hamba2han's Quranic challange

[Verisimilitude]

So says Muhammad, …

Well answered.

Ibn Taymiya, Let’s review to see if I understand correctly. I asked:

Does everyone allow the free expression of everyone else to leave and change ones faith or religion, as their understanding of Truth leads them? without being publicly harassed or killed everywhere in the world?

You responded with:

As for Jihad, and why it was sanctioned, click here

Me:

I assume you are Sunni Muslim. A happy slave to god. Do you know how much allah loves his slaves-you?

You:

Is this the way you preach your religion? What an attractive way!

Me:

Is it any less attractive than dhimmitude and death?

Well, read the link I gave you about that case.

And that says:

Jihad was sanctioned to protect people and let them leave peacefully by fighting the heads of infidelity who stand as an obstacle preventing Islam to reach people…There is no other solution, otherwise the people in the village will die. This is simply the Jihad, it’s not a terrorism, it’s a war against terrorism, a war so that people can live under the piece of Islam, God said in the Quran

I’ll raise my head for you to see me clearly as an infidel, OK? I don’t want to live under Islam or its ‘protection’. Many who do don’t want to either. I do not believe in allah or his messenger- never will. I want people to leave Islam peacefully and will help if I can.

In Jihad, unlike the wars in the Old Testament, Muhammad ordered Muslims when fighting not to kill women, children or an old man or a monk…

True, God seems to have given clear and Lawful Title of Palestine as promised to the Jews. They call it Israel and it is smaller now than it was in antiquity. Truly Mohamed saw profit in how he dealt with slaves and conquered tribe’s people. He made it prophetable to be Muslim whereas God made the Jews earn it.

When Muslims enter a city, before they fight they must first invite people to Islam, and let them know about Islam, if they accepted, then fighting them is forbidden, if they didn’t then the Jizya (tax), if they accepted, then fighting them is forbidden, if they rejected, then it’s the war:

Do you consider a Country a city?

If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.

Has the Muslim world invited America/UK/Australia/Israel… to accept Islam yet? Oops, no Caliph yet. Though it hasn’t kept Muslims from fighting today, when will that happen do you think?

As for Jizya, it’s value is very low, and women, children, monks and old men are exempted from it

Why does Islam deserve such tribute?

Finally I must say that Jihad is done when the Muslim nation is strong enough to perform it, and it must be under the caliphe, it is not a mess that anyone goes and blows himself up within non-Muslims, this is not considered a Jihad, it’s a misunderstanding of Jihad, and this is actually the result of ignorance.

Nothing is misunderstood here. Are you strong enough to fight me yet? If not, maybe if you allowed Catholic Charities in your country we can help you reach your goal faster. My wife has done a number of Operation Smile Missions, but none in a Muslim country…too dangerous. The trip to Jordan was cancelled at the last minute. Russia was as close as she got to a totalitarian state.
Will the compassion my faith requires of me put me in physical and spiritual danger if I help the poor and suffering who are just waiting to be strong so they can fight me?
How well do we understand each other?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Did you see me denying that he said so? I didn’t, this is a claim with no evidence. But the truth is what Anas bin Malik narrated that he recited Al Baqarah and Al Imran which means that he was taught, and if he wrote them, then he wrote them after he was taught, the hadith clearly says that he recited, and many Suras were written before him, so his claim is falling when he says that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) don’t know except what he wrote for him, your reply that this was false and incorrect, I asked you: why? you didn’t answer me. You are only following a claim without evidence.

You now claim that he was TAUGHT. Where does it say he was TAUGHT?

it only says he RECITED and he WROTE.

Can you not recite something you wrote? Or does being the author preclude you from reciting what you wrote?
ibn taymiya:

Well, if Muslims didn’t trace him, and time rolled on, this means that Muslims ignored him, now is it logical that after Muslims ignored him throughout this time that they come and take him out of his tomb and leave him? Don’t you see this a bit weird?

