DEUTERONOMY DISSECTION:

DEUTERONOMY DISSECTION:
Two Short, Sound, Simple Proofs that Muhammad Was God’s Prophet

This essay is intended to serve as a rebuttal to David Woods’ “Deuteronomy Deductions.” The edifice of sand can be found at: http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Wood/deuteronomy_deductions.htm

David Wood in his “Deuteronomy Deductions” poses seven questions to Muslims; I hope that reader would learn all the answers herein explicitly. Those questions which needed detailed analysis have been dealt with care, so looking forward for an unbiased assay from you.

WHAT IS IT ALL ABOUT:

Jesus, peace be upon him, was a true apostles of Allah, however, because Christendom as a whole relies heavily on a grotesque concept that Jesus(peace be upon him) is their ultimate savior and redeemer constraints them into a shell from where anyone speaking against this man-made notion would be rendered as a ‘fabricator’ or simply a false prophet. No wonder, no sooner did Moses, peace be upon him, a revered figure of the Bible, prophesied Mohammad’s prophet hood in Deuteronomy 18:18 than David, a Christian polemic, sought to refute Moses, peace be upon Moses.

DEFENCE NOT REQUIRED:

In Deuteronomy 18:20 two conditions for the bona-fide of any candidate claiming messenger hood is provided:-

1. Firstly, he should not speak anything out of his whims and if he does then he is not Allah’s true prophet: “But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak…that prophet shall die.”

2. Secondly, the candidate should not speak in the name of false gods: “…or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.”

Christian polemic, out of his apprehensions goes on to write stodgy passages to “defend” the aforementioned two conditions. So, let me mollify him that I have no qualms in the ‘touch-stoneness’ of the above mentioned premises to confirm pure gold. Nevertheless, I would like to use the same argument, conversely, that is, if Mohammad, peace be upon him, passes above two tests or in other words, if he did not forge any lie or something unauthorized or/ and if he did not speak in the name of false gods, then he out to fit Deuteronomy 18:18 and be ‘that’ prophet heralded by Moses and Jesus, peace be on both mighty messengers of Allah. This logical argument is termed as Modus Ponens, as the Christian apologist educates us in his “Deuteronomy Deductions”. Furthermore, I would again use the same ‘logic and argument’ (remember A1, A2 and B1, B2 of his article) as propounded by my beloved Christian polemic to prove to his chagrin and astonishment that there is somebody else filtered out as false prophet by Deuteronomy 18:20 test. Someone from New Testament! Thus, looking forward for an unjaundiced assay.

MORTAL’S WORD GIVEN A DEGREE ABOVE CREATOR’S WORD:

In his quest to disprove Mohammad’s(peace be upon him) veracity; David corroborates condition (1.) by quoting History of Al-Tabari, which reads: “I have fabricated things against God and have imputed to Him words which He has not spoken.”

The rebuttal:

In Islamic theology, if some mortal’s, be he Muslim or otherwise, scholar or otherwise, personal opinion or writing clashes with God’s word then the former’s opinion or writing is evaluated naught. For humans have frailties; God does not. So, with this prerequisite in mind we read in The Holy Quran 69:44-47: “And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart Nor could any of you withhold him(from Our wrath).” Here, Allah provides Mohammad’s (peace be upon him) bona-fide by grounding His divine argument on the severity of consequential punishment if Mohammad, His chosen man, were to be a juggler or a quack or a forgerer.

IMMEDIATE DEDUCTIONS:

Immediately two deductions can be deduced. They are as follows:-

1. “Seizure by his right hand”
2. “Cutting of the Artery(vital sign)”

1. Seizure by right hand: In Arabic tradition and colloquial, right hand symbolized power and therefore, metaphorically, to seize someone by his right hand meant to subjugate or to stop ones progress or to fetter etc. Thus, if Mohammad, peace be upon him, would have imputed anything false or lie on Allah then he would have been subjugated, however contrastingly, we find in History that not only did he couped Mecca, a haven of his arch-enemies, but he also conquered the whole world. So, to sum up, he did not impute anything unauthorized to Allah.

