A CRITIQUE OF A RESPONSE OF ANSWERING ISLAM by AHLUSSUNNAHWAL JAMAAH

A critique of the response of search

Answering Islam’s Answer against Islamic Awareness. First it is necessary to produce the Islamic Awareness’s Answer then Answering Ismam’s answer before beginning the criticism.

Answer Of Islamic Awareness

Assalamu-`alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction Christian missionaries have claimed that the Qur'an contains a historically impossible narration when it mentions the name al-Samiri which some translate as the "Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95). They claim that: The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (Sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

We have already discussed the origins of the Samaritans in the paper The "Samaritan" Error in the Qur'an. We had mentioned that until the middle of the 20th century it was commonly believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest (722 BCE). In recent years however, new research based on a more careful 1

study of the Samaritan Chronicle has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. The Samaritans are the direct descendants of the Joseph tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh, and until the 17th century C.E. they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. The Qur'anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as the "Samaritan" (Qur'an 20:85, 87 and 95) is entirely consistent with modern investigations into the origin of the Samaritan sect. This paper responds to a different allegation, that the Qur'anic story mentioned in surah 20: 8595 was in fact based on Jewish myths and fables. The Christian missionary Tisdall attempts to explain the origin of the "Samaritan" story in his book The Original Sources Of The Qur'an: This legend also comes from the Jews, as is evident from the following extract which we translate from Pirqêy Rabbi Eli'ezer, § 45, "And this calf came out lowing [the sound uttered by cattle; moo], and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Yehûdah says that Sammaêl was hidden in its interior, and was lowing in order that he might deceive Israel." The idea that the calf was able to low must come from the supposition that, though made of gold (Exodus 32. 4), it was alive, since it "came out" (5. 24) of the fire. Here, again, we see that the figurative expression, when taken literally, led to the growth of a myth to explain it. The Muhammadan commentator in explaining the words "a calf in body" in the Qur'an as signifying that it had "flesh and blood" has only gone a step further, and he does this to explain how it was that the animal could low. Muh ammad seems to have understood most of the Jewish legend correctly, but the word Sammaêl puzzled him. Not understanding that this is the Jewish name of the Angel of Death, and perhaps misled as to the pronunciation, he mistook the word for the somewhat similar "Samiri", which means "Samaritan." Of course he made this mistake because he knew that the Jews were enemies of Samaritans, and he fancied that they attributed the making of the calf to one of the latter. He was doubtless confirmed in his belief by some indistinct recollection of having heard that Jeroboam, king of what was afterwards called Samaria, had "made Israel to sin" by leading them to worship the calves which he made and placed in Dan and Beth-el (I Kings 12. 28, 29). But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years later after Moses' death, the anachronism is at least amusing, and would be startling in any other book than the Qur'an, in which far more stupendous ones frequently occur. [1]

He believes that the story is entirely Jewish in origin, and furthermore, he also mentions the "amusing anachronism" in the Qur'an concerning the mistaken usage of the term "Samaritan". This "amusing anachronism" has already been refuted. Now, concerning the Jewish origins of the story, Tisdall would like us to believe that Muhammad lifted this material from a Rabbinical source called Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer. Tisdall presumably used Abraham Geiger's book, Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? as his source. Concerning the golden calf Abraham Geiger writes: Muhammad says that the calf lowed as it come forth. With this is to be compared the Rabbinical statement: "There came forth this calf lowing [2]

and the Israelites saw it. Rabbi Jehuda says that Samael entered into it and lowed in order to mislead Israel." In the Qur'an it is said that among the people of Moses there was a tribe which kept the truth. This seems to refer to the tribe of Levi and especially to their behaviour about the calf, although possibly it may refer also to their belief in Moses' mission to Pharaoh of which we have spoken before. In the biblical accounts a statement is made, which is explained by the Rabbis as follows: "From Exodus 32. 26, it is clear that the tribe of Levi was not implicated in the matter of the golden calf." [3]

Not surprisingly, Geiger also uses the rabbinical source called Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer to support his theory that Muhammad copied this story (or 'legend' as Tisdall prefers to call it) from Jewish sources. Similar claims have been made by Robert Morey, `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi and N. A. Newman. Thus, Tisdall proposes that Muhammad used the source Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer to compose the account found in surah 20:85-95. [4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

2. The Case Against Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer But Tisdall's explanation is probably the most inaccurate and inexcusable suggestion he has yet put forward. An examination of the another contemporary source of Tisdall's time reveals the answer. The Jewish Encyclopaedia published in 1905, in the same year as the publication of Tisdall's book, states under "Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer": Josh was the first to point out that in the thirtieth chapter, in which at the end the author distinctly alludes to the three stages of the Mohammadan conquest, that of Arabia, of Spain, and of Rome, the names of Fatima and Ayesha occur beside that of Ishmael, leading to the conclusion that

the book originated in the

time when Islam was predominant in Asia Minor . As in ch. 36, two brothers reigning simultaneously are mentioned, after whose reign the Messiah shall come, the work might be ascribed to the beginning of the ninth century, for about that time the two sons of Harun al-Rasid, El-Amin and El-Mamun, were ruling over Islamic realm. [8]

Thus, according to Tisdall, Muhammad composed the account found in surah 20: 85-95 using a source that had not yet been compiled until hundreds of years after his death! Long before Tisdall wrote The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, Jewish scholars had already mentioned that Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer post-dated Islam. But surprisingly the famous Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall was oblivious to this fact! Abraham Geiger's book Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen? has also been subject to recent criticisms by scholars such as Norman Stillman: ... it did tend to give exaggerated view of the Jewish contribution to the Qur'an. Many of the traditions that he

Our chronology of rabbanic literature is better today than in Geiger's, and many more texts Muslim, Jewish, and Christian - have since being published. In the light of this we know now that in some instances what was thought to be a Jewish haggadic influence in an Islamic text might well be quite the reverse. The cites are in oriental Christian as well as talmudic and haggadic literature.