No. You are making a gross assumption here. You don’t know where he ran away to. The Muslims may not have known either until after he had died.
ibn taymiya:

And if he was really surrounded with scribes, that each scribe writes a Sura for him, wouldn’t something like that be well known? The scribes used to write the revelation AFTER God sent it, not the opposite. And if that Christian guy really wrote Al Imran, will he write the whole Sura and leave the most important part talking about Christianity. Still I see high imagination.

That is why you will only find the three Christian scribes saying this. The rest were Muslims and were in on the fraud. Only the Christian scribes had the conscience to see that it was a fraud and hence they apostatized.

The others were Ibn Khatal and Abdullah ibn Sahr.
Ibn taymiya:

If we assumed that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) took the concept from that guy, still the rhetorical way in writing them was miraculous, that the Arabs couldn’t meet the challenge, although they were famously known to be very rhetorical, you will try to give me that hadith about that Christian and his fool claim, I will go with you although I clearly see that you have no point in it, and I have already proved this, if that Christian made these Suras, and if other scribes made other Suras, couldn’t the Arab pagans answer the challenge? They already had very rhetorical people, and the Arab literature clearly testify this, and they were much more powerful than Muhammad (Peace be upon him) for more than 13 years, and if they were able to meet that challenge which God kept on challenging them with, they would have done as soon as possible, and it would have been destroying Islam, especially that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) didn’t have any power at that time, but we find that they couldn’t, and they never can. This itself is a clear proof that Quran was really sent by God.

The challenge had been met. This Christian guy wrote 2 surahs (or most of these 2 - which may have had additions to them in later years).

You Muslims don’t even realize this. You thought al-Baqarah and al-Imran was from Allah via Muhammad. Little did you know that it was a Christian scribe who actully wrote this.

Hence this proves two things:

1. The ‘sura-like-it’ challenge was met twice.
2. You are biased and hence cannot even judge this challenge. Two suras-like-it were put in front of you and you thought they were from Allah.

 

[Verisimilitude]

1. The ‘sura-like-it’ challenge was met twice.

Three times if you count the thread poll.

 

[french]

They KNOW??.. How do they know?

Al-Qur’an, 004.157
That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

So your “god” lied to us? Made it appear to us that Jesus was Crucified?

So you are saying that for hundreds of years, Christians risked everything they had… Their lives, their families, everything, for a lie that your “god” made? Your “god” sounds like nothing but a freaking mad monster. What a sick twisted quran and beleif you hold. I can not believe that people do not point this out more.

YOUR MONSTER ALLAH IS A LIAR.

 

[paarsurrey]

I am an anarcho socialist liberal Catholic. So get used to me!

Hi

Your above signatures sounds like you are a Protestant; yet you say you are a Catholic!

Is it not surprising?

What is the difference between you and a normal Catholic, so that we may get used to you?

Thanks

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

You now claim that he was TAUGHT. Where does it say he was TAUGHT?

it only says he RECITED and he WROTE.

Can you not recite something you wrote? Or does being the author preclude you from reciting what you wrote?

The context of the hadith is against your claim, as it says that when he became a Muslim, he first recited Al Baqarah and Al Imran, then he wrote for Muhammad (Peace be upon him), this means that the 2 Suras were known before he becomes a Muslim, read the hadith well again, besides, he didn’t say that he wrote the 2 Suras, but he only said , he doesn’t know except what I wrote for him, and the hadith doesn’t say that he wrote the 2 Suras, but it only said that he became a scribe for the Prophet (Peace be upon him) AFTER telling that he recited the 2 Suras.
And you are still escaping from my other question, if he really claimed that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) doesn’t know except what he wrote, and that he wrote the 2 Suras, well, his claim is flawed since many Suras were revealed to Muhammad (Peace be upon him) before he even becomes a Muslim.

No. You are making a gross assumption here. You don’t know where he ran away to. The Muslims may not have known either until after he had died.

You are the one making gross assumption, nowhere did the hadith tell that Muslims traced him, and didn’t find him except when he died, and another coincidence seems according to your reasoning that time rolled up and Muslims didn’t find him except when he died, and when this happened they made a man getting out him for 3 years. High imagination without evidence.