2. Cutting off of the Aorta: This consequential punishment for ill attribution is so stringent and clear cut that I wonder how beloved David Wood eluded it. We know, even David knows, that Mohammad, peace be upon him, lived for more than 60 years of his life and had a natural death or put in other words his artery was not slit open, consequently, it is obvious that Mohammad did not forge any lie on Almighty.

WHAT ABOUT CONDITION (2.) OF DEUTERONOMY 18:20? :

Let me once again reproduce condition 2. of Deuteronomy 18:20, it says, that if a prophet speaks in the name of false gods then he should die. “…or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.” David Wood tries to fit Mohammad above by quoting from History of Al-Tabari, again (I exhort readers to kindly read the status of History of Al-Tabari in Islamic Theology): “Then God revealed:
By the Star when it sets, your comrade does not err, nor is he deceived; nor does he speak out of (his own) desire . . .
and when he came to the words:
Have you thought upon al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other?
Satan cast on his tongue, because of his inner debates and what he desired to bring to his people, the words:
These are the high-flying cranes; verily their intercession is accepted with approval. (Al-Tabari, p. 108)”

THE REFUTATION:

The argument is so easy to refute that it can be refuted not by one but by two approaches, namely, concordant and analytical. Let David Wood choose his flavor.

A. Concordant Approach: The rendering provided by David goes head on against myriad of Quranic Verses repudiating intercession through false gods, to mention just a few are:- 6:51,70; 10:18 etc; thus, alluding something ‘fishy’ to be present in mortal’s rendering, namely, History of Al-Tabari. So, let me produce an excerpt on the same issue but with slightly different rendering from more reliable source, nevertheless, creating a difference of chalk and cheese. But before that let us look at some scholarly work on the case at hand.

A1. Maulana Hakkani in his Tafseer Hakkani, writes:
“ Strong proofs establishes that the way this incident has been touted is absolutely false.”(Hakkani 5/209-210)(Emphasis added)

A2. Famous exegete, Ibn Hajar(Kindly mark that David Wood has taken Ibn Hajar’s work as a yardstick in his article so David should pay attention to this) expounds in the exegesis of Sahih Bukhari that “there are traces of truth in this incident but there had been short comings in its narration; for this reason the meaning of something has changed into something else!(Hadeeth –ut- tafseer, 295, included in Quran Majid translated by Sanaullah Amritsari.)(Emphasis added)
Thus, one would realize from the comments of aforementioned scholars that there is for sure something ‘fishy’ in History of Al-Tabari rendering as produced by Christian polemic.

WHAT IS THE MIST DISPELLING RENDERING THEN?:

We read in Hadith – ut – Tafseer, Jami- ul- Bayan, 295: “Once Prophet was reciting Surah Najm. When he recited “wa- manaa- tassli- sa- tal- ukhra” but people heard “tilka- gharanikul ula…(which means three idols will intercess). Thus, kindly realize the subtle difference of Prophet reciting something and diseased ears of mischievous people hearing something totally different. Allah mentions about such mischievous people in Quran 22:53 “That He may make the suggestions thrown in by Satan, but a trial for those in whose hears is a disease and who are hardened of heart: verily the wrong-doers are in schism far(from the truth).”

B. ANALYTICAL APPROACH:

To further support the baseless argument of Mohammad’s, peace be upon him, temporal lapse to polytheism, Evangandist uses Quran 22:52, however, I would also use the same verse to disprove his claim. Even if we agree for the sake of argument that Mohammad, peace be upon him, received Satanic incident as per Quran 22:52 (although the verse does not mean that in it’s remotest sense, I would like Christian apologist to prove me so if he differs.) even then it does not create any substantial case because immediately then Allah says in the same verse that he will not only expunge any thing Satanic, but also establish His signs, His revelation, Divine revelations: “but Allah will cancel anything (vain)That Satan throws in, And Allah will confirm (And establish) His Signs: For Allah is full of knowledge And wisdom:..”.
Therefore, even if Mohammad, peace be upon him, received Satanic revelations (for the sake of argument) he did not preach it or promulgate it because Allah was constantly guarding his conscience and filtering out anything ‘Davidic’.

