Response to rebuttal to Matt Slick's More questions for Muslims article, pt 2

by Matt Slick

(I have permission from the author to reproduce his article and respond to it in full. - Matt Slick
Mr. Zawadi's original is in brown. My responses are in green).

By Bassam Zawadi

Bassam Zawadi's Original: Introduction: This article is in response to Matt Slick's article www.carm.org/religious-movements/islam/response-rebuttal-matt-slicks-more-questions-muslims-article. The answers mostly are not of my own. I just provide them. Matt Slick said: What was man created from, blood, clay, dust, or nothing?

  1. "Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
  2. "We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
  3. "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
  4. "But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
  5. "He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

My Response: http://www.drzakirnaik.com/pages/qanda/33.php http://www.understanding-islam.org/related/text.asp?type=article&aid=102 http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/ma_man_created.htm

Matt Slick's Response: Unfortunately Mr. Zawadi does not address the issues himself. Instead, he provides links. Should I refute Islam by providing links and saying "Here, read these"? If I were to do so, many Muslims would denounce my effort as being weak and assume that I was not able to answer on my own. What is interesting is that several Muslims have told me that I have been "refuted" by Zawadi. They do not see the weakness in his argument because, if they did, it would not help the spread of Islam.

Nevertheless, having looked at the links, I find the supposed answers to the problem to be very poor. One link asserts that there is no contradiction but a contradistinction, that is," speaking about two different concepts on the same subject without conflict." Well, it is not a contradistinction but a contradiction. Sperm is not dust, and dust is not sperm. Neither is dust water. Likewise, a plot of congealed blood is not the same thing is dust. The Quran does not state that man is created from dust, and water, congealed blood, and sperm. The contradiction remains.

Another link tries to retranslate the words of the Quran and even state that some of the Muslim scholars who translated into English were not accurate. But the same article, the second link, still sites the same issues that I've raised and affirms the translations. Therefore, the contradiction remains.

Finally, the third link speaks about plasma, water, human composition, and says, "The Qur'an and the Sunnah of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) provide a very detailed description of the microscopic development of the human embryo from a mere sperm drop up to the stage of a completely formed human being." The problem is that the Quran says that man is created from a clot of congealed blood (96:2). Is a clot of congealed blood the same thing as clay (15:26)? Is clay the same thing as "nothing" (19:67)? Is nothing the same thing as a sperm drop (16:4)?

It doesn't take much to see the problem in the Quran which remains and is evidence that the Quran is not from God but from the man known as Mohammed.

Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said:

Is there or is there not compulsion in religion according to the Qur'an?

  1. "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things," (2:256).
  2. "And an announcement from Allah and His Messenger, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage,- that Allah and His Messenger dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith," (9:3).
  3. "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful," (9:5).
  4. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued," (9:29).

My Response: Taken from http://www.muhaddith.org/Islam_Answers/Terrorism.html

Islam's answer (adopted from our original e-mail answer):

The person you heard, reading this passage from the Quran, seems to have so much hatred against Islam, whereby he did not allow himself to examine the rest of the passage (let alone other passages of the Quran, explicitly prohibiting violence against nations that did NOT transgress, as will be quoted below the current discussion).

In other words, you heard something taken completely out of context, which contradicts the truth as well as what you know (according to your words).
This is if we give him the benefit of the doubt (that he did not read the remainder because of his hatred), which is extremely far fetched and presumes enormous irresponsibility for a person in his position:

Matt Slick's Response: Unfortunately, Mr. Zawadi has apparently copied a great deal of text from the link he cites. I do not know if he had permission to do this, but I do not want to reproduce the work of a third party on my website and thereby violate copyright laws. Therefore, I have only copied the first section of Zawadi's comment. If you wish to read the entirety of his quote, then you'll need to go to the link he cites.

Please notice how the response immediately says that I am full of hatred. It goes on to state that my hatred is why my arguments are invalid. This is an ad hominem attack. Instead of dealing with the issue, the "refutation" begins with an attack on my character. This is extremely poor technique, and the author of this article demonstrates a lack of proper argumentation principles.

Will the author have us believe that there is no compulsion in Islam in view of the verses that says "proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject faith," (9:3) and that they should "fight and slay the pagans . . . seize them . . . lie in wait for them" (9:5), and force them to pay the Jizya tax until they "feel themselves subdued" (9:29)? Is this the language of no compulsion? Perhaps the author would care to tell us why it is illegal to carry a Bible in public in Saudi Arabia, a Muslim run country? Or perhaps he would like to inform us all about the oppression that Christians suffer in Islamic dominated countries? I've spoken to many Christians from Muslim countries who have had to flee the oppression they have suffered at the hands of Muslims. Don't be deceived. Islam is not a tolerant religion, and it is a religion of compulsion. It seeks to submit the world to its hand.

Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said: The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?

  1. "And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12).
  2. "When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (7:143).
  3. "And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam," (2:132).

My Response:http://www.submission.org/answering-Islam-3.htm#realiz, read number 59.

Matt Slick's Response: I do not plan to read other websites in order to refute the supposed "rebuttal" by Mr. Zawadi. If this were the case, all he would have to do is take my papers and reproduce them with his Web addresses inserted throughout. This is not a refutation of my work, and I'm not going to continue to tackle all the websites that he cites. I might as well put up a site like www.answeringislam.org and tell him to refute that.
Therefore, I will not be responding to mere webpage addresses. If Mr. Zawadi wants to tackle my papers, then let him do the tackling instead of referencing other peoples' work.

Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said: Does Allah forgive or not forgive those who worship false gods?

  1. Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin Most heinous indeed," (4:48). Also 4:116
  2. The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority," (4:153).