That is why you will only find the three Christian scribes saying this. The rest were Muslims and were in on the fraud. Only the Christian scribes had the conscience to see that it was a fraud and hence they apostatized.

The others were Ibn Khatal and Abdullah ibn Sahr.

You didn’t answer the question, isn’t it weird for the scribe to write the whole Al Imran and leave the most important part? And who told you that ibn khatal was a Christian or that he was a scribe?You mean Abdullah ibn Saad not Abdullah ibn Sakhr, he wasn’t a Christian either.

The challenge had been met. This Christian guy wrote 2 surahs (or most of these 2 - which may have had additions to them in later years).

You Muslims don’t even realize this. You thought al-Baqarah and al-Imran was from Allah via Muhammad. Little did you know that it was a Christian scribe who actully wrote this.

Hence this proves two things:

1. The ‘sura-like-it’ challenge was met twice.
2. You are biased and hence cannot even judge this challenge. Two suras-like-it were put in front of you and you thought they were from Allah.

You are clearly escaping my questions and keep on repeating what you are trying to convince yourself with and I am sure that you yourself are not convinced.
I asked you a question, if he could really meet the challenge by the 2 Suras, why didn’t the Arab pagans fulfill this challenge, and they had many rhetorical people, but they couldn’t meet the challenge for 23 years, and this is a clear proof that the no man could challenge the Quran’s language, because if there were, it would have been the Arab pagans who kept on trying all that time, and all Arab poets used to come to Mecca, but none of them couldn’t meet that challenge, how come that only the scribes of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) meet it, and they were not known by being that rhetorical as those with the Arab pagans?

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

I’ll raise my head for you to see me clearly as an infidel, OK? I don’t want to live under Islam or its ‘protection’. Many who do don’t want to either. I do not believe in allah or his messenger- never will. I want people to leave Islam peacefully and will help if I can.

It’s yours, I have nothing to do with it, but as for your last sentence, I’d like to tell you that verse:
32. They seek to extinguish the light of ALLAH with their mouths; but ALLAH refuses but to perfect HIS light, though the disbelievers may resent it. 33. HE it is Who has sent HIS Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that HE may make it prevail over every other religion, even though the idolaters may resent it.

True, God seems to have given clear and Lawful Title of Palestine as promised to the Jews. They call it Israel and it is smaller now than it was in antiquity. Truly Mohamed saw profit in how he dealt with slaves and conquered tribe’s people. He made it prophetable to be Muslim whereas God made the Jews earn it.

This is your opinion, but it is not necessary to be true.

Do you consider a Country a city?

According to the classification, it can be a country or a city. I don’t understand your point in that question.

Has the Muslim world invited America/UK/Australia/Israel… to accept Islam yet? Oops, no Caliph yet. Though it hasn’t kept Muslims from fighting today, when will that happen do you think?

When Muslims recover and restore back to their religion, the same as what happened during the Crusades, when Muslims were away from Islam, so they were defeated in the beginning, but when Salaheddine came and Muslims began to recover, we were able to restore Jerusalem.

Why does Islam deserve such tribute?

To protect the dhimmis from external dangers, and as a source of money, don’t you pay taxes to your country, and I hear that they are very high in US, why didn’t you object?

Nothing is misunderstood here. Are you strong enough to fight me yet? If not, maybe if you allowed Catholic Charities in your country we can help you reach your goal faster. My wife has done a number of Operation Smile Missions, but none in a Muslim country…too dangerous. The trip to Jordan was cancelled at the last minute. Russia was as close as she got to a totalitarian state.
Will the compassion my faith requires of me put me in physical and spiritual danger if I help the poor and suffering who are just waiting to be strong so they can fight me?
How well do we understand each other?

Truth must be protected by power, but truth in itself is not enough. Of course I am not talking about your faith, I am talking generally.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

So a person who breaks the treaty deserves death, and you can lie about it in order to lure him into that murder. Cool. Now we agree with something about Islam.

I don’t know what’s wrong in killing a man like this, he was a traitor. As for lying, lying in Islam is permitted within battle as a tactic, and for this case he was in a citadel, and there was no way to reach him, if you object on that concept, it’s yours. But war is a different case as many rigorous factors are present, and there are many tactics, and see how intelligence works for example, do you think that US and UK intelligence didn’t do that in their war against the Nazis? If they haven’t done so, I think that it would have happened that people might say “Heil Hitler” today. These are all intelligence acts, and that doesn’t mean that Islam condones lying, but this was a license for necessity.

And seeing that Muhammed had these people murdered you think that when people don’t object that’s signs of approval? They may have ‘submitted’ to Islamic terror.

Wrong, if you looked at the actions of the Jews in Medina, you will see that this is incorrect, Bani Qaynoqa’ killed a Muslim when he killed one of them after he attacked a Muslim lady, and Bani Al nadeer, tried to kill the Prophet (Peace be upon him). But in our case, they all knew that this man was worthy killing.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

.not that am interested in this particular hadith, but my point was that reciting does not mean having learnt it previously. We can recite what we write.

If you knew the science of hadiths, you will know that it is a big science, and it is not taken that simply, otherwise, we would have accepted any hadith anyone gives us, but that is not the case, unlike your Gospels , whom the oldest complete manuscript refers to the 3rd century, and you try to depend on church fathers ( whom many of them adopted heretic opinions blaspheming against the Holy Spirit who is supposed to teach you everything), and you don’t even see a canon they had a consensus on, everyone had his own canon. So please, you are not the one who try to be skeptic in hadith transmission, as you have lots of problems with your Gospels.

i’ll bump my thread on the subject and i’ll appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

No problem.

i am not refering to verses that mention some Jews manipulating the meaning of their scriptures infront of Muhammad but about textual corruption.We can discuss this in the other thread called : khalfan:corruption.

We can also discuss this if I had time, but I didn’t find that thread.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

ibn taymiya:

Rodrigo:

You now claim that he was TAUGHT. Where does it say he was TAUGHT?

it only says he RECITED and he WROTE.

Can you not recite something you wrote? Or does being the author preclude you from reciting what you wrote?

The context of the hadith is against your claim, as it says that when he became a Muslim, he first recited Al Baqarah and Al Imran, then he wrote for Muhammad (Peace be upon him), this means that the 2 Suras were known before he becomes a Muslim, read the hadith well again, besides, he didn’t say that he wrote the 2 Suras, but he only said , he doesn’t know except what I wrote for him, and the hadith doesn’t say that he wrote the 2 Suras, but it only said that he became a scribe for the Prophet (Peace be upon him) AFTER telling that he recited the 2 Suras.

You are reading too much into the hadiths and saying things that aren’t there, at least not in the English translations.

The hadiths just says, “There was a Christian man who became Muslim and recited al-Baqara and Ali 'Imran. He used to act as a scribe for the Prophet…

There was a person amongst us who belonged to the tribe of Bani Najjar and he recited Sura al-Baqarah and Surat Al-i-'Imran and he used to transcribe for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him).

There is nothing here that says these 2 surahs were written before he became a Muslims. He became a Muslim and then recite the 2 surahs. His writing for Muhammad is not stated to be AFTER he recited them. It’s just the way it was written.
ibn taymiya:

And you are still escaping from my other question, if he really claimed that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) doesn’t know except what he wrote, and that he wrote the 2 Suras, well, his claim is flawed since many Suras were revealed to Muhammad (Peace be upon him) before he even becomes a Muslim.

I have already answered this. Nobody says he wrote all the surahs – just 2. He became a Muslim and was then employed to write the surahs for Muhammad. Those were the 2 surahs he was employed to write. Not those before. Not those after. Only those 2.
ibn taymiya:

Rodrigo:

No. You are making a gross assumption here. You don’t know where he ran away to. The Muslims may not have known either until after he had died.

You are the one making gross assumption, nowhere did the hadith tell that Muslims traced him, and didn’t find him except when he died, and another coincidence seems according to your reasoning that time rolled up and Muslims didn’t find him except when he died, and when this happened they made a man getting out him for 3 years. High imagination without evidence.

I am not making any assumptions but merely pointed out those you made.

This is what the hadiths say:

1. He ran away.
2. Time rolled on and then he died.

Nowhere does it say the muslims tried to trace him. Nowhere is there a timing that is ‘coincidence’ to anything.

It is you who tried to squirm out of the difficulties of this hadith by bringing up the Muslims trying to trace him and the timing coincidence.

If he ran away then why did you imply that the Muslims could have killed him if the story was true? From the bald facts the only thing you can say is that he had to RUN AWAY and time rolled on (for how long we don’t know) and then he died.
ibn taymiya:

Rodrigo:

That is why you will only find the three Christian scribes saying this. The rest were Muslims and were in on the fraud. Only the Christian scribes had the conscience to see that it was a fraud and hence they apostatized.

The others were Ibn Khatal and Abdullah ibn Sahr.

You didn’t answer the question, isn’t it weird for the scribe to write the whole Al Imran and leave the most important part? And who told you that ibn khatal was a Christian or that he was a scribe?You mean Abdullah ibn Saad not Abdullah ibn Sakhr, he wasn’t a Christian either.

He didn’t leave out any part. That part was a later ADDITION. Muhammad added to al-Imran. You can’t hold it against the guy if Muhammad made additions.

Ibn Khatal was a scribe – possibly not Christian. I was writing from memory.

Okay, my memory was faulty Abdullah ibn Sa’ad ibn Abi Sahr was the Christian scribe.

Both these people apostatized.

cont.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

ibn taymiya:

Rodrigo:

The challenge had been met. This Christian guy wrote 2 surahs (or most of these 2 - which may have had additions to them in later years).

You Muslims don’t even realize this. You thought al-Baqarah and al-Imran was from Allah via Muhammad. Little did you know that it was a Christian scribe who actully wrote this.

Hence this proves two things:

1. The ‘sura-like-it’ challenge was met twice.
2. You are biased and hence cannot even judge this challenge. Two suras-like-it were put in front of you and you thought they were from Allah.

You are clearly escaping my questions and keep on repeating what you are trying to convince yourself with and I am sure that you yourself are not convinced.
I asked you a question, if he could really meet the challenge by the 2 Suras, why didn’t the Arab pagans fulfill this challenge, and they had many rhetorical people, but they couldn’t meet the challenge for 23 years, and this is a clear proof that the no man could challenge the Quran’s language, because if there were, it would have been the Arab pagans who kept on trying all that time, and all Arab poets used to come to Mecca, but none of them couldn’t meet that challenge, how come that only the scribes of Muhammad (Peace be upon him) meet it, and they were not known by being that rhetorical as those with the Arab pagans?

I have not escaped your question at all. You just failed to see that it has been answered several times already.

This episode shows you that you too biased to judge. If a pagan issued a surah like it you’d just claim he hadn’t met it. The evidence for this is that you mistook al-Baqarah and al-Imran and didn’t even realize they were ‘surahs-like-it’. This is what the Christian was saying when he said, “'Muhammad only knows what I wrote for him.”

He is saying he wrote those surahs and you didn’t even realize that.

Do you think the Muslims would admit that someone fulfilled the ‘sura-like-it’ challenge? Don’t forget we only get the Islamic perspective which is biased already. Of course the Muslims would never admit the challenge has been met. Just like you.

So we will never know if there were any Arab pagans who met the challenge since it is probable that the muslims would either:

1. refuse to admit such events.
2. fail to report it.

If anyone reported that an Arab poet met the challenge he would either be killed or he wasn’t a Muslim. Since we only have Muslim sources we are not surprised that such events are not reported.