CHRISTIANS ASK MUSLIMS REPLY

David Wood has enquired seven questions of Muslims. All his questions are answered in this paper. Nevertheless, a few questions out of the seven needed special attention which are dealt in detail hereunder:-
He asks,
“First, they must provide some reasonable explanation as to the story’s origin (e.g. they must make a plausible case that the story was invented by pagans, Jews, or Christians).”

The reply to follow is, in effect, response to FIFTH QUESTION, also.
In the first place, what difference does it make whether the story was invented by a Pagans or Jews or Christians or a Hypocrites (why avoid them) or all four colluded to invent one. The pith of the matter is that Mohammad, peace be upon him, was blamed of something but was rightly, vindicated by God’s own testimonial. (Kindly Refer: The Holy Quran 69:44-47). But because our younger ‘cousins’ have enquired, we must reply.
(Reply to Fifth Question begins from here)
Once the holy prophet suddenly recited “Surah - Najm” (Chapter 41 – The Star) among multitudes of Pagans including some Pagan notables at the sacred sanctuary. No wonder, when the awe-inspiring Words of Allah descended unawares upon them they immediately got stunned by them. It was the first time for them to be shocked by the truthful Revelation. It had formerly been favorite trick of those people who wished to dishonor Revelation, not only not to listen to it themselves but also to talk loudly and insolently when it was being read, so that even the true listeners may not be able to hear. They used to think that they were drowning the Voice of Allah: “Listen not to this Quran and make noise in the midst of its (recitation) that you may overcome.” (41:26).
When the unspeakably fascinating Words of Allah came into direct contact with their hearts, they were entranced and got oblivious of the materialistic world around them and were caught in a state of full attentiveness to the Divine Words to such an extent that when the Prophet, peace be upon him, reached the stormy heart – beating ending: “So fall you down in prostration to Allah and worship Him (Alone).” (53:62)
But natural, the idolaters, unconsciously and with full compliance, prostrated themselves in absolute God – fearing and stainless devotion. It was in fact the wonderful moment of the Truth that cleaved through the obdurate souls of the haughty and the attitude of the scoffers. Their co – polytheists who had not been present on the scene reproached and blamed them severely; consequently they began to fabricate lies and calumniate the Prophet, peace be upon him alleging that he had attached to their idols great veneration and ascribed to them the power of desirable intercession. All of these were desperate attempts made to establish an excusable justification for their prostrating themselves with the Prophet, peace be upon him, on that day.

He asks again,
“Second, they must explain why Muslims, who had every reason to reject such a story, passed it on as if it were true (instead of exposing it as a fabrication.”(Emphasis added)

I am sorry but the above question clearly elicits poor and vicious exegesis. Because Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari(Author of History of Al-Tabari) never transmitted anything of his book ‘as if it were truth’ infact it is the other way round. The author himself doubts the authenticity of his work so much so that he writes( no wonder David did not read it lest this question would not have cropped up) on the introduction page of his book, History of Al-Tabari:
“ Let him who examines this book of mine know that I have relied, as regards everything I mention therein which I stipulate to be described by me, solely upon what has been transmitted to me by way of reports which I cite therein and traditions which I ascribe to their narrators, to the exclusion of what may be apprehended by rational argument or deduced by the human mind, except in very few cases. This is because knowledge of the reports of men of the past and of contemporaneous views of men of the present do not reach the one who has not witnessed them nor lived in their times except through the accounts of reporters and the transmission of transmitters, to the exclusion of rational deduction and mental inference. Hence if I mention in this book a report about some men of the past, which the reader of listener finds objectionable or worthy of censure because he can see no aspect of truth nor any factual substance therein, let him know that this is not to be attributed to us but to those who transmitted it to us and we have merely passed this on as it has been passed on to us.”.Thus, Al-Tabari only ingeniously related these accounts as he received them and inscribed them in their totality. Then, can we hold Al-Tabari liable of transmitting it as a fact or truth? No, rather he transmitted it doubtfully and objectionably leaving the burden of examination for his readers.

Christian asks for the third time,

“Third, they must show that Ibn Ishaq, Wakidi, Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Mardauyah, Musa ibn ‘Uqba, and Abu Ma’shar were sloppy historians (so amazingly sloppy that they included false stories about Muhammad that called his prophethood into question).”

Although there is nothing much left for me to write but to direct the questionnaire to above response(response to second question), however, I would like to add a rhetoric question to better understanding of the Christian polemist, “Was St. Barnabas(“One who encourages”) also a ‘sloppy’ Historian?, Did not he come up with a monumental work, “Gospel of Barnabas”, with a lot of sloppiness in it?“ Why did the ‘One who encourages’ discouraged Christians to the point of jeopardizing idiosyncratic Christian tenets.” Of surety, St. Barnabas should top the charts in terms of ‘sloppiness’. By the way he is the same St. Barnabas whose compassion for Christianity is unquestionable, as he, “sold a field he owned, brought the money, and handed it over to the apostles.”(Acts 4:37, TEV).
Furthermore, Acts 11:24(TEV), embarrasses everyone anyone who points finger to the integrity of St. Barnabas, “Barnabas was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and many people were brought to the lord.”

Barnabas was no less than an apostle: “We agreed that Barnabas and I would work among the Gentiles and they among the Jews.”(Gal 2:9 TEV). Can you consider St. Barnabas - an apostle; as a ‘sloppy’ apostle?

His fifth question (His fourth question has been answered in so many words in the refutations above),

“Fifth, they must explain why al-Bukhari, Islam’s most trusted authority, confirms certain details of the story that only make sense if Muhammad really did deliver the Satanic Verses. According to Bukhari,
The Prophet performed a prostration when he finished reciting Surat an-Najm [Surah 53], and all the Muslims and Al-Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah and in His Messenger Muhammad) and jinn and human beings prostrated along with him. (4862)”
I would request the questionnaire to kindly guide himself to the response of the first question. He ought to find this answer there. This question is explicitly answered there.

His most absurd question, the sixth one, namely,

“Sixth, Muslims must account for Surah 22:52, which, again, declares that all God’s prophets received revelations from Satan—a verse so preposterous that it could only have been offered to the Muslim community as an absurd explanation for something like the Satanic Verses.” (Emphasis added)
Before I reply let me quote The Holy Quran 22:52: “Never did We send A messenger or a prophet Before thee, but, when he Framed a desire, Satan Threw some (vanity) Into his desire: but Allah will cancel anything (vain)That Satan throws in, And Allah will confirm (And establish) His Signs: For Allah is full of knowledge And wisdom:..”
After adducing the verses, I am compelled to ask that did Christian ‘Polemist’ understand those verses OR does he at all understands simple English? Because the verse says that whenever a prophet conceived any DESIRE, Satan threw some thing vain INTO HIS DESIRE. As clear as that. Thus, I am startled to ask, “Sir, how does this made you write, “God’s prophets received revelations from Satan”? Is desiring something similar to receiving revelations from Satan?! Amazing scenario!, “…seeing they see not, hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” (Do not ask me who uttered these befitting words).

His seventh question:

“Seventh, they must show non-Muslims why we should reject all the available evidence and believe that Muhammad was spiritually reliable, when, as all informed Muslims will admit, Muhammad was the victim of black magic (a spell cast by a Jewish magician) and, at one point, was convinced that he was demon-possessed. Put differently, if the Prophet of Islam could mistakenly believe that he was demon-possessed, and was susceptible to spiritual attacks (such as black magic), why shouldn’t we believe that he could fall prey to revelations from Satan?”