My Response: [a list of websites, which I removed since they are not Mr. Zawadi's responses]

Matt Slick's Response: All that Mr. Zawadi did was provide a list of websites. There was no commentary--no response to my questions on his part. Again, this is not a response, and I am not obligated to read through who knows how many pages of material on various websites in order to rebut whatever they might say. Also, if I were to try to respond to all of the pages that he merely links to, I would also be obligated to obtain permission to reproduce their work in order to refute them. Again, if Mr. Zawadi wants to tackle my papers, then let him actually do it instead of referencing other peoples' work. If this is all he is going to do, then he isn't responding; and he is wasting my time since he isn't answering the questions. I then ask why is he even bothering? Finally, I am quite surprised that the Muslims who have contacted me saying my papers have been "answered" actually consider Mr. Zawadi's effort to legitimate one. Unfortunately, listing other peoples' work can easily mean that Mr. Zawadi is not capable of doing it himself.

Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said: Are Allah's decrees changed or not?

  1. "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
  2. "The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all, (6:115).
  3. None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (2:106).
  4. When We substitute one revelation for another,--and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),--they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not," (16:101).

My Response: [a list of websites, which I removed since they are not Mr. Zawadi's responses]

Matt Slick's Response: All that Mr. Zawadi did was provide a list of websites. There was no commentary--no response to my questions on his part. Again, this is not a response, and I am not obligated to read through who knows how many pages of material on various websites in order to rebut whatever they might say. Also, if I were to try to respond to all of the pages that he merely links to, I would also be obligated to obtain permission to reproduce their work in order to refute them. Again, if Mr. Zawadi wants to tackle my papers, then let him actually do it instead of referencing other peoples' work. If this is all he is going to do, then he isn't responding; and he is wasting my time since he isn't answering the questions. I then ask why is he even bothering? Finally, I am quite surprised that the Muslims who have contacted me saying my papers have been "answered" actually consider Mr. Zawadi's effort to legitimate one. Unfortunately, listing other peoples' work can easily mean that Mr. Zawadi is not capable of doing it himself.

Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said: Was Pharaoh killed or not killed by drowning?

  1. "We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam). (It was said to him): "Ah now!- But a little while before, wast thou in rebellion!- and thou didst mischief (and violence)! This day shall We save thee in the body, that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee! but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!" (10:90-92).
  2. Moses said, "Thou knowest well that these things have been sent down by none but the Lord of the heavens and the earth as eye-opening evidence: and I consider thee indeed, O Pharaoh, to be one doomed to destruction!" So he resolved to remove them from the face of the earth: but We did drown him and all who were with him," (17:102-103).

My Response: [a list of websites, which I removed since they are not Mr. Zawadi's responses]

Matt Slick's Response: All that Mr. Zawadi did was provide a list of websites. There was no commentary--no response to my questions on his part. Again, this is not a response, and I am not obligated to read through who knows how many pages of material on various websites in order to rebut whatever they might say. Also, if I were to try to respond to all of the pages that he merely links to, I would also be obligated to obtain permission to reproduce their work in order to refute them. Again, if Mr. Zawadi wants to tackle my papers, then let him actually do it instead of referencing other peoples' work. If this is all he is going to do, then he isn't responding; and he is wasting my time since he isn't answering the questions. I then ask why is he even bothering? Finally, I am quite surprised that the Muslims who have contacted me saying my papers have been "answered" actually consider Mr. Zawadi's effort to legitimate one. Unfortunately, listing other peoples' work can easily mean that Mr. Zawadi is not capable of doing it himself.

Bassam Zawadi's Original: Matt Slick said: Is wine consumption good or bad?

  1. O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper," (5:90).
  2. (Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?" (47:15).
  3. Truly the Righteous will be in Bliss: On Thrones (of Dignity) will they command a sight (of all things): Thou wilt recognize in their faces the beaming brightness of Bliss. Their thirst will be slaked with Pure Wine sealed," (83:22-25).

My Response: [a list of websites, which I removed since they are not Mr. Zawadi's responses]

Matt Slick's Response: All that Mr. Zawadi did was provide a list of websites. There was no commentary--no response to my questions on his part. Again, this is not a response, and I am not obligated to read through who knows how many pages of material on various websites in order to rebut whatever they might say. Also, if I were to try to respond to all of the pages that he merely links to, I would also be obligated to obtain permission to reproduce their work in order to refute them. Again, if Mr. Zawadi wants to tackle my papers, then let him actually do it instead of referencing other peoples' work. If this is all he is going to do, then he isn't responding; and he is wasting my time since he isn't answering the questions. I then ask why is he even bothering? Finally, I am quite surprised that the Muslims who have contacted me saying my papers have been "answered" actually consider Mr. Zawadi's effort to legitimate one. Unfortunately, listing other peoples' work can easily mean that Mr. Zawadi is not capable of doing it himself.

Bassam Zawadi's Original: Conclusion

Obviously I in no way whatsoever deserve any credit for this article. Clearly, all the issues have already been addressed by other Muslims (may Allah greatly reward them). I just found that it might be useful to make a comprehensive article with the rebuttals in them to the so called contradictions that have been put forward.

There are no contradictions in the Quran. I really hope that people out there would be objective and search for the truth and if they think that there are contradictions in the Quran then they should go and search for the rebuttal to it. Then they judge for themselves.

Matt Slick's Response: Conclusion: I agree that Mr. Zawadi does not deserve any credit for this article. I do not find listing other peoples' work, when you are intending to deal with an individual's paper, to be an adequate defense by any means. I am very disappointed in the Mr. Zawadi's effort. I can only hope that if he were to seriously attempt to respond to my work, that he would actually write responses instead of pointing to others' websites.

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison