Meherally and the Bible - Revisited

Meherally has decided to publish a reaction to our response in answer to his critique of Silas’ article, "Muhammad and the Bible", by appending some additional comments to his original article.

I will be omitting material which appears in both Meherally’s original "response" and our initial reply to him. Meherally begins:

RESPONSE:

As I will demonstrate, the only one who is playing around with the well established and distinctly defined terminology is Meherally. The reason why Meherally claims that our 27 page response is either irrelevant or deviates from the issue under discussion is because Meherally was incapable of providing a meaningful response, as I will be demonstrating here. We do agree with Meherally that it is often within the Divine Plan of the true God, Yahweh, to expose the deceit from the writings of those who wish to propagate falsehood in His name. The seekers of Truth will be elated to read my rebuttal where I expose Meherally’s lies, smokescreens, fallacies and contradictions. This is solely by the grace of the sovereign and true Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, may they be praised and glorified forever and ever. Amen.

RESPONSE:

It seems that Meherally doesn’t even know what an ad hominem actually is. Therefore, we present it here for him:

Argumentum ad hominem

Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man"; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem. For example:

"You claim that atheists can be moral -- yet I happen to know that you abandoned your wife and children."

This is a fallacy because the truth of an assertion doesn't depend on the virtues of the person asserting it. A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily criticized person. For example:

"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin would have agreed with you."

A second form of argumentum ad hominem is to try and persuade someone to accept a statement you make, by referring to that person's particular circumstances. For example:

"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to kill animals for food. I hope you won't argue otherwise, given that you're quite happy to wear leather shoes."

This is known as circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. The fallacy can also be used as an excuse to reject a particular conclusion. For example:

"Of course you'd argue that positive discrimination is a bad thing. You're white."

This particular form of Argumentum ad Hominem, when you allege that someone is rationalizing a conclusion for selfish reasons, is also known as "poisoning the well".

It's not always invalid to refer to the circumstances of an individual who is making a claim. If someone is a known perjurer or liar, that fact will reduce their credibility as a witness. It won't, however, prove that their testimony is false in this case. It also won't alter the soundness of any logical arguments they may make. (Source: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem)

As this source states, appealing to a person’s circumstances or use of lying is not always wrong, provided that one presents evidence to support one’s accusation. Hence, to attack a person’s character while failing to produce evidence to support one’s claim is one thing. To expose a person’s willful use of lying and deception by presenting facts is quite another thing. Meherally chose to deliberately assault Silas’ character by accusing him of deception, yet failed to provide a single bonafide example where Silas used deception. In light of this, Meherally was indeed guilty of ad hominem slurs. Yet, unlike Meherally, my rebuttal provided evidence that called into question his ability to accurately present the facts. As such, no fallacy was committed. In fact, I will present additional evidence to support the fact that Meherally does in fact use deceptive arguments.

Again, lest Meherally objects to my calling his "rebuttal" a deception, all the while objecting to his charge that Silas’ article was a deception, here are the comments of Shabir Ally regarding his ad hominem slurs against Robert Morey:

The REF reporter said that Dr. Badawi and Shabir had argued ad hominem, which means that instead of dealing with the ideas academically we attacked the character of the man who presented the ideas. Here the REF reporter echoes Dr. Morey himself, for he made the same claim in his debate with me. He and the REF reporter say that even if Dr. Morey is a liar his ideas may still be true.

As I have already pointed out, however, my approach has never been to attack the character of my opponent. I have dealt with his ideas in an academic fashion. I checked the sources of his information and his sources reveal his ideas to be false. The act of checking his references also revealed that he does not always make accurate quotations. Some of the comparisons between what he quoted and what his sources actually do say reveal discrepancies which throw doubt on his academic integrity. If he handled his references in such a manner as to raise questions of his honesty in dealing with the issue it is not for me to come up with the answers to such questions. It is for him and for the REF reporter to come up with answers. They have to show that the sources do actually say what Dr. Morey quoted them to say. This they have not done…