My entire refutation revolves round this query as to the “evidence” purported by you is no evidence. The sources from where the citations have been adduced themselves disown their excerpts as “proofs”. Next, to say because once Mohammad, peace be upon him, was attacked (black magic) and then to infer that he will promulgate Satanic revelations after receiving them is far-fetched and based on wild pre-suppositions. It is as wild a presumption as to say, “If Lot, a veritable Prophet of Judaism and Christianity (and Islam excluding Biblical portrayal) could get drunk then why could not he have delivered irrational statements as Divine revelations in his inebriation.” (Kindly refer: To The HOLY Bible, Genesis 19: 33-35, for incest and bacchanalian orgies comprising of ‘Father and Daughters’).

If this argument does not satiate then at least Mohammad, peace be upon him, did not manufacture Idols like Biblical Aaron, an apostle of God, for his multitudes to defile themselves with. And make mockery (I would soon be producing you Biblical verses which are down right humorous from the very literal import of the word, which Christians mistook to be ‘inspired’.) of monotheism and prophet hood.

TURNING TABLES OVER:

If the yardstick to check the veracity of any candidate touting to be prophet is, quoting David Wood of his deductions of Deuteronomy 18:20,:

Here we have two criteria for spotting a false prophet: (1) delivering a revelation which God has not “commanded him to speak,” and (2) speaking “in the name of other gods.” (Emphasis added)

AND YET AGAIN, he provides the same criterion:

“Argument B—false revelations and false prophets
B1. If a person delivers a revelation that doesn’t come from God, that person is a false prophet.(Emphasis added)

B2. Muhammad delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.
——————————————————
B3. Therefore, Muhammad was a false prophet.”

Therefore, to paraphrase, a veritable Prophet should not speak anything which has not been authorized/endorsed or “commanded” by God to him. That is to say, if the candidate speaks out of his own whims then that Prophet is a false prophet and “he should die”.
Now, with this concept in the background let us analyze ‘Apostle Paul’.

It is reported of Paul as saying: “I speak not by commandment, but I am testing the sincerity of your love by the diligence of others.”(The Open Bible: 2 Corinthians 8:8,NKJV)

Here, Paul did not had any specific “command” from Almighty, nevertheless, embarrassingly he was currying people’s love and respect to him to transmute his personal opinions as spiritual decrees.

OR

“Now, concerning what you wrote about unmarried people: I do not have a command from the Lord, but I give my opinion …” (Holy Bible: 1 Corinthians 7:25, Today’s English Version)

“Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment …”(The Open Bible: 1 Corinthians 7:25, NKJV)

It does not require any stodgy exegesis here that Paul was using his own whims; he admittedly, did not had any command from Higher authority, contrary to that, he was presumptuously basing his judgments upon his own personal feelings. Therefore, violating the aforementioned premise that if he (purported candidate) delivers a revelation which does not come from God, such a candidate would be spurious prophet.
One might object that Paul was only passing judgment he was not promulgating personal revelations. Such a person should take note of that the issue on which Paul was passing “judgment” was no mundane issue; it was a spiritual - a religious issue. And Christians would agree with me that religion is not man made, its tenets, its rules and regulations on any matter - every matter is to be set by God through revelations through His apostles. As in the case of Mohammad, peace be upon him, a truthful messenger of God, he would rather wait for revelations to descend without passing judgments than relying on his own personal opinions. His judgments, thus, were not his judgments but God Almighty’s. The authentic modus operandi of an authentic apostle of Almighty.

It is verifiably established, from Biblical sources, that Paul was not a true apostle, however, he used his own mind to cull decrees of spiritual import. Not only that, he shamelessly, used the love and favor of the multitudes to impress on them decrees of spiritual relevance. These facts only elicit the selfish nature of the man to rule over multitudes.

IN THE END:

“Soon will We show them Our Signs in the (furthest) Regions (of the earth), and In their own souls, until It becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that Thy Lord doth witness All things?”(The Holy Quran, 41:53)

Note: I entreat Allah through this paper of mine to bestow mercy and blessings on my father who rests in his grave now. Ameen.

By: Question Mark