an exception made it lawfull in one of his final revelations for muslim men to marry jewish and christians women. In other words islam had attained majority (in a figure way of speech).

He wrote:

Option 2:

The almushrikati in soerah[sic] 2:221 has always only been applied to the pagans, stone worshippers only , and not to the jews and christians. There are examples where the qu’ran seperates between the ‘people of the book’ and ‘Al-mushrikoon’.

Quran 98:6

Verily, those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikoon will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

The Quran makes a clear distinction between jews, christians and al-mushrikoon, this verse proofs that al-mushrikoon in certain verses can be a specific name that only applies to the idol and stone worshippers, but not the jews and chritsians. If jews and christians always were adressed as ‘mushrikoon’, then this verse could have easily only mention the word ‘al-mushrikoon’ , but the quran didn’t do this and made explicit a difference between the al-mushrikoon and people of the book (jews and christians) in this verse.

So the christian has even no proof to say that in soerah[sic] 2:221 jewish and christian women are included, since the soerah could very well only apply to the pagan meccan women, and stone & idol worshippers.

RESPONSE:

In the first place, citing a text which distinguishes Jews and Christians from the idolaters doesn't resolve the contradiction, it simply compounds it. Karim has managed to provide another contradiction by quoting a text which differentiates idolaters from the Jews and Christians when other references identify even the people of the Book as idolaters. So now which is it? Are Jews and Christians idolaters, or are they not?

Response:

Sham Shamoun triest to twist things. He hasn’t even refuted any of my claims. He now moreover sees that he can never even proof that soerah 2:221 also refers to the jews and christians. It’s true that jews and christians are Al-mushrikoon, but in a lesser sense then stone worshippers. The fact they are also called ‘the people of the book’ because they had been given scripture before, does in no way point to a contradiction. The fact that a group of people can have two different names isn’t a contradiction. Aren’t the jews also called ‘ the lost sheep of israel’ besides the name ‘jews’ . Is jesus the son of god or christ ? Since according to the logic of Sham Shamoun two different names form a contradiction, he has to face many contradictions in his bible. For example jesus is sometimes called ‘Christ’ and other times ‘son of god’ etc. According to Sham Shamoun’s logic he can’t have both names or meanings.

The qu’ran sometimes adresses all people who worhsip others besides god with the word Al-mushrikoon and sometimes it specificly mentions the ‘people of the book’ seperate from the word Al-mushrikoon , for example in soerah 98:6 (perhaps to make clear that the verse also refers to them without doubt).

He wrote:

Furthermore, even in this Sura the Jews and Christians are classified as disbelievers which therefore makes them unlawful for Muslims to marry. In fact, the only way for Jews and Christians to be recognized as believers is by accepting the Quran as revelation:

Say: O followers of the Book! be not unduly immoderate in your religion, and do not follow the low desires of people who went astray before and led many astray and went astray from the right path. Those who disbelieved from among the children of Israel were cursed by the tongue of Dawood and Isa, son of Marium; this was because they disobeyed and used to exceed the limit. They used not to forbid each other the hateful things (which) they did; certainly evil was that which they did. You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide. And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but! most of them are transgressors. Certainly you will find the most violent of people in enmity for those who believe (to be) THE JEWS and those who are polytheists, and you will certainly fid the nearest in friendship to those who believe (to be) those who say: We are Christians; this is because there are priests and monks among them and because they do not behave proudly. And when they hear what has been revealed to the apostle you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth). S. 5:77-83 Shakir

Notice that this text rebukes Muslims for simply befriending unbelieving Jews and Christians! Thus, it is wrong for Muslims to befriend the disbelieving members of the people of the Book but perfectly fine for them to marry their women!

Moreover, pay careful attention to the fact that the reason why Christians are said to be closer to the Muslims is because they profess faith in the so-called "revelation" given to Muhammad. In other words, if Christians deny that the Quran is from God or that Muhammad was his prophet then they are not those who are closest to the Muslims, but enemies and unbelievers, something expressly stated in this same Sura:

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. Sura 5:51 Pickthall

Response:

Nowhere does soerah 5:77-78 forbids the believers to become friends with jews and christians. The words “And had they believed in Allah and the prophet and what was revealed to him, they would not have taken them for friends but” refer to the jews who helped and supported the pagan meccans to attack the muslims, which is a well known history fact:

Ibn kathir is his tafsir comments:

(And had they believed in Allah, and in the Prophet and in what has been revealed to him, never would they have taken them as friends.) meaning, had they sincerely believed in Allah, His Messenger and the Qur'an, they would not have committed the evil act of supporting the disbelievers in secret and being enemies with those who believe in Allah, the Prophet and what was revealed to him,

(but many of them are rebellious). disobedient to Allah and His Messenger and defiant of the Ayat of His revelation that He sent down.

Notice also how soerah 5:77-78 further says ‘MOST OF THEM ARE TRANSGRESSORS’ , SO NOT ALL ! The soerah only tells us that there are jews and polytheists who are most violent in enmity towards believers, thats all. Notice how the rest of soerah tells us that christians will be nearest in friendship to those who believe. The soerah here speaks about friendship! Where does soerah 5:77-78 say that it is forbidden to be friends with jews and christians ?? NOWHERE ! Furhter the qu’ran explains the reason why christians are closests to muslims, because most of them do not behave proudly (not because they believe in the scripture).

As for soerah 5:51, Sham Shamoun relies his false opinion on a false translation. The word which is translated as friends is ‘Awliya’ which means: guardian, protector, patron, lord and master. Brother Zaatri has refuted already these false claims of Sham Shamoun, and shows with quotation of islamic scholars that muslims are allowed to be friends with jews and christians. Read: https://www.answering-christianity.com/muslim1/friends.htm

He wrote:

And don't forget that even Karim agrees since he classifies Jews and Christians as unbelievers for rejecting Muhammad! More importantly, Karim has decided to focus on the word idolater since he thinks that this somehow gives him a loophole. He did this early on when he wrote:

Option 1:

So the quran here only explains which people from the mushrikoon as an exception can be married , in other words the quran only specifies which people of the ‘mushrikoon’ can be married as a final rule, this was the only exception given to muslims men in this verse, since the ‘people of the book’ are closests to the truth of islam. So the other females from the ‘al-mushrikoon’ like hindu , budhist, pagan-women etc. are forbidden to marry ! So the quran nowhere contradicts itself. There would have been only a contradiction in the quran if :

verse A had said: ‘you are forbidden to marry almushrikati ‘ and verse B had said: ‘you are allowed to marry almushrikati ‘

(but even if this was the case, then there only would have been a abrogation of a previous verse, and so there wouldn’t be neither a contradiction)

However the qu’ran uses in verse B a different word then almushrikati , it specificly only says ‘you are allowed to marry those who were given the book before you’

Yet he conveniently does not focus on the fact that Sura 2:221 also refers to marrying believers:

And do not marry the idolatresses UNTIL THEY BELIEVE, and certainly a BELIEVING MAID is better than an idolatress woman, even though she should please you; and do not give (believing women) in marriage to idolaters UNTIL THEY BELIEVE, and certainly A BELIEVING SERVANT is better than an idolater, even though he should please you; these invite to the fire, and Allah invites to the garden and to forgiveness by His will, and makes clear His communications to men, that they may be mindful. S. 2:221 Shakir

Response:

Yes, when soerah 2;221 was revealed, muslims men were only allowed to marry believing women, in case the jews and christians were included among the ‘almushrikati’. The verse could also mean, marry not pagan women untill they believe. Sham Shamoun cannot even proof that jews and christians are included in soerah 2:221. Moreover the word unbelievers in soerah 60:10 clearly only referred to the pagan women who were married to muslim men in medina, which has been proven with commentary of yusuf ali. In other places the qu’ran seperates the ‘people of the book’ and ‘the almushrikati’ (see soerah 98:6) . However it doesn’t matter if the jews and christians are included or not included in soerah 2:221, which i have proven in my first response of this article.

He wrote:

The passage expressly states the specific condition which makes a person lawful for marriage, BELIEF! A person must be a believer in order for a Muslim to marry him or her, and yet Jews and Christians are unbelievers according to the Quran and Karim. Thus, unbelieving women from the Jews and Christians are unlawful for marriage. Again, note how this works out logically:

A. Muslims are forbidden from marrying unbelievers.

B. According to the Quran, Jews and Christians are unbelievers.

C. Therefore, Muslims are forbidden from marrying Jews and Christians.

So the Quran does contradict itself since verse A says: ‘you are forbidden to marry unbelievers (this includes Jews and Christians whom the Quran labels as disbelievers)'.

Whereas verse B says: ‘you are allowed to marry unbelievers (i.e., Jews and Christians).

Response:

Correction, you should have said: “When verse b was revealed the jews and christians of the unbelievers were only made lawfull for the believers to marry and not the rest’.. Let us take a look again at the final soerah revealed about this, soerah 5:5 (verse B) says:

Here we clearly see that Allah swt still views the jews and christians as unbelievers, but specificly mentions that ON THAT DAY it was made lawfull for muslims to marry them, and no other disbelievers. We have seen before that ‘this day’ refers to the day when islam was completed as religion. Now if Allah swt was confused according to sham shamoun’s logic and made a mistake, then why didn’t Allah swt use the word ‘‘almushrikati’ in this verse, why does Allah swt only specificly tells us that only jews and christians are made lawfull ON THAT DAY ? Why is the word ‘THIS DAY’ used in the verse ? The word ‘THIS DAY’ proofs that only from that moment on it became lawfull for muslim to marry women among the ‘people of the book’ , so theres no contradiction at all. Sham Shamoun simply doesn’t want to understand that something which was unlawfull before due to circumstances could be made lawfull later. In soerah 5:5 ONLY the jews and christians were made lawfull for muslim men to marry, the rest of the unbelievers was still forbidden for marriage.

Let’s take a look at Ibn kathirs tafsir and comments on this issue:

Ibn Kathir comments

Allah prohibited the believers from marrying Mushrik women who worship idols. Although the meaning is general and includes every Mushrik woman from among the idol worshippers and the People of the Scripture, Allah excluded the People of the Scripture from this ruling. Allah stated:

((Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time when you have given their due dowry, desiring chastity (i.e., taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse.) (5:5)

Ali bin Abu Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said about what Allah said:

(And do not marry Al-Mushrikat (female idolators) till they believe (worship Allah Alone).) "Allah has excluded the women of the People of the Scripture.'' This is also the explanation of Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Sa`id bin Jubayr, Makhul, Al-Hasan, Ad-Dahhak, Zayd bin Aslam and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and others. Some scholars said that the Ayah is exclusively talking about idol worshippers and not the People of the Scripture, and this meaning is similar to the first meaning we mentioned. Allah knows best.

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=5845

Why were the people of the scripture excluded ? Shayk yusuf al-qaradawi in his book “Al-Halal wal-Haram fil Islam” comments:

Because their tradition is based upon a divinely revealed Scripture. Although they have distorted and altered it, they do possess a religion of divine origin, and hence Islam has made some exceptions in dealing with them. The Qur'an says: ...And the food of those who were given the Scripture (before you) is permitted to you and your food is permitted to them. And (lawful to you in marriage are) chaste women from the Believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture before you, when you give them their due cowers, desiring chastity, not lewdness or secret intrigues....(5:6: (5) )

Tolerance of such a degree is a characteristic of Islam which is hardly to be found among other faiths and nations. Despite the fact that Islam takes the People of the Book to task for their unbelief and error, it permits the Muslim to marry a Christian or Jewish woman who may, as his consort, the mistress of his house, the mother of his children, the source of his repose, and his companion for life, retain her own faith—all this, while the Qur'an says concerning marriage and its mystique, "And among His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell with them in tranquility, and He has put love and mercy between you....(30:21)

However, a warning is in order here. In order of preference, a believing, practicing Muslim woman who loves her religion is preferable to a nominal Muslim woman who has inherited Islam from her parents. The Prophet (peace be on him) said, "Get the one who is religious and prosper." (Reported by al-Bukhari.) It is also obvious that a Muslim woman, regardless of who she is, is better suited to a Muslim man than a woman of Christian or Jewish faith, regardless of her merits. If a Muslim man has the slightest suspicion that a non-Muslim wife might affect the beliefs and attitudes of his children, it becomes obligatory on him to exercise caution.

If the number of Muslims in a country is small—for example, if they are immigrants residing in a non-Muslim country—their men ought to be prohibited from marrying non-Muslim women because, since Muslim women are prohibited from marrying non-Muslim men, their marriage to non-Muslim women means that many Muslim girls will remain unmarried. Since this situation is injurious to the Muslim society, this injury can be avoided by temporarily suspending this permission.

He wrote:

Finally, Karim's own statements will come back to haunt him. Note what he wrote:

The Quran makes a clear distinction between jews, christians and al-mushrikoon, this verse proofs that al-mushrikoon in certain verses can be a specific name that only applies to the idol and stone worshippers, but not the jews and chritsians. If jews and christians always were adressed as ‘mushrikoon’, then this verse could have easily only mention the word ‘al-mushrikoon’ , but the quran didn’t do this and made explicit a difference between the al-mushrikoon and people of the book (jews and christians) in this verse.

What Karim failed to realize is that his own criteria proves our case. One can just as easily claim that whenever the word "al-mushrikoon" is used without qualification (i.e. without something in the text indicating that it is referring to a specific group distinct from Jews and Christians) then this unqualified use of the term is intended to be inclusive. In other words, if a verse uses the word without any qualification, unlike what we find in Sura 98:6, then this implies that the text in question is referring to all the groups which the Quran classifies as idolaters, i.e. Jews, Christians, Meccan Arabs etc. Now is there anything in Sura 2:221 to indicate that the word is being used in a more restricted sense which excludes Jews and Christians? Not at all. Hence, by Karim's own method of interpretation this establishes that Sura 2:221 is prohibiting marriage with ALL groups which the Quran labels as idolaters, Jews and Christians especially !

Response:

Sham Shamoun takes my statement out of the context, the point i made was ‘if jews and christians are always adressed as al-mushrikoon then Allah swt would never seperate between them in verses, in the verse of the sword for example is al-mushrikoon only a reference to the pagan meccans. The fact is that when both ‘the people of the book’ and the ‘al-mushrikoon’ are mentioned in a verse, then there is no doubt that Allah adresses them both. But when only the word ‘al-mushrikoon’ is used alone, then there’s no proof to say that jews and christians are included in the ayah. Moreover the word ‘al-mushrikoon’ refers to idol worshippers, which therefor stronger applies to stone worshippers then jews and christians, who are al-mushrikoon but in a lesser sense. So it can very well only refer to the meccan pagans and stone worshippers etc. moreover if Allah clearly wanted to forbid muslim before also form marrying jewish and christians women, he could use the same usage of words as in soerah 98;6, for example Allah swt could have said in soerah 2:221

“And do not marry Al-Mushrikat (idolatresses) and women among the people of the book till they believe “

However Allah swt only uses the word “Al-Mushrikat” in this verse, so sham shamoun can even never proof thet this soerah includes jewish and christian women. Moreover even if the jews and christians are included in soerah 2:221, then there is still no contradiction, see my first response in this article.

He wrote:

Yet Karim thinks he has a plan B, a back up plan in case this explanation failed:

And:

However if soerah[sic] 2:221 indeed also did refer to the jewish and christian women, then there is still no contradiction in the qu’ran, since the quran later on only specificly states, that as a final rule only the jews and christians from the ‘mushrikoon’ can be married, however the other women from the ‘mushrikoon’ , like hindu women or budhist women or pagan women are still forbidden to marry. So i repeat ,there would have been only a contradiction in the quran if :

So the qu’ran only specifies and tells us that as a final rule only the jews and christians of ‘al-mushrikoon’ can be married, but the others are still forbidden to marry. So theres no contradiction at all.

So it doesn’t matter, if you choose option 1 or option 2, there isn’t a contradiction in the quran.