It may prove helpful at this point if I further explain what is an ad hominem fallacy and what is not. One commits the ad hominem fallacy when one attacks the person instead of refuting his ideas. It is not ad hominem if in addition to pointing out the errors in the ideas one also shows how the person arrived at those incorrect ideas in the first place. If this means exposing the deceptive tactics such as the use of misquotes, then this reflects not on the expositor, but on the deceiver. It is also useful and legitimate for a debater to show that whereas his opponent poses as a scholar on a given subject, he has in fact proved inadequate or incompetent in dealing with the subject; or, worse yet, that he has proved dishonest in dealing with the subject. This of course does not prove that everything he says is wrong, since even the devil speaks the truth sometimes. But it does establish the need for caution before accepting everything he says -- hook line and sinker. (Source: http://www3.sympatico.ca/shabir.ally/badawi.htm; bold emphasis ours)

With this behind us, let us proceed to Meherally’s next claim:

RESPONSE:

The simple answer why Silas didn’t simply reproduce his own text is because I had already begun my response and was nearly finished with it. The reason why I chose to write a LENGHTY response is to both expose Meherally’s misreading of Silas’ article as well as providing a refutation that would completely and thoroughly silence Meherally’s erroneous claims once and for all. As can be seen from Meherally’s "response", I have accomplished my task. My rebuttal, by God’s grace, has left him quite incapable of providing a meaningful response.

Furthermore, and typical of Meherally, he doesn’t quote Jesus’ words in context:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with HIS BROTHER will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says TO HIS BROTHER, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell."

When one reads the context, it becomes clear that Jesus is telling fellow believers not to speak to their brothers in a derogatory manner. Christ tells us who our brothers are:

"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.’ He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ Pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’" Matthew 12:46-50

The Lord Jesus tells us exactly what the Father’s will is:

"Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God - children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God." John 1:12-13

"For God so loved the world that he gave HIS ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send HIS SON into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's ONE AND ONLY SON." John 3:16-18

"‘Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.’ Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?’ Jesus answered, ‘The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.’" John 6:27-29

"And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to THE SON and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:39-40

Since Meherally does not believe that Christ is God’s Son, nor does he accept Jesus as his Lord and Savior, he is therefore not a brother.

Had Meherally continued reading in Matthew, he would have seen how Jesus treated rebellious, stiff-necked, self-righteous hypocrites who thought they were serving God:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are. Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." Matthew 23:13-28

In the words of the Apostle Peter:

"But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish ... They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity - for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him ... Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.’" 2 Peter 2:12, 19, 22

The Quran has quite a few derogatory things to say about unbelievers. It will suffice to quote just these two passages:

"Recite unto them the tale of him to whom We gave Our revelations, but he sloughed them off, so Satan overtook him and he became of those who lead astray. And had We willed We could have raised him by their means, but he clung to the earth and followed his own lust. Therefore his likeness is as the likeness of A DOG: if thou attackest him he panteth with his tongue out, and if thou leavest him he panteth with his tongue out. Such is the likeness of the people who deny Our revelations. Narrate unto them the history (of the men of old), that haply they may take thought. Evil as an example are the folk who denied Our revelations, and were wont to wrong themselves." S. 7:175-177 Pickthall

"The likeness of those who were charged with the Taurat, then they did not observe it, is as the likeness of THE ASS bearing books, evil is the likeness of the people who reject the communications of Allah; and Allah does not guide the unjust people." S. 62:5

We see the Quran likening unbelievers to dogs and likening the Jews to dumb asses! A number of similar and some even worse references are discussed in the entry UNBELIEVERS in the Index to Islam.

It seems that not only is Meherally ignorant of the Holy Bible, he is also ignorant of the Quran.

Meherally tries to posit a contradiction between my claim that the term Bible comes from the word biblos, which means Book, with Silas’ claim that Bible comes from the plural biblia, an attempt so silly that it reveals his utter desperation regarding this point.

RESPONSE:

It is rather evident that Meherally has not read Silas’ article carefully, since if he had he would have discovered the following statement:

5) WITH THEIR PERMISSION, I have borrowed portions of writings from three other Christian writers: from Dr. William Campbell's book, "The Quran and the Bible", [7] AND FROM ARTICLES WRITTEN BY SAM SHAMOUN [8], and from John Gilchrist's book, "The Christian Witness to the Muslim [9]. Their works can be found at:

http://answering-islam.org
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/aboutbible.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Campbell/

When we go to Silas’ footnote number 8, we discover the following:

[8] Articles by Sam Shamoun can be found at:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/aboutbible.htm

This means that a careful reading of Silas’ article would have shown that he has clearly linked and quoted directly from my article. The portion that Meherally quotes from Silas regarding the origin of the name Bible is actually taken from the very article that Silas links to! Here is Silas’ quote in its entirety:

This is another unsubstantiated assumption. It is presumed that since the word "Bible" does not appear in the Quran, then what the Judeo - Christian communities commonly refer to as God's Word is not acceptable to the Muslims. Yet, if one were to trace the word Bible back to the Greek, one would discover that the word itself comes from the term biblia, meaning "books." Hence, in time the collection became classified as the Book due to the fact that although the Bible consisted of 66 individual writings, the author was one, the Holy Spirit, having one unifying theme: the advent of God's Messiah-Deliverer. Not surprisingly, we find the Quran mentioning the Book (Arabic- al-Kitab) of the Jews and Christians:

And now compare this with what I originally wrote:

This is another unsubstantiated assumption. It is presumed that since the word "Bible" does not appear in the Quran, then what the Judeo-Christian communities commonly refer to as God's Word is not acceptable to the Muslims.

Yet, if one were to trace the word Bible back to the Greek, one would discover that the word itself comes from the term biblia, meaning "books." Hence, in time the collection became classified as the Book due to the fact that although the Bible consisted of 66 individual writings, the author was one, the Holy Spirit, having one unifying theme: the advent of God's Messiah-Deliverer.

Not surprisingly, we find the Quran mentioning the Book (Arabic- al-Kitab) of the Jews and Christians:

In light of the fact that Silas’ quote regarding the origin of the name actually comes FROM WHAT I HAD WRITTEN, it becomes quite evident that Meherally is simply picking at straws.

Furthermore, since Meherally likes to quote encyclopedias note what the following encyclopedias say regarding the origin of the word Bible:

The word "Bible" COMES FROM THE GREEK BIBLOS or bublos, the inner bark enclosing the pitch of the papyrus plant from which paper (papyrus) was made in ancient times. The diminutive plural biblia (books) WAS VIEWED AS A SINGULAR IN LATIN, AND FROM THIS CAME THE MODERN ENGLISH WORD ... (Encyclopedia Americana, Year 2000 Edition, Volume 3, p. 648)

BIBLE

The term "Bible" is derived, through the Latin Biblia (originally a neuter plural, but treated since the early Middle Ages AS A FEMININE SINGULAR), from the Greek ta Biblia, literally "the books," with the word iera (sacred)expressed or understood. The singular of this Greek word, Biblion (a diminutive in form, but with the diminutive force lost), occurs in Lk 4.17, in reference to the "SCROLL" of Isaiah from which Jesus read in the synagogue at Nazareth. The earlier form he BiBlos (the book, i.e. the Bible), which occurs in 2 Mc 8.23, as does its plural hai BiBloi, in the Septuagint of Dn 9.2, comes from an original form, he BiBlos, designating Egyptian papyrus, first known to the Greeks as writing material imported from the Phoenician city of BYBLOS. Synonymous terms for the sacred book(s) are hai graphai (the writings, the Scriptures) and he graphe (the writing, Scripture, the Bible as a whole), which are used in Mt 21.42; 22:29; 26:54; etc. and Acts 8.32; Rom 4.3; 9.17; etc., respectively.

The use of the singular number in these terms to designate the many writings that constitute the Bible comes FROM THE REGARDING OF THE COLLECTION AS A SINGLE UNIT, despite its many authors, HAS GOD AS ITS CHIEF AUTHOR ... (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Second Edition, Volume 2, p. 354)

BIBLE [Ta BiBlia, the books, plural of To BiBlion, diminutive from he BiBlos (specialized sense, the sacred scriptures, goes back to ca. A.D. 400); Late Lat. biblia, FEMININE SINGULAR FOR EARLIER NEUTER PLURAL; The collection of writings to which the church attaches canonical authority. The limits of this collection have varied considerably at different periods and there are profound differences within the Church over degree of authority which is to be attributed to the collection and to particular books within it ... (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Abingdon Press, Volume 1, p. 407)

Please do notice that these sources state that Greek "biblia" is the plural form of the word Biblos/Biblion, which means Book. Also notice that these sources state that in the Late Latin period the word "biblia" was treated as a feminine SINGULAR. In other words, "biblia" in Latin didn’t mean books, as in Greek, but Book. Even Meherally’s own quotation from Britannica states that the term Bible comes from the Latin. Hence, all these facts actually end up affirming my point that Bible simply means Book!

Finally, Meherally seemingly thinks that if he can somehow show that Bible doesn’t mean Book, he will then prove that the word Kitab (Book) is not its Arabic equivalent, since the Arabic is singular. In his haste, Meherally failed to realize or forgot to mention that the Quran doesn’t only refer to the Book (al-Kitab, singular) God sent down, but also to the BOOKS (Kutub, plural), as the following verses show:

"O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, HIS BOOKS (Kutubihi), His Messenger, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray." S. 4:136

"But We had not given them Books (Kutub) which they could study, nor sent messengers to them before thee as Warners." S. 34:44

The following verse is pertinent to our discussion, and actually affirms my point:

"Hast thou not turned thy vision to those who were given a portion of the Book? they believe in sorcery and Tagut (Evil), and say to the Unbelievers that they are better guided in the (right) way than the believers!" S. 4:51

That a portion of the Book was given to some implies that there were other portions given to others. Kitab would therefore be a reference to God's entire revelation from beginning to end, that all the books of God form a single unit, being different parts of the same whole. Hence, Kitab here carries the same meaning as Bible since it refers to all the inspired books as a single collection since the author of all these books is essentially One, namely God.

So much for Meherally’s argument. Meherally next moves on to the issue of the Canon, as if this will somehow prove his point:

RESPONSE:

Meherally’s red herring does nothing to undermine the point at hand, namely that the Quran does confirm the Holy Bible as God’s uncorrupt well-preserved Word.

But since Meherally wants us to follow his rabbit trail, I will oblige.

I will only briefly summarize the data that demonstrates that the Apocrypha are not inspired, since I am planning to write a full length article on this subject, Lord Jesus willing. Our readers can also read my response to Saifullah since it deals with the same issue, see http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/samebible.htm.

The first thing we would like to mention to Meherally is that instead of appealing to Catholics and Protestants, take the advice of your own book which states:

"We did aforetime give Moses the Guidance, and We gave the Book in inheritance to the Children of Israel,- A Guide and a Reminder to men of understanding." S. 40:53-54

"We did aforetime grant to the Children of Israel the Book the Power of Command, and Prophethood; We gave them, for Sustenance, things good and pure; and We favored them above the nations. And We granted them Clear Signs in affairs (of Religion): it was only after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms, through insolent envy among themselves. Verily thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment as to those matters in which they set up differences." S. 45:16-17

The New Testament agrees:

"What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with THE VERY WORDS OF GOD." Romans 3:1-2

"For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, THE COVENANTS, THE RECEIVING OF THE LAW, the temple worship and the promises. Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. Romans 9:4-5

Seeing that the debate centers around the canon of the OT, we need to turn to the Jews to resolve the issue since they were the ones entrusted with the OT as both the New Testament and the Quran affirm.

Once this is done, one will soon discover that the Jews do not accept the Apocrypha as part of the canon since inspired men of God did not write them. The Talmud states:

Our Rabbis taught: Since the death of the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit [of prophetic inspiration] departed from Israel. (Sanhedrin 11a)

The Apocrypha was written after the death of these last prophets and could not have been written under inspiration.

Furthermore, certain books of the Apocrypha flat out deny inspiration:

"and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them." 1 Maccabees 4:46

"Thus there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them." 1 Maccabees 9:27

"And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise," 1 Maccabees 14:41

Since there were no prophets during the Maccabean period these apocryphal writings could not have been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, the Lord Jesus confirmed the threefold division of the OT followed by the Jews at the time:

"He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’" Luke 24:44

This division did not include the Apocrypha.

Fourthly, many Church fathers like Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and Jerome rejected the Apocrypha, as did some Roman Catholic scholars. Even through the Reformation Roman Catholics such as Cardinal Ximenes (in his Complutensian Polyglot, 1514) and Cardinal Cajetan (the man who opposed Luther) in 1532 made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the OT canon.

In fact, Rome only officially canonized a specific list of Apocryphal books in April, 1546 at the fourth session of the Council of Trent, over 900 years after Muhammad compiled the Quran! This means that it isn’t the Protestant OT canon which came after the Quran, BUT RATHER THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CANON!

Hence, the Quran could not be confirming the Catholic OT canon since that canon was not officially recognized until the 16^th century! Furthermore, since the Quran agrees that the Jews were entrusted with the Book, and since the Jews reject the Apocrypha, the Quran cannot therefore be confirming the Apocrypha as part of God’s revelation.