Pirqe de Rabbi Eli'ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally redacted after the advent of Islam . This view of late compilation of Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer (as well as Midrash Tanhuma!) is also echoed in Encyclopaedia Of Islam: Regardless of how the story [of al-Samiri] came about, the Kur'an appears to present the earliest record of this midrashic development; aspects of it which are found in the Jewish sources (e.g., Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer and Tanhuma) would seem to date from after the rise of Islam . A detailed analysis of the dating and composition of Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer is available here. Since Tisdall lifted most of his material from his master Abraham Geiger, it is not at all surprising to find that Tisdall's sense of poor chronology matches greatly with Geiger's. Other examples of Tisdall's poor and embarrassing scholarship are exposed in his discussions concerning the Prophet's wives teaching him stories from the Bible, Salman the Persian and the story of Cain & Abel as possible Judeo-Christian sources of the Qur'an. Finally, Stillman advises us in his conclusion: [9]

[10]

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that one should be extremely cautious about assigning specific origins to the story discussed here - or for that matter, any other story in the Qur'an. [11]

Christian missionaries would of course choose to ignore this advice as "The Promotion Of Christian Knowledge" by any means is sometimes more important than accuracy and truth!

3. To Moo Or Not To Moo? The Christian missionaries seem to also have a problem with the golden calf: Did the golden calf moo? They write: Has Allah given a miracle to this false idol even though idolatery is so detested by him?

Some of these trials will expose the hypocrisy and falsehoods in the hearts of those who claim to believe; and for others it will strengthen their faith and resolve - for they are indeed the true believers. This whole life is but a test for the true believer. Just as the Children of Israel were tested, other nations were also tested. The people of Thamud for example were tested by the shecamel. There's no such thing as a free ticket to Paradise! And Allah knows best!

Related Articles 4

A related article is on the 'historical' error in the Qur'an. The "Samaritan" Error In The Qur'an

References [1] Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Original Sources Of The Qur'an, 1905, Society For The Promotion Of Christian Knowledge, London, pp. 112-113. [2] ibid., pp. 7. [3] A. Geiger, Judaism And Islam (English Translation Of Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume aufgenommen?), 1970, Ktav Publishing House Inc., New York, pp. 132. [4] ibid., See footnotes on p. 132. [5] R. Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting The World's Fastest Growing Religion, 1992, Harvest House Publishers: Eugene (OR), p. 150. [6] `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Is The Qur'an Infallible?, 1995, Light of Life: Villach (Austria), p. 316. [7] N. A. Newman, Muhammad, The Qur'an & Islam, 1996, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 367. [8] "Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer", The Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905, Volume X, Funk & Wagnalls Company, p. 59. [9] N. A. Stillman, "The Story Of Cain & Abel In The Qur'an And The Muslim Commentators: Some Observations", Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1974, Volume 19, p. 231. [10] "Al-Samiri", Encyclopaedia Of Islam, 1993, Volume VIII, E. J. Brill: Leiden, p. 1046. [11] ibid., p. 239.

Responses to Islamic Awareness

6 To Moo Or Not To Moo, That Is The Question! or The Art of Selective Quotation and the Tu Quoque Fallacy Introduction

The "Islamic Awareness" team desperately attempts to save the Qur'an from a serious historical and philosophical error - the Qur'an's claim that a Samaritan tempted the Israelites to worship the Golden Calf and that the calf mooed. Saifullah and Company use a combination of ad hominem attacks against (in their words) the famous ‘Reverend and Saint’ Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall and his master Abraham Geiger, and incomplete and selective quotations from various publications in order to defend, what they believe to be, the Word of God. 2. The Case Against Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer

The "Islamic Awareness" team quotes the The Jewish Encyclopaedia which says that the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer was written during the post-Islamic period. They conveniently omitted a point that was made in another response to "Islamic Awareness" - that there are at least two ancient manuscripts of the Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer. The ancient Vienna manuscript, which has only in recent years been translated into English, shows every evidence of being pre-Islamic. The "Islamic Awareness" team cites the Encyclopedia Of Islam to bolster their case that the Midrashic traditions (e.g., Pirke De-Rabbi Eli'ezer and Tanhuma) which contain this story post-date Islam. However, this is not true. Meyer Waxman's A History of Jewish Literature, a source also used by the "Islamic Awareness" team, tells us on page 139: Besides the cycle of Rabba, i.e. Large Midrashim on the Pentateuch, there exists another Midrashic cycle on these books known as the TanhumaYelamdenu-Midrashim. The first name given to it because of the numerous homiletic interpretations of verses quoted in the name of Tanhuma, the son of Abba, a famous Palestinian Agadist who lived towards the end of the fourth century. The second name of this cycle arises from the fact that a very large number of homilies open with the formula Yelamdénu Rabénu i.e. may our master teach us. It begins with a question in Halakah, and while the Halakic matter is dispensed with in a few words, the discussion turns to Agada and homiletic interpretation. Of this kind of Midrashim, we have several versions: (1) An older Midrash which was known to the early scholars of Italy and France by the 6

name YelamdĂŠnu, but which is now practically lost except for a few fragments; (2) the printed Tanhuma; (3) the manuscript Tanhuma which was edited and published in 1883 by the late Solomon Buber. All three belong to one Midrashic cycle, and the YelamdĂŠnu seems to have been the earliet, as collections of such homilies where the Halakah was joined to the Agada, inasmuch as the preacher was a teacher of both, existed in large numbers. It is these collections which served as the background and source books for the late Midrashim, the compilers of which drew upon them in abundance. For this reason, we find the homilies beginning with the formula, "May our master teach us," scattered through all Midrashic cycles such as the Tanhuma, Pesiktu (Sec. 84) and in the books of the Rabba (Sec. 82). The date of the YelamdĂŠnu collection is, therefore, an early one and is probably contemporaneous with the Genesis Rabba, about the beginning of the sixth century C.E., and the place of origin, Palestine. Of the other two versions, namely the Tanhumas, the printed one seems to have been earlier, but it could not have been the work of the author whose name it bears, as there are evidences which show definitely that the compiler was aquainted with the Karaite movement, with the works of Geonim written in the eighth century and other late events. The date of compilation is, therefore, placed by most scholars to be the second half of the ninth century.... The manuscript Tanhuma is not much younger than the printed one. It dates most likely from the end of the ninth century and is an incomplete version, as it contains new material only on the first three books of Moses; the other two are alike in both. Please notice that Waxman tells us that the compilation dates from the second half of the ninth century. The man who compiled this Midrash, most likely included material dating from his lifetime in addition to older material dating from the pre-Islamic period. This process is how the Midrashim evolved over the centuries. The compiler was not the author of the entire work, as another source quoted by "Islamic Awareness" points out in another article. Samuel Berman's A History of Jewish Literature, on page x, tells us: The name Tanhuma Yelammedenu was assigned arbitrarily to this homiletical compilation and is found in a number of manuscripts and in several printed editions. The first half of the title, Tanhuma, was adopted from the name of Tanhuma bar Abba, one of the most prolific aggadists in Jewish literature, who lived in the fourth century C.E.. Numerous sayings quoted in his name in the text account for the attribution of this work to him. The second half of the title Yelammedenu, is, in fact, part of the formula yelammedenu rabbenu, "may 7

our master teach us," which is repeated frequently in this Midrash. Scholars are in agreement that this formula was the title of a midrashic text that existed long before our Midrash was compiled. Though that work has been lost to us, quotations using the formula are to be found in a number of other Midrashim, as well as in our Tanhuma Yelammedenu. The Encyclopedia Of Islam entry cited by the "Islamic Awareness" team (page 1046) has some interesting perspectives concerning how, and where, Muhammad lifted the information which he used to create his tale: Speyer suggested a reference to the story of Zimri (and thus al-Samiri) ben Salu from Numbers 25:14, who was guilty of defying Moses in having relations with a Moabite woman. More recently, Schwartzbaum, developing a suggestion of Yehuda, has suggested that we have a tale in which the story of King Jeroboam's calves (one of which, according to Talmudic tradition, was able to talk, thus being parallel to the Kur'anic idea of the golden calf "lowing") has merged with that of Moses and the golden calf. The conflation stemmed from Jeroboam's statement "here are your gods, Israel, that brought you up from Egypt" (I Kings 22:28) in reference to his two golden calves, a statement which also appears in Exodus 32:4 in the mouth of Aaron. Providing the link to al-Samiri is the point that Jeroboam's capital was Shechem (I Kings 12:25), the Samaritan sacred centre. 3. To Moo Or Not To Moo, or Tu Quoque

The "Islamic Awareness" team desperately attempts to side step the issue of Almighty God being so deceitful as to trick the Israelites into the worship of an idol, something God detests, by causing the Golden Calf to moo. The question of whether, or not, God would deceive people into sinning highlights the differences between the God of Christianity and the god of Islam. The Quran testifies that Allah is a deceiver: Lo! the hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He Who beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perform it languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but little; (Sura 4:142) Further passages which claim that Allah is a deceiver or schemer include Suras 8:30 and 3:54. Allah even misleads people and has actually created people to burn in Hell: 8

"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is rightly guided, and whom He leads astray, they are the losers! We have created for Hell many Jinns and men... Do ye desire to guide him whom Allah led astray? Whom Allah leads away, you will find no way for him." Sura 4:87, 90 (c.f. S. 11:118, 120) "Those whom Allah wills to guide, He opens their breast to Islam; Those whom He wills to leave straying, - he makes their breast close and constricted, as if they had to climb up to the skies: thus does Allah lay abomination on those who refuse to believe." Sura 6:125 "Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell." Sura 7:179 "Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will." Sura 14:4 With this view of God, I wonder if the "Islamic Awareness" team has ever considered the possibility that Allah is deceiving them? If we compare the Muslim god with the God worshiped by Christians, we find that God is Holy and Faithful, Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands. Deuteronomy 7:9 The quality of Faithfulness is essential to God's being because without it, He would not be God. If God acted in a way that was unfaithful, it would be to act contrary to His nature, and this is impossible: "... if we are faithless, he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself." 2 Timothy 2:13 "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; for He is faithful that promised." Hebrews 10:23 For God to mislead the Israelites into worshiping an idol is unthinkable based on the Faithfulness and Holiness of God. God does not test people through deception: "There has no testing taken you but such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tested above that you are able; but will with the testing also make a way to escape, that you may be able to bear it." 1 Corinthians 10:13 The "Islamic Awareness" team then employs the Tu Quoque fallacy in a somewhat bizarre argument:

We will simply reply by saying that Christians themselves report the idols or statues of Virgin Mary performing "miracles" for believers. This has been reported in both Europe and Latin America. Does that now mean that their (Trinitarian) god has given these idols the power to perform miracles, even though idolatry is so much detested by God? In other words, if my religion has a problem, then so does yours. As a Bible believing Christian, I do not accept such things as a sign of anything - God is not the deceiver, that distinction belongs to Satan. Bleeding statues, crying icons, milk drinking Ganesh statues, the Shahada in the tomato, and false prophets such as Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and Sun Yung Moon are deceptions created by man and/or Satan. The Bible warns us: Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1) For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. (Matthew 24:24) Does this prove that Muhammad borrowed his tales from the Midrash? No, it does not. In fact, Jewish scholars, such as Berman, tell us that they have no idea of the original text of the Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu, or how much of it can be attributed to Rabbi Tanhuma. However, the question cannot be so easily dismissed with the selective quotations of the "Islamic Awareness" article. Andrew Vargo

Responses to Islamic Awareness Answering Islam Home Page

The story of Calf is not only found in ‘Al Qur’a:n but also in Tanach/Tanakh [JewishBible] as well. This does not imply that Qur’a:n Hath borrowed it from Bible stated above. Similarly if the same or similar story is found in some other books like …… it is not implied that they have borrowed it from It.

11 The borrowing theory is based from the Axiom of disbeleave.. The Axiom is that “ ‘Al Qur’a:n is neither a Divine Revelation nor a Divine Aspiration. This Axiom implies that what so ever is stated in ‘al Qur’a:n must be borrowed either as it is or with some modifications. An Atheist who does neither believe in Supreme Being [ God/god] not believe in Divine Revelation believes that these are borrowed, since If Almighty Being Doeth not exist then it is impossible that IT can Reveal any thing. But a theist or one who do believe in a Divine Supreme Being consider the Possibility of Revelation and Aspiration from the Supreme Being stated above. In this case a theist or a believer cannot deny the Possibility that what so ever is mensioned in Noble Qur’a:n is a Divine Revelation in general and this Calf story inparticular. If Revelation is Impossible even if there is a Supreme Being then not only the claim of Quran becometh incorrect but also the claims of Bible and New Testament. To claim that Revelation in Qur’a:n is impossible but the revelation of each and every book in Bible and New Testament are Possible is incorrect and impossible. To make such distinctions is incorrect and wrong. If there is a Supreme Being and if Divine Revelations are Possible then it is possible that not only Quran or Books of Bible are Divine Revelations but it is POSSIBLE THAT they both are. In other words If there is a Supreme Being and if Revelations or Aspirations or Both types of them are Possible ; and if there is a Supreme Being then it is not only possible for Qur’an or books of Tanach or of New Testament to be Revelations or Aspiration or both but it is possible for each one of them to be Divine Revelation or Divine Aspiration or Both. In this case the claim that “Qur’a:n Hath borrowed some material from some books which were written prior to the emergence of Al Qur’an with certainty and certitude” is falsified. There is a Possibility that Qur’a:n is a Divine Revelation or Divine Aspiration or Both. As the certainty Ceaseth it reduces to the case of Probability. Whether it is a high probability or a low ,it is an other matter. This is however the case that the claim of certainty of borrowing is False. It may be claimed that there are two types of Impossibilities. 1] Absolute Impossibility. 2] Relative Impossibility. Probability in both cases is Zero or Cipher. For example probability that God/god Shall make Himself Cease to Exist is Zero even according to Trinitarian Standard, and the Probability that the Hypostatic Union Shall Cease to Exist is also Zero or Cipher; yet the former mentioned act is Absolutely Impossible, while the latter mentioned act is Relatively Impossible. An other example is that to incarnate in an other human nature , other then of Iesous is Relatively impossible and to incarnated in lower or higher natures are absolutely impossible. Yet the probability of both acts is Zero. So the only thing which can be claimed by a rational opponent of Qur’a:nic Truth is that the “It is absolutely Possible that Qur’a:n is a Divine Aspiration or a Divine Revelation and there is neither logical 11

12 impossibility nor Absolute Impossibility in it that Qur’a:n is Divine, and From the Supreme Being, yet it is Relatively Impossible. So the claim of certainty is not falsified. Refutation Of Objection:= If a thing is Not Absolutely Impossible then it is Absolutely Possible. If it is Absolutely Possible then in a number of cases it is Relatively Impossible, like the incarnation of First or Third Hypostases in the Divine Ousia of God the Trinity as according to Athanasian Christianity, and in an other number of cases it is not. But the original claim that Qur’a:n is not a Divine Revelation is based on at least one of the following preliminaries := 1] The Existence of Supreme Being is Absolutely Impossible. If there is no Supreme Being then It Is Absolutely Impossible for the for the Non Existent to Reveal or to Aspire any thing. Only an A theist can hold this Preliminary. 2] The Revelation or Aspiration is Absolutely Impossible, even if there is a Supreme Being. But this view if it is assumed to be true Falsifies not only Qur’a:n but each and every Book of Bible and New Testament. 3] Divine Revelation is Possible in case of Books other than Qur’a:n stated above, and Absolutely Impossible for Qur’an. This is the most illogical claim and is it self Absolutely Impossible wrong and incorrect. So any claim based on the Absolute Impossibility is incorrect. Turing back our attention to words Relative Impossibility one does require any argument as according to The standard of other Relative Impossibilities. But uptill now there is none. So if a thing is Absolutely Possible and not Relative Impossible its Probability cannot be Zero or Cipher. This does falsify the claim of certainty stated above. Now we come to an other problem. If it is said that it is however Absolutely Possible that Supreme Being Doeth Reveal Quran yet Supreme Being Doeth lack the Power to do so, is just to believe that Divine Power is not Omnipotence. Anti Islam elements have coined a formula type argument to disbeliebe in Qur’a:n in any case. 12

13 1] If Qur’an or Canonical Hadis reporteth any thing at it is which is found in books existing on earth prior to Qur’a:n , the claim that this is a case of borrowing. 2] If Qur’a:n or Hadis reporteth any thing which is found in books existing on earth prior to Qur’an with some differences, they claim that the material was borrowed with some modification or errors ; distorting the materials from their original sources what so ever. 3] If Qur’a:n or Hadis reporteth some thing unique not found in previous work, they claim that it is a work of pure imagination. So to any logically possible case as there is no forth case they are making one of the three claims, in order to disbelieve in Qur’a:nic Truth. But one thing they are certainly not going to do and that they are not going to accept the Possibility of being revealed or aspired from Supreme Being. In extreme case they are not accepting the Absolute Possibility, in some moderate cases they are not accepting the Relative Possibility since they do not deny the Absolute Possibility. An other extreme level is not to specify the type of Impossibility. OMNISCIENT WITNESS. As the Supreme Being is Omniscient and Witness of every act and event , it is Absolutely Possible that Supreme Being Hath Narrated the actual events of the Past in Qur’an to the Holy Prophet [PBUH]. In this case there is no borrowing at all. AN EXAMPLE. Suppose that Event E did occur in time t0 . Suppose that Observers O1,O2,….On reported this event . Suppose that this report was distorted by secondary reports and even by some observers.

Suppose that there is a silent yet authentic reporter who reports it in the last accurately. But a number of supporters of the other reporters criticize this reporter as borrowing material from others , yet distorting them and contradicting historical facts /truths. This is certainly incorrect. 13

In general and in the case of story of calf the same case is repeated. A] It is assumed that if the Omniscient Supreme Being contradicteth the received Matterial then it is not these mattrerial which are false or incorrect, rather it is the Supreme Being Who Revealeth falsly and incorrectly. B] As SUPREME BEING cannot reveal falsely, Qur’an cannot be revealed from supreme being. Since Quran Contradicteth them. A simple refutation of this is that it is Absolutely Possible that some contents of received historical materials are false and the Omniscient Supreme Being is narrating nothing but pure truth. Omniscient Supreme Perfect Being is narrating and revealing it By His Omniscience and not by borrowing the information from Other sources. If it is argued that how one can believe that Qur’an is a revelation of Supreme Being is just like the question how one can believe that the books of Bible and New Testament are revielations of Supreme Being. To discuss how and why Bible and New Testament are believed to be Divine Revelations and how and why Qur’a:n is not by these objection makers is beyond the scope of the discussion. The point which must be focused at this part of the article is that as these possibilities rather Absolute Possibilities cannot be replaced by Absolute Impossibilities the arguments in favour of borrowing Are falsified.

DOETH QUR’AN CONTRADICT HISTORICAL TRUTH. This claim is based on some more axioms. Let it be studied in detail. 1] Some events did Occur in Past. 2] They are conveyed to latter generations orally or in written form or both to latter generations with Historical Certainty. [ Mathematical Certainty is out of the question]. 3] Some contents of the Text of ‘Al Qur’a:n do contradict these oral or written materials stated above. As Truth of these Materials whether oral or written or both is historically certain, any thing which contradicts them is historically false. As Qur’a:n Contradicteth them, falsehood of Holy Qur’an is Historically Certain. This is the general case of objection upon Qur’an, how ever it is used for the story of calf in this case. At different times and in different objections , this formula time objection is used for different Qur’anic Reports. One of the most fallacious tools invented to combat Qur’a;nic Truth. A DETAIL DISCUSSION ON THE ARGUMENT. As a general case this depend upon the claim that the truth of the received historical materials is historically certain. But even on secular level they are at most probable not certain. That the truth is probable not certain.One may use fuzzy logic in CASE of Historical truth or falsehood instead of Non – Fuzzy Logic. History is a subject of probable truth and probable falsehood in general. Historical certainly is just a special case of it. So unless and other wise the truth of the received historical materials is historically certain, the historicity of these materials is probable , whether the probability x varies as follow:= 0<x<1 . In this case the greatest possible objection on Qur’anic Truth is not that it contradicteth the truth received historical materials of historical certainity but that of historical probability. We have proved that if a person believes in Supreme Being , believes that the Supreme Being Hath the Power to Reveal, believes that the Revelation is Absolutely Possible ,then He or She cannot deny the Possibility that ‘Al Qur’a:n is a Divine Revelation. Other wise He or She must have to deny that there is 15

16 no Possibility of Divine Revelation and this implies that the Books in Bible and New Testament are not Revealed .

ANSWERING THE OBJECTION OF ALLEGED BORROWING. There are two types of problems in addition to the stated above problems that are faced by some objection makers [like ] 1] Suppose that Qur’a:n Hath borrowed from any book say book X1, which is authored prior to the emergence of Qur’a:n on earth then the questions is that whether the book X1 hath invented it or it hath borrowed it from another book X2 which is authored prior to the emergence of X2 on earth . If it hath borrowed From the book X2 then the question is whether the book X2 hath borrowed it from a book X3 which is authored prior to the emergence of X3on earth, and so on. AS infinite series of Books one borrowing from an other book authored prior to it is Absolutely Impossible then then there is at least one book which hath invented it. If a book Hath invented it then the same canbe said for Qur’a:n, that Qur’a:n hath invented it independent of this book and the finite series of books borrowing the material from it. Since parallel inventions are also possible. This is a better objection than the one presented by the opponents of Qur’a:n in their supposition of borrowing.

But this objection is incorrect once again that it is based upon the Absolute Impossibility of Revelation from Supreme Being or denying the Omnipotence of the Supreme Being, if not on the Non Existence of the Supreme Being. 2] There are some similar types of objections on the stories in Bible and New Testament. The claim that Qur’a:n Hath borrowed from the from some other Books , is just like the claim that Biblical Monotheism is borrowed from Egyptian Monotheistic tendencies whether in Atenism or outside

17 it.Or it is like the claim that the New Testamental Dogmas of Crucifixion and Resurrection are borrowed from some religions which existed prior to Christianity. For example the dogma of resurrection is said to be borrowed from a number of Sun Gods. But in these cases the Christian response is that they point at the dissimilarities to shew that this is not a case of borrowing. But in the case of Qur’a:n the attitude of some of the objection makers is not like that. This does prove that some of those who have a defensive approach in the case of books of Bibles and New Testament have an offensive approach against Qur’an, even if all the conditions ,states and situations are approximately the same. There are many stories in Bible that have similarities with the stories of other ancient religion. One of Secularists and atheists favorite objection against the Bible and New Testament is their claim that they are based on the old pagan stories and that Bible is the collection and adaptation of these pagan stories if not in details then in essence and substance. This is the very same claim that is used by some of the skeptics against the Qur’a:n A general trend of defending Bible and New Testament is to focus on the dissimilarities to refute the claim of borrowing While in the case of Qur’a:n some of the defenders of New Testament and Bible [Not All] borrow the very same technique from these skeptics and skeptics. Both claims are uncertain and incorrect. The objection makers on Qur’a:n become more skeptic and illogical since the methods which they borrow to distort the Qur’anic Truth is the same which is used by Anti Biblical elements against Bible and New Testament. So a method which they generally opine incorrect for Bible and New Testament is believed to be Correct and Valid against Qur’a:n. A very illogical way of arguing against the Qur’anic Text. An Argument if supposed to be valid on Qur’a:n if it is also valid against Bible or New Testament or both then either the argument is valid for all of them or none of them. Christian argument against the borrowing theories: In general Christian Apologists use the argument that a religion with some similarity with Christianity is the Influence of Christianity on the religion and not the influence of the religion on Christianity. For example in the case of Adonis it is claimed that :=

Late texts, influenced by Christians, claim a subsequent day of celebration for Adonis having been raised from the dead. The earliest of these is alleged to be the 2nd century AD ambiguous report of Lucian (Syrian Goddess 6-7) that, on the "third day" of the ritual, a statue of Adonis is "brought out into the light" and "addressed as if alive." But this is not the only proof , there are several other types of proofs which shew that some similarity does not imply act of borrowing. Even if the Ante Christian texts have shewn this, it would not have been a valid proof. For example the ancient Pagan God Ba’al son of El was killed and was resurrected. There are some similarities, which are undeniable. But Christian Scholars often try to use the differences between Ba’al And the New Testamental Christ to refute the claim of borrowing. An example is provided from the Cristian sitein the footnotes. Similarly it is argued that the El ,father of Ba’al and Yahavah/Yahuvah are the same since the word El is used for Yahuvah/Yahavah/Yehveh as well. Eg see the noun Immanu-el. The word El is used for YHVH. But such partial similarities cannot prove the claim of borrowing in the least meaning.

Yet these similarities does not prove the case that Christianity borrowed , according to Christian apologists. They are correct as according to all logic some similarity DOES NOT

imply the Borrowing whether in parts or in totality.

The same is true in the case of Touch me not Wanderer and As Samiri. Even if the book telling the story of the Wanderer Predates the Emergence of Qur’a:n on Earth, even then there is not borrowing which is claimed to be occurred. Now we come to Krishna. He is believed to be a Savior by Hindus. Some Christian scholars opine that Chrisna /Krishna os not a savior. There misconception may be corrected if the ask Hindus believers and Hindu Scholars of Krishna Sects. 18

Krishna was killed though not crucified. To be killed is an undeniable Similarity thogh a weak one yet it is. Case of death may be different yet killing [Unnatural death is Common]. Resurrection of Krishna is also found in Maha Bharta. Yet these similarities does not prove the case that Christianity borrowed , according to Christian apologists. They are correct as according to all logic some similarity DOES NOT imply the Borrowing

whether in parts or in totality.

Balarama, vexed with the battles of life, sat down in meditation and very soon the thousand headed serpent, AdiSesha, came out from his mouth and offering its salutations to Krishna, glided towards the sea (Balarama is said to be an incarnation of Adisesha). Seeing the death of his dear brother, Krishna became overwhelmed with grief and sat down besides Balarama, by some bushes.

By the amazing wills of fate, the hunter saw the foot of Krishna sticking out from the bushes and assuming it to be a deer shot it down with an arrow. The very arrow made from the lone surviving triangular piece from the mace that was delivered by Sambha. Krishna was killed by the poisoned arrow, and his soul soared back to Vaikunda, his mission on earth accomplished. Thus died Shri Krishna, the poorna avatar of Vishnu, succumbing to the arrow of a mere 19

hunter, to honor the curse of a steadfast devotee who had always prayed to him with a very pure heart. Gandhariâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s curse had acted and achieved its purpose, just like the Lord himself had promised her. Chapter 18: Conclusion-The Perfection of Renunciation TEXT 66 [ Krishna as a Savior /Deliverer. Bhagvat Gita.

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear.

CONCLUSION Difference in details does not contradict the similarity in principle acts of dying and raising from death.

But all these similarities cannot prove the claim of Borrowing in regarD to new testament. similarly it cannot Be argueD that gita BorroweD from new testament as come have also allegeD.

COMPARISION. FROM JEWISH ENCYCLOPAEDIA

21 FEEDBACKFEEDBACK The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZMorris Jastrow, Jr.George A. BartonMarcus JastrowIsaac Husik , Max Schloessinger Table of Contents

• • • • • •

—Biblical Data: —In Rabbinical Literature: In the Koran. —In Mohammedan Literature: Samiri's Identity with Samael. —Critical View:

—Biblical Data: A portable image overlaid with gold, made by Aaron at Mount Sinai (Ex. xxxii.). As the text stands, it narrates how Moses had gone up into the mountain to receive the Ten Words, and remained forty days. When the people found his return delayed they asked Aaron to make for them gods which shouldgo before them. At Aaron's request they took off the gold rings worn by the women and children in the camp. These he took and "fashioned it with a graving tool and made it a molten calf." An altar was built before it and a feast to Yhwh celebrated. Meantime Moses in the mountain had been warned by Yhwh of the defection of the people, and he now came down. Much surprised and angered when he found what was actually going on, he cast the tables of the Ten Words to the ground and broke them. He took the calf—which seems to have really been of wood overlaid with gold—and burned it till the wood was charred, and then pulverized the gold and strewed it on the water of the brook they drank from. Moses then demanded of Aaron an explanation of his conduct, and received one truly Oriental in character (see Ex. xxxii. 22 to 24). Then, seeing that the people were "broken loose," Moses called for all on the side of Yhwh to come and stand by him, whereupon all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together, and at the command of Moses went throughout the camp and slew 3,000 men—apparently all those that had been leaders in the imageworship. At Moses' command these avengers then gathered to receive the blessing of Yhwh. On the morrow Moses assembled the people, and told them that they had grievously sinned, but that possibly he could atone for them. He then prayed that he might himself be punished and the sin of the people forgiven, and was told by Yhwh to go on and lead the people forward; that those who had sinned should bear their own sin, and that one day He would punish them.

—In Rabbinical Literature: Next to the fall of man, the worship of the golden calf is, in rabbinical theology, regarded as the sin fraught with the direst consequences to the people of Israel. "There is not a misfortune that Israel has suffered which is not partly a retribution for the sinof the calf" (Sanh. 102a). The very seriousness of the offense leads the Rabbis to find circumstances extenuating the guilt of the people, and to apologize for Aaron's part in the disgraceful affair. The initiative was taken not by the Israelites, but by the Egyptians who had joined them at the time of the Exodus (Ex. xii. 38), and who were the source of a great deal of trouble to Moses and the Israelites (Num. xi. 4); for the Egyptians, when the time fixed for Moses' descent from the mountain had expired, came in a body—forty thousand of them, accompanied by two Egyptian magicians, Yanos and Yambros, the same who imitated Moses in producing the signs and the plagues in Egypt—to Aaron, and told him that it was the sixth hour of the

22 fortieth day since Moses left, the hour he named for his return (a play upon the word 1=

, Ex. xxxii.

, "the six [hours] have come"), and that Moses had not yet returned: he would never come

Satan took advantage of the opportunity, and brought gloom and confusion into the world to alarm the people. Then he told them Moses was dead, as the sixth hour had come and he had not arrived. Seeing he was not believed, he showed them a bed in the mountain with Moses in it. This convinced them that Moses was really dead; and they demanded that Aaron make them a god (Shab. 89a; Tan., Ki Tissa, 19). Hereupon Hur stepped in and rebuked them for their ingratitude to the God who had performed so many miracles for them. He was at once put to death, and Aaron was threatened with the same fate. The latter saw that he must accede to their request, but he sought a device whereby the execution of their demand would either be made impossible or at least be delayed until Moses came; for he was not ensnared by the wiles of Satan. So he ordered them to bring the golden ornaments of their wives; knowing that the women would be more grateful to God, and would refuse to part with their jewels for idolatrous purposes. His expectation was realized. Their jewels could not be obtained; and the men had to give their own. Aaron had no choice but to put the gold into the fire. A calf came out alive and skipping! One explanation is that this was due to the magical manipulation of the Egyptian sorcerers. Another is more ingenious: On the night of the Exodus, Moses searched all Egypt for Joseph's remains, but could not find them. At last Serah, the daughter of Asher, pointed out to him the place in the Nile where the Egyptians had sunk an iron chest containing Joseph's bones (Tan., l.c.; Ex. R. xli. 7). Moses took a splinter, wrote on it the words ("Come up, ox"; Joseph being compared to an ox; see Deut. xxxiii. 17), and threw it into the water, whereupon the chest rose to the surface (Tan., Beshallaḥ, ii.; Tosef., Soṭah, iv. 7; Soṭah 13a). This splinter was secured by Micah, and when Aaron cast the gold into the fire, he threw the splinter after the gold, and as a result a calf came out (compare Micah). Another reason given for this aberration of the people is that when God came down on Mount Sinai to give the Law, he appeared in the chariot with the four beasts of Ezekiel. These the people saw; and it was one of them, the ox (Ezek. i. 10), that they made an image of and worshiped. This was one of the pleas Moses made to palliate the offense of the people (Ex. R. xliii. 8). The tribe of Levi did not join in the worship of the calf (Yoma 66b). If all the people had abstained from worshiping it, the tables of stone would not have been broken, and as a result the Law would never have been forgotten in Israel, and no nation could have had any power over the Hebrews ('Er. 54a). The mysterious way in which Aaron described the origin of the golden calf gave rise to superstitious beliefs; and it was ordained by the Rabbis that this part of the account of the golden calf (Ex. xxxii. 21-25, 35) should be read at public worship in the original, but should not be translated by the "meturgeman" (Meg. iv. 10; Tosef. Meg. iv. [iii.] 36; Yer. ib. iv. 75c; Bab. ib. 25b).

In the Koran.—In Mohammedan Literature: The story of the golden calf is mentioned in the Koran (suras xx. 88 et seq., vii. 149 et seq.) as follows: "Thereupon [after he had received the Law on the mountain] Moses returned to his people, angry and afflicted, and said: '. . . Did the time [of my absence] seem too long to you, or did you desire that wrath from your Lord should fall upon you because you have broken the promise given to me?' They answered: 'We have not broken our promise given to you of our own authority, but we were made to bring loads of the ornaments of the people, and we cast them [into the fire], and Al-Samiri did likewise.' And he brought forth unto them a living, bellowing calf. And they said: 'This is your God and the God of Moses, but he hath forgotten him.' . . . Moses said: 'O Aaron, what hindered you, when you saw them do wrong, from following me [to the mountain]; have you been disobedient to my order?' Aaron answered: 'Oh, son of my mother, do not lay hold of my beard or my head—behold the people made me weak and almost murdered

23 me.' And Moses said: 'How about you, O Samiri?' He answered: 'I saw what they did not see, and I took a handful [of dust] from the footsteps of the messenger and cast it. Thus did my mind guide me.' Moses said: 'Go away, and this shall be your punishment in life that you say [to every one you meet]: "Touch me not"; and a threat is awaiting you which you shall not escape. And see, your idol which you have worshiped, we shall burn and throw the ashes into the sea'" (compare also suras ii. 48-51, 86, 87; iv. 152). When Moses departed for Sinai he made Aaron his deputy. During the absence of Moses, Aaron reminded the people that the ornaments which they had were stolen booty, and told them that they must bury them in a common hole until Moses should decide what was to be done with them. This they did. Samiri threw a clod of the earth, which the horse of the messenger Gabriel had thrown up, on the spot where they had hidden their ornaments; and thereupon God brought forth the calf (Tabari).

Samiri's Identity with Samael. This Arabic legend, in describing the fate of Samiri as that of a man compelled to wander, barred from all intercourse with his fellow-men, whom he himself is bound to warn by his pitiful cry, "Touch me not," to come not near him, seems to be one of the earliest forms into which was cast the later story of the Wandering Jew current among Christians. Yet on the whole this assumption is inadmissible. Samiri according to Geiger, is identical with Samael. According to the Arabic commentators, however, and, lately, according to Fränkel ("Z. D. M. G." lvi. 73, with especial reference to Hosea viii. 5), Samiri is indebted for his name to the fact that he belonged to the Samaritan sect. Mohammed knew, perhaps, how much this sect was hated, and (according to the report of an old but evidently lost Midrash) made the seducer a Samaritan in spite of all chronology. So Baidawi (also Palmer's translation of this sura) holds him to have been "the Samaritan." This accounts at once both for the rôle here ascribed to him and the fate meted out to him. Mohammed carried in his mind many rabbinical conceits, but in a much confused form. He had an indistinct impression of the rabbinical prejudices against the Samaritans, among which the fact that they worshiped an animal idol and poured out libations to it on their holy mountain was not the least (Yer. 'Ab. Zarah v. 44d, at foot; Ḥul. 6a). But the fact that the idol imputed to the Samaritans was a dove and not a calf became confused in his recollection of hearsay rabbinical stories. It was enough for him to know that the Samaritans were looked upon by the Jews as idolaters or even worse (Yer. Ta'anit iv. 66b; Yer. M. Ḳ. iii. 83b, middle), to make the Samaritan the arch-seducer, and artificer, by "magic," of the idol. That the Jews would hold no intercourse with the Samaritans may also have been among the disjointed fragments of Mohammed's Biblical and rabbinical lore. Hence under the decree his "Samaritan" was condemned to wander and never to permit another to defile himself by close contact. that not aaron, But another, was the real culprit in the making of the calf is also reporteD in a raBBinical account (sanh. 102, 2), accorDing to which micah (JuDges xvii. et seq.) was its maker. the threatening of aaron anD the Bleating of the calf are likewise founDeD on raBBinical sources (sanh. 5; pirḳe r. el. 45). Before the expulsion of Samiri, Moses (in accordance with Ex. xxxii. 20 et seq.) ordered the calf to be reduced to dust and the powder mixed with their drinking-water (sura ii. 87). When they drank the water it caused them great pain, and they called upon Moses for help. Then Moses told them to slay one another (sura ii. 51). Thus 70,000 were killed. The Lord sent an intense darkness to prevent their seeing one another, so that recognition of the corpses should not induce them to forbear ("jalal al-din"). Finally, the crying of the women and children moved the heart of Moses, who prayed to God to stop the murdering; and his prayer was answered immediately. Bibliography: Geiger, Was Hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume Aufgenommen? pp. 165-168; •

24 • •

Weil, Biblische Legenden der Muselmänner, pp. 169, 172; M. Grünbaum, Neue Beiträge zur Semitischen Sagenkunde, p. 169.