RESPONSE:

Contrary to Karim's wishful thinking, there is a contradiction since there is nothing in Suras 2:221 and 60:10 which qualifies the Quran's prohibition regarding marriage with unbelievers and idolaters. In fact, Karim's own words indirectly testify that there is a contradiction since he must pull out the old abrogation canard. Anytime a Muslim brings up abrogation as a means of reconciling contradictions in the Quran this is nothing more than an implicit admission by the Muslim that the passages in question are in fact contradicting one another. As one Muslim put it:

… The principle laid down in this passage - relating to the supersession of the Biblical dispensation by that of the Qur’an - has given rise to an erroneous interpretation by many Muslim theologians. The word ayah ('message') occurring in this context is also used to denote a ‘verse’ of the Qur’an (because every one of these verses contains a message). Taking this restricted meaning of the term ayah, some scholars conclude from the above passage that certain verses of the Qur’an have been ‘abrogated’ by God’s command before the revelation of the Qur’an was completed. Apart from the fancifulness of this assertion - WHICH CALLS TO MIND THE IMAGE OF A HUMAN AUTHOR CORRECTING, ON SECOND THOUGHT, THE PROOFS OF HIS MANUSCRIPT, deleting one passage and replacing it with another - there does not exist a single reliable Tradition to the effect that the Prophet ever declared a verse of the Qur’an t have been ‘abrogated’. At the root of the so-called ‘doctrine of abrogation’ MAY LIE THE INABILITY OF SOME EARLY COMMENTATORS TO RECONCILE ONE QUR'ANIC PASSAGE WITH ANOTHER; a difficulty which was overcome by declaring that one of the verses in question had been ‘abrogated’. This arbitrary procedure explains also why there is no unanimity whatsoever among the upholders of the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ as to which, and how many, Qur’an-verses have been affected by it; and furthermore, as to whether this alleged abrogation implies a total elimination of the verse from the context of the Qur’an, or only a cancellation of the specific ordinance or statement contained in it. In short, the ‘doctrine of abrogation’ has no basis in historical fact, and must be rejected … (Asad, Message of the Qur’an [Dar Al-Andalus Limited 3 Library Ramp, Gibraltar rpt. 1993], pp. 22-23, n. 87; online source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Finally, we have already addressed Karim's focus on the word idolater, while ignoring the fact that the Quran also prohibits marriages with unbelievers, a category that definitely includes Jews and Christians. So there is no need to repeat ourselves at this point.

Response:

No it wasn’t plan B, it was another option, since 2 options are possible. It two things are possible, both are mentioned. Let me first handle the issue of abrogation, the claim of Muhammed Asad is proven not to be corect by the companions of the prophet, for example by Ibn Abbas. These were not just some early commentators, but the companions who had lived their lives with the prophet ! So sham shamoun’s commentary of Muhammad doesn’t hold much weight when the companions of the prophet show us that Muhammad Asad is not correct here.

Soerah 2:106

Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh (We abrogate) or Nunsiha (cause to be forgotten), We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is Able to do all things)

Ibn kathirs Tafsir: The Meaning of Naskh

Ibn Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever an Ayah We abrogate.'' Also, Ibn Jurayj said that Mujahid said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever an Ayah We erase.'' Also, Ibn Abi Najih said that Mujahid said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "We keep the words, but change the meaning.'' He related these words to the companions of `Abdullah bin Mas`ud. Ibn Abi Hatim said that similar statements were mentioned by Abu Al-`Aliyah and Muhammad bin Ka`b Al-Qurazi. Also As-Suddi said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "We erase it.'' Further, Ibn Abi Hatim said that it means, "Erase and raise it, such as erasing the following wordings (from the Qur'an), `The married adulterer and the married adulteress: stone them to death,' and, `If the son of Adam had two valleys of gold, he would seek a third.'''

Ibn Jarir stated that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh) means, "Whatever ruling we repeal in an Ayah by making the allowed unlawful and the unlawful allowed.'' The Nasakh only occurs with commandments, prohibitions, permissions, and so forth. As for stories, they do not undergo Nasakh. The word, `Nasakh' literally means, `to copy a book'. The meaning of Nasakh in the case of commandments is removing the commandment and replacing it by another. And whether the Nasakh involves the wordings, the ruling or both, it is still called Nasakh.

Allah said next, (or Nunsiha (cause it to be forgotten)). `Ali bin Abi Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said that, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do Nansakh or Nunsiha) means, "Whatever Ayah We repeal or uphold without change.'' Also, Mujahid said that the companions of Ibn Mas`ud (who read this word Nansa'ha) said that it means, "We uphold its wording and change its ruling.'' Further, `Ubayd bin `Umayr, Mujahid and `Ata' said, `Nansa'ha' means, "We delay it (i.e., do not abrogate it).'' Further, `Atiyyah Al-`Awfi said that the Ayah means, "We delay repealing it.'' This is the same Tafsir provided by As-Suddi and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas. `Abdur-Razzaq said that Ma`mar said that Qatadah said about Allah's statement, (Whatever a verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten) "Allah made His Prophet forget what He willed and He abrogated what He will.''

Allah's said, (We bring a better one or similar to it), better, relates to the benefit provided for the one it addresses, as reported from `Ali bin Abi Talhah that Ibn `Abbas said, (We bring a better one) means, "We bring forth a more beneficial ruling, that is also easier for you.'' Also, As-Suddi said that, (We bring a better one or similar to it) means, "We bring forth a better Ayah, or similar to that which was repealed.'' Qatadah also said that, (We bring a better one or similar to it) means, "We replace it by an Ayah more facilitating, permitting, commanding, or prohibiting.''

Source: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=2938

As for Abrogation. It may involve the text or the ruling or both. There is a great Divine wisdom behind every incident of abrogation, part of which is to assert that the Islamic legislation, unlike man-made ones, was not established at once; rather, all its teachings and rulings were set gradually. In addition, when abrogating the words of a verse but not its ruling, this serves as a reminder that not all the Divine messages are to be through one channel, i.e. a direct revelation. Rather, part of these messages is to be clarified through the practice and tradition of the Prophet sent to deliver the message.

Conclusion:

With the revelation of soerah 2:221 Muslims men were forbidden to marry ‘almushrikati’ . Almushrikati are the stone worshippers, fire worshippers, pagan meccans, hindus, bhudists etc. Almushrikati could also include jewish and christians women, but it could also exclude them here. Now let’s take a look at Soerah 5:5 and it’s context:

For example a father forbids his son to go on holiday with friends because he’s too young. Later on when the son has attained majority the father allows him (made it lawfull) for him to go on holiday with his friends. Now can we say that the father contradicts himself ? Just because he forbade the son a few years back to go on holiday, and now allows him to go (because the son had attained majority) ? Off course not, the father doesn’t contradict himself, this can never be called even a contradiction. Same can be applied to some commands in islam and also christianity (which i shall point out in the end of this article), which were revealed in different steps and contexes / situations of the society. At the time Allah swt revealed soerah 2;221 islam can be viewed as the son or daughter who had not yet attained majority, why ? At the time of the revelation of soerah 2:221 islam wasn’t complete ! The ummah was in danger back then and muslims had to avoid anything that could weaken the ummah or their belief (and the development of it), which was not complete yet and therefor weak. Now later on when the Ummah was strong/big enough and the religion finally was completed and safe from any danger, influences, wars etc. (and the imaan of the muslims was complete and strong) Allah as an exception made it lawfull in one of his final revelations for muslim men to marry jewish and christians women. In other words islam had attained majority (in a figure way of speech).

Let’s take a look at Ibn kathirs tafsir and comments on this issue:

Ibn Kathir comments

Ali bin Abu Talhah said that Ibn `Abbas said about what Allah said:

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=5845

Sham Shamoun rejects the fact that Allah swt himself and noble companions of the prophet confirm that Allah swt excluded the ‘people of the book’ from soerah 2:221 at the day islam was completed as religion. Morever the qu’ran and the companions of the prophet confirm that abrogation exist in islam, contrary to the bible. Therefor if the bible changes a rule, the christian cannot claim is’t abrogation, since the bible doesn’t hold this option open. Moreover the arguments of the christian missionaries against abrogation, will cause major problems to their own bible:

Abrogated or not ?

Example 1:

Deuteronomy 24:1-4:

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

Ecclesiastes 25:26

"If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go

Mathew 5:31-32

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

(By divorcing his wife, the husband puts her in the position where she is strongly tempted to remarry and if she does remarry, Jesus says she is guilty of adultery and so is the man she marries, however in the old testament she was allowed to remarry after divorce )

Luke 16:18

"Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."

We see here that Jesus changes the law of god. According to the christians jesus is god, so god first says ‘she can remarry after divorce’ later on God says ‘those who remarry her after divorce commit adultery’ so now suddenly god makes it impossible and forbidden for her to remarry. Moreover god in the bible tells us first that a man could divorce his wife for other reasons then fornication. In the new testament god only allowed divorce for the cause of fornication. Since according to Sham Shamoun’s logic laws of god can never be abrogated or replaced (when god mentions this specificly) , he has to face many contradictions here in his bible. In my opinion the law of divorce is a specific example of abrogation in the bible, since jesus just like Allah swt in soerah 5:5 on the final day of revelation changes a rule, both situation are clearly an example of abrogation, changing a law.

Example 2:

Exodus 31:15

"Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 35:2

"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Numbers 15:32-36

“And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

VS:

John 9:14

"And it was the sabbath day when Jesus made the clay, and opened his eyes. Then again the Pharisees also asked him how he had received his sight. He said unto them, He put clay upon mine eyes, and I washed, and do see. Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.

Jesus (god according to christians) worked on the sabbath day by making clay , which contradicts his own command. Unless the rules has been changed in this context here, which according to sham shamoun is impossible.

Example 3:

Genesis 9:3

“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”

We see in genesis that all animals were lawful food to Noah (peace be upon him) and his people Then many of them were made unlawful in the revelation delivered to Moses (peace be upon him)

Deuteronomy 14:7-8. See also Leviticus 11:4-8

“Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you. And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcass.”

So the prohibition given to Moses (peace be upon him) abrogated the permission given to Noah (peace be upon him). And not just because the israelis were gods choosen people, since Noah was a chosen prophet of god (who therefor had more right on clean food than an ordinary israeli man).

Example 4:

Jeremiah 31:31-32

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD.”

It is clearly understood from this passage that the new covenant would abrogate the old covenant. Well, the above examples oblige both Jews and Christians to accept the notion of abrogation.

Example 5:

Hebrews 7:12

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law

In John Wesley's Bible notes, it is mentioned that "For" signifies that "One of these cannot be changed without the other." In Peoples New Testament, it was even clearer, as it reads, "Of course, if the priesthood was changed, the law of the old priesthood, the law of Moses, must go with it, and give place to a new law." (see: http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/PeoplesNewTestament/pnt.cgi?book=heb&chapter=007)

Sham shamoun desperate tried to refute these claim, which failed at:

http://www../Shamoun/consummation1.htm, he hardly adresses anything relevant. Read also:

http://www.geocities.com/noorullahwebsite/abrogation.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/abrogate.html

Again both Jews and Christians have to accept the notion of abrogation here again. However the qu’ran teaches us that abrogation is possible in islam, the bible on the other hand not. Christians who attack the qu’ran for abrogation have to face many problem in their own bible with the claims they make against islam. Their claims backfire at them at it’s best. Now let’s take a look at a clear contradiction in the bible, which has nothing to do with abrogation but with a confused holy spirit:

To Marry Or Not To Marry in the Bible ?

Genesis 2:18

And the LORD God said, "It is NOT good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper meet for him."

Here god tells us that it is not good for men to be alone, so god gave adam a wife, called eve. Later on in the bible however we read:

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

1 Corinthians 7:8

Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

Now God in the bible created women for men, because it was not good that men should be alone. Now later on paul tells us that it is good not to marry, and to stay alone , instead of married. A clear cut contradiction. The holy spirit must have been confused, since all scripture is inspired by the holy spirit, pauls opinion was based upon the wisedom of gods holy spirit. Because all Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16), this is not just Paul's advice, but the advice of the Holy Spirit (god in christianity), through the apostle So the bible says in verse A: it is not good to be alone, while verse B says it is good to be alone. Moreover paul calls something good wich denies gods creation, how can it be good to deny a women which according to the bible god was created for men (because it was not good for men to be alone).

1 Corinthians 11:9

neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

So paul call’s it good to deny something which god solely created for men (according to the bible). Paul clearly contradicts god, and therefor the bibe is not gods word. To marry or not to marry ?