Therefore, Meherally must side with both the Jews and Protestants in rejecting the Catholic inclusion of uninspired Apocryphal books into the inspired OT Canon.

Finally, we now turn the tables on Meherally. The early Islamic sources record the doubts which existed regarding the exact number of Surahs contained within the Quran. Abdullah b. Masud, one of the top reciters and memorizers of the Quran, did not believe that Surahs 1, 113 and 114 should be included within the Quran. He believed they were prayers that were revealed, but not as part of the Book:

Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:

I asked Ubai bin Ka’b, "O Abu AlMundhir! Your brother, Ibn Mas’ud said so-and-so (i.e., the two Mu'awwidhat do not belong to the Quran)." Ubai said, "I asked Allah’s Apostle about them, and he said, ‘They have been revealed to me, and I have recited them (as a part of the Quran)," So Ubai added, "So we say as Allah’s Apostle has said." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 501)

Another one of the top reciters, Ubayy b. Kabb, not only included the surahs rejected by Masud, but included two additional Suras that are no longer found in the Quran:

"Written in the text of Ubayy ibn Ka’b were the Fatihal-kitab (the Opening Surah) and the Mu'awwi-thatayni (the Charm Surahs) and Allahumma innaa nasta'iinka (the opening words of Suratul-Khal’ meaning 'O Allah, we seek your help') and Allahumma ayyaaka na'budu (the opening words of Suratul-Hafd meaning ‘O Allah, we worship you’)". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an by Jalaluddin Al-Suyuti, p. 153; as quoted by John Gilchrist, Jam' al-Qur'an, p. 75)

Here are the Suras in their entirety:

Al-Suyuti records that these two surahs were also included in both the codices of Ibn Abbas and Abu Musa. (Al-Itqan, p. 154; as quoted by John Gilchrist, ibid.)

So which is it? Are there 111 (Masud), 116 (Kabb), or 114 (Zaid b. Thabit) Surahs? And how does Meherally know for certain? Is there a verse in the Quran that gives the exact number of Surahs?

Meherally should learn not to thrown stones at others when he lives in a glass house.

For more information on the corrupt state and chaotic nature of the text of the Quran, we recommend the following articles:

Meherally continues his argument:

RESPONSE:

It seems that Meherally has a problem with Paul giving a suggestion under divine inspiration. Meherally is implying that Paul wasn’t inspired since he is claiming to give his personal "opinion." This shows that Meherally has not studied the Holy Bible carefully. The first thing to note is that the Greek word translated as "opinion" is gnome. Strong's defines it as:

from 1097; TDNT - 1:717,119

AV - judgment 3, mind 2, purpose + 1096 1, advice 1, will 1,
agree + 4160 + 3391 1; 9

1) the faculty of knowledge, mind, reason
2) that which is thought or known, one's mind
2a) view, judgment, opinion
2b) mind concerning what ought to be done
2b1) by one's self: resolve purpose, intention
2b2) by others: judgment, advice
2b3) decree

The word may mean to give a judgment, decree, view or even an opinion. In this particular context, the word is best rendered as judgment since Paul is speaking as Christ's representative.

Paul is addressing the question of whether virgins should remain unmarried, something that Christ never addressed while on earth. Being Christ's spokesperson Paul could speak on issues not addressed by the Lord Jesus during his earthly ministry. In this passage, Paul is giving a suggestion that a person can choose to follow, but was not required to do so.

This leads us to our second point, namely that Paul was clearly aware that both his preaching and his writings were given by inspiration of God:

"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words." 1 Corinthians 2:13

"If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I AM WRITING to you IS THE LORD’S COMMAND. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored." 1 Corinthians 14:37-38

These passages make it quite clear that Paul believed that his writings were the very revealed words of God. This can be further seen from what Paul writes elsewhere:

"since you are demanding proof THAT CHRIST IS SPEAKING THROUGH ME. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you". This is why I write these things when I am absent, that when I come I may not have to be harsh in my use of authority - the authority the Lord gave me for building you up, not for tearing you down." 2 Corinthians 13:3, 10

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, BUT AS IT ACTUALLY IS, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." 1 Thessalonians 2:13

"Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LORD JESUS ... Therefore, he who rejects THIS INSTRUCTION does not reject man BUT GOD, who gives you his Holy Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 4:1-2, 8

"But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth. He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth OR BY LETTER FROM US." 2 Thessalonians 2:13-15

It becomes quite evident that Paul believed that he was speaking and writing by divine inspiration.

Finally, if Paul giving a suggestion implies that he was not inspired then this would mean that the Lord Jesus wasn’t inspired either as the following passage implies:

"The disciples said to him, ‘If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.’ Jesus replied, ‘Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.’" Matthew 19:10-12

Christ permits, but does not command, celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. Using Meherally’s logic we would be forced to conclude that Jesus wasn’t inspired because he didn’t command his followers to embrace celibacy, but only suggested or permitted it.

This would also prove that the Quran is not a revealed book (which in fact it is not, though for other reasons) since there are plenty of passages where the author makes certain suggestions for Muslims to follow, but are not required to do so:

If ye divorce them before ye have touched them and ye have appointed unto them a portion, then (pay the) half of that which ye appointed, unless they (the women) agree to forgo it, or he agreeth to forgo it in whose hand is the marriage tie. To forgo is nearer to piety. And forget not kindness among yourselves. Allah is Seer of what ye do. S. 2:237 Pickthall

And whatever alms you give or (whatever) vow you vow, surely Allah knows it; and the unjust shall have no helpers. If you give alms openly, it is well, and if you hide it and give it to the poor, it is better for you; and this will do away with some of your evil deeds; and Allah is aware of what you do. S. 270-271 Shakir

If the debtor is in a difficulty, grant him time Till it is easy for him to repay. But if ye remit it by way of charity, that is best for you if ye only knew. S. 2:280 Yusuf Ali

And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely that ye will not do injustice. And give unto the women (whom ye marry) free gift of their marriage portions; but if they of their own accord remit unto you a part thereof, then ye are welcome to absorb it (in your wealth). S. 4:3-4

They consult thee concerning women. Say: Allah giveth you decree concerning them, and the Scripture which hath been recited unto you (giveth decree), concerning female orphans and those unto whom ye give not that which is ordained for them though ye desire to marry them, and (concerning) the weak among children, and that ye should deal justly with orphans. Whatever good ye do, lo! Allah is ever Aware of it. If a woman feareth ill treatment from her husband, or desertion, it is no sin for them twain if they make terms of peace between themselves. Peace is better. But greed hath been made present in the minds (of men). If ye do good and keep from evil, lo! Allah is ever Informed of what ye do. Ye will not be able to deal equally between (your) wives, however much ye wish (to do so). But turn not altogether away (from one), leaving her as in suspense. If ye do good and keep from evil, lo! Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful. But if they separate, Allah will compensate each out of His abundance. Allah is ever All-Embracing, All-Knowing. S. 4:127-130 Pickthall

As for women past child-bearing, who have no hope of marriage, it is no sin for them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show adornment. But to refrain is better for them. Allah is Hearer, Knower. S. 24:60 Pickthall

These directives demonstrate that, much like Paul, the Quran gives suggestions that are not obligatory upon believers. Hence, if Paul giving a suggestion implies that he is not inspired, then this means that Allah was not inspired either.

While we are on the subject of suggestions, perhaps Meherally can explain the following verse for us:

They ask thee concerning the New Moons. Say: They are but signs to mark fixed periods of time in (the affairs of) men, and for Pilgrimage. It is no virtue if ye enter your houses from the back: It is virtue if ye fear Allah. Enter houses through the proper doors: And fear Allah: That ye may prosper. S. 2:189

Does this mean that entering backdoors is a sin? What about the following verse:

O ye who believe! Enter not the Prophet's houses,- until leave is given you,- for a meal, (and then) not (so early as) to wait for its preparation: but when ye are invited, enter; and when ye have taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk. Such (behaviour) annoys the Prophet: he is ashamed to dismiss you, but Allah is not ashamed (to tell you) the truth. And when ye ask (his ladies) for anything ye want, ask them from before a screen: that makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs. Nor is it right for you that ye should annoy Allah's Messenger, or that ye should marry his widows after him at any time. Truly such a thing is in Allah's sight an enormity. S. 33:53

Since Muhammad is dead, how is this passage applicable today?

This concludes the first section. Continue with Meherally and the Bible - Revisited [Part 2].

Sam Shamoun

Responses to Akbarally Meherally
Answering Islam Home Page