However, sometimes things slip beneath the radar. Like this hadith which clearly shows us that al-Baqarah and al-Imran were written by the Christian scribe – which by themselves show that the sura-like-it challenge had been met. These surahs were only preserved because Muslims thought they were from Allah via Muhammad and failed to see the evidence right before their eyes – until Rodrigo Bivar points it out to them.

Chau
Rodrigo

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

“some Jews” and some “Nasara” NOT Christians. There is a difference. A nasrani to a Christian is like a JW to a Christian. This is another topic.

The same happened with Ghulam Ahmad. Some, if not millions of Muslims thought he is the awaited Mahdi. These are called heretics and are persecuted for Ahmad’s sake and still believe what he told them.This does not make it correct. They are all wrong and you agree.

You may consider them heretics, and that’s your belief, besides, they are consider a kind of historical account, as they only testified that he is foretold in the scriptures without believing in him.

which Bible? OT or NT? another thread is appreciated as well.

No problem.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Rodrigo
I have just found another narration for that hadith that totally destroys your question, the narration in Musnad Ahmad, I don’t know a translation, but here is a google translation, I know it is very bad but I will try to rephrase it:

The man writes of the prophet peace be upon him was read out, and the Cow Imran The man, if he read Al Omran cow us very mean bone .hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=11769&doc=6

The hadith says:
"There was a man writing for the Prophet(Peace be upon him), and he had read Al Baqarah and Al Imran, and it happened (the custom at their time) that if the man from us read Al Baqarah and Al Imran, he was known to be very great among us

This clearly means that they used to recite the 2 Suras before this man comes.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

ibn taymiya:

Rodrigo
I have just found another narration for that hadith that totally destroys your question, the narration in Musnad Ahmad, I don’t know a translation, but here is a google translation, I know it is very bad but I will try to rephrase it:

The man writes of the prophet peace be upon him was read out, and the Cow Imran The man, if he read Al Omran cow us very mean bone .hadith.al-islam.com/Display/D…um=11769&doc=6

The hadith says:
"There was a man writing for the Prophet(Peace be upon him), and he had read Al Baqarah and Al Imran, and it happened (the custom at their time) that if the man from us read Al Baqarah and Al Imran, he was known to be very great among us

This clearly means that they used to recite the 2 Suras before this man comes.

Thank you, ibn taymiya for NOT refuting me at all.

You are again reading too much into this hadith.

It is talking of the past tense - that there was a scribe who had read al-Baqarah and al-Imran.

We know the word ‘read’ also means ‘recite’ in arabic. (I’ve had this discussion here with some Arabs who claim that when we were talking of Muhammad’s illiteracy). It’s the same hadith but with a different translation.

Nothing here suggests that the man ‘read’ al-Baqarah and al-Imran before he became the scribe.

Rodrigo

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Do you think the Muslims would admit that someone fulfilled the ‘sura-like-it’ challenge? Don’t forget we only get the Islamic perspective which is biased already. Of course the Muslims would never admit the challenge has been met. Just like you.

So we will never know if there were any Arab pagans who met the challenge since it is probable that the muslims would either:

1. refuse to admit such events.
2. fail to report it.

If anyone reported that an Arab poet met the challenge he would either be killed or he wasn’t a Muslim. Since we only have Muslim sources we are not surprised that such events are not reported.

Wrong, that challenge was present when Muslims were weak and no power protects them, and if this challenge can be met, they would have had met it when Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was weak, and if they did, this would have been destroying Islam, at a time where there wasn’t any power to protect it, and it wouldn’t have been propagated.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Thank you, ibn taymiya for NOT refuting me at all.

You are again reading too much into this hadith.

It is talking of the past tense - that there was a scribe who had read al-Baqarah and al-Imran.

We know the word ‘read’ also means ‘recite’ in arabic. (I’ve had this discussion here with some Arabs who claim that when we were talking of Muhammad’s illiteracy). It’s the same hadith but with a different translation.

Nothing here suggests that the man ‘read’ al-Baqarah and al-Imran before he became the scribe.

Rodrigo

It seems that you didn’t understand what I mean, this was an expression in Arabic, for example, there was a hadith telling that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) cheered, the narrator says: And when the Prophet cheers, his face was enlightened. He means that this was how Muhammad (Peace be upon him) looks when he cheers, which clearly means to tell what happens when something else happens, it is the same expression used here, which clearly means that he is NOT the first one to recite or read Al Baqarah and Al Imran. May be if you knew Arabic, you’ll understand it more.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

ibn taymiya:

Wrong, that challenge was present when Muslims were weak and no power protects them, and if this challenge can be met, they would have had met it when Muhammad (Peace be upon him) was weak, and if they did, this would have been destroying Islam, at a time where there wasn’t any power to protect it, and it wouldn’t have been propagated.

Please read the word OR.

I have given possible reasons why Muslims would not report such a thing even if it happened so I have already anticipated this reply of yours.

Think about it: if a muslim knew that the sura-like-it challenge had been met he would apostatize and hence his account would not be recorded or remembered.

Thus, the fact that we only get accounts from MUSLIMS show that it is unlikely that these sura-like-it challenges would be reported.

Just look at your own behavior:
You refuse to see the evidence before your eyes.
You make excuses
You refuse to admit that the challenge had been met.

This kind of behavior would be the same with the Muslims of Muhammad’s day. They would either:

1. refuse to admit the evidence even if the challenge had been met
2. fail to report it.

The only way we can get evidence that the challenge had been met is by such hadiths where the Muslims DO NOT REALIZE that they have reported the sura-like-it challenge.

Hence even when the Muslims were weak - they would not admit the successful meeting of the challenge as they are biased, and they would not report it.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Ibn Taymiya:

It seems that you didn’t understand what I mean, this was an expression in Arabic, for example, there was a hadith telling that Muhammad (Peace be upon him) cheered, the narrator says: And when the Prophet cheers, his face was enlightened. He means that this was how Muhammad (Peace be upon him) looks when he cheers, which clearly means to tell what happens when something else happens, it is the same expression used here, which clearly means that he is NOT the first one to recite or read Al Baqarah and Al Imran. May be if you knew Arabic, you’ll understand it more.

I don’t think so. There doesn’t seem to be an expression in Arabic that says this. Please tell me so I can get my Arabic friends to check. Somehow I very much doubt what you say.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Please read the word OR.

I have given possible reasons why Muslims would not report such a thing even if it happened so I have already anticipated this reply of yours.

Think about it: if a muslim knew that the sura-like-it challenge had been met he would apostatize and hence his account would not be recorded or remembered.

Thus, the fact that we only get accounts from MUSLIMS show that it is unlikely that these sura-like-it challenges would be reported.

Just look at your own behavior:
You refuse to see the evidence before your eyes.
You make excuses
You refuse to admit that the challenge had been met.

This kind of behavior would be the same with the Muslims of Muhammad’s day. They would either:

1. refuse to admit the evidence even if the challenge had been met
2. fail to report it.

The only way we can get evidence that the challenge had been met is by such hadiths where the Muslims DO NOT REALIZE that they have reported the sura-like-it challenge.

Hence even when the Muslims were weak - they would not admit the successful meeting of the challenge as they are biased, and they would not report it.

You think about it, if this challenge was met when Muslims were weak, this would have been a great evidence against Islam, and people would have stopped entering Islam, not only this, but many Muslims would have apostatized, and Islam will vanish, especially that there is no power to protect it, and they couldn’t have defeated the pagans as they are vanishing.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

You think about it, if this challenge was met when Muslims were weak, this would have been a great evidence against Islam, and people would have stopped entering Islam, not only this, but many Muslims would have apostatized, and Islam will vanish, especially that there is no power to protect it, and they couldn’t have defeated the pagans as they are vanishing.

The hadith says he ran away to join the People of the Book. This means that he joined a Christian or Jewish community somewhere. I don’t see where it says any of them converted to Islam.

Again - you are reading too much into the hadith.