—Critical View: As the Exodus narrative stands, it is clearly composite. For example, in verse 7 Moses is warned that the people have sinned; and in verses 9 to 12 he seems to understand clearly what their sin is, and yet in verses 16 to 19 he is greatly surprised at what has occurred. Again, verses 7 to 12 represent Moses as praying for the sinners before he came down from the mount, while verses 30 to 34 represent him as praying practically the same prayer the day after the destruction of the image was over. Palpably the two are of different authorship. Again, verses 25 to 29 describe the vengeance that was executed on the sinners, while verse 34 regards it as still future. Critics therefore regard the narrative as made up of strata from two documents (Jahvist and Elohist), though they do not altogether agree as to the points of division. The main stratum of the story is, however, thought to come from the Ephraimitish writer (Elohist), though there are a sufficient number of points in the story taken from the Jahvist to show that his work also contain the narrative. The purpose of the original story seems to have been, as Budde thinks, to account for the selection of the tribe of Levi for the priesthood. A great crisis in the worship had arisen in which the Levites had stood for Yhwh, and punished all that opposed themselves, so that they were consecrated to the service of the priesthood (see Levi and the literature cited below). Many critics see in it a polemic against the calfworship of Beth-el and Dan, and no doubt an Ephraimitish writer of the prophetic circles of the time of Hosea would shape the tale with a view to the religious reforms in which he was interested. It is probable that at this time there was introduced into the story the view that the offense punished by the Levites was the making of a calf; but it also seems likely that there underlies the present narrative a much earlier form of the tale, a form that pictured some other crisis in which the Levites distinguished themselves and thus were elected as the priestly tribe. Bibliography: Kuenen, Hexateuch, p. 251, London, 1886; • Kittel, History of the Hebrews, i. 199 et seq., London, 1895; • Bacon, Triple Tradition of the Exodus, pp. 127-138, Hartford, 1894; • Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile, pp. 85 et seq., New York, 1899; • Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, Hexateuch, ii. 130-132, London, 1900; • and the commentaries on Exodus, especially those of Dillmann and Holzinger. •

-The story of the statue of the calf is also found in Bible. Bible held Aaron responsible for making an Idol for Israelites. Qur’a:n amd ‘Isla:m do believe that Aaron is a Divine Prophet and is infallible from such type of faithless transgression. So Qur’a:n corrects the misconception that it was Aaron, Qur’a:n takes the Noun of ‘AS Sa:miri: as the main culprit. It was As Samiriy and not the Holy Prophet Aaron [Ha:ru:n] who crafted the calf out of the materials of ornaments, and declared it as the God Of Moses. As a Prophet is Aaron cannot make the statue of the Calf then it was the responsibility of Qur’an to reveal the person who did make it. 24

25 So ‘Al Qur’a:n doeth state the actual person who was incorrectly replaced by Aaron. Who did not make it. So the Qur’a:n only differ on the Identification of the person. That is the first difference between Qur’an and its predecessors. Consider the following. Satan some how convinced Israelites that Moses was really dead; and they demanded that Aaron make them a god (Shab. 89a; Tan., Ki Tissa, 19). Hereupon Hur stepped in and rebuked them for their ingratitude to the God who had performed so many miracles for them. He was at once put to death, and Aaron was threatened with the same fate.

This is the point which is unacceptable for Islam that a Prophet is doing the greatest of all Sins and the strongest of all transgressions. So this is not Possible for an Infallible Prophet to make a calf. Aaron would have preferred to die rather then to make a false God for them. Aaron did see that he must accede to their request, but he sought a device whereby the execution of their demand would either be made impossible or at least be delayed until Moses came; for he was not ensnared by the wiles of Satan

This is what Qur’a:n rejecteth since the Omniscient Narrator narrates the event differently that Aaron did not crafted the Calf. . So he ordered them to bring the golden ornaments of their wives; knowing that the women would be more grateful to God, and would refuse to part with their jewels for idolatrous purposes.

This is once again cannot be applied to an Infallable Prophet even if he assumed that the women would not provide him their ornaments. His expectation was realized. Their jewels could not be obtained

Whether his expectations were supposed to be realized or not ,his infallibility would have prevented him. ; and the men had to give their own. Aaron had no choice but to put the gold into the fire. A calf came out alive and skipping! t

This is what a number of people believed and the Omniscience Narrator correcteth the distorted news or report AND REPORTED That Aaron was not guilty . So He Informeth the Noun of the original sinner who had done the actual sin and transgressed against the Divine Unity. . As we found in Bible details are missing from one book of Torah to an other book of Torah.

The story of the golden calf and its maker is told twice in the Torah: Exodus 32, and Deuteronomy 9-10. The former book told through the voice of the Omniscient narrator,and 25

is the version that is read in synagogue in the aforementioned days; In Deuteronomy , in the voice of Holy Moses, who is making Israelites to recall their previous sin. The goal of this piece is to highlight some of the more striking differences to stimulate further study and engagement with the story. To fully appreciate the difference between the accounts and the challenges this poses, we encourage you to read Exodus 32-34 and Deuteronomy 9-10 yourselves before continuing.

D Details Abscent from Deuteronomy 1]

Moses’ Tarrying on the Mountain

Aaron’s Role

Statmemt “This is your god”

Joshua [Ioshua]

Gold

The Levite Executions

Plague

H. Drinking the Calf

Details Absent from Exodus 1]

Fasting

Special Prayer for Aaron

C. The Wooden Chest

4] The differences are not haphazard, they reflect two different independent stories, each tells a different story. Two different stories from two different perspectives . This proves with almost certainty that what actually occurred in tha stated above period of time is not recorded with historical accuracy and it requireth to be corrected by the Omniscient Supreme Being to re -narrate what had happened in that period of time. There are some academic solutions that explain in detail the specific differences and the relationship of the two versions of the golden calf story to each other. Studying the events from the version of story as presented by Deuteronomy we find that:=

1) The Israelites as the sole offenders and offers them no mitigating circumstances.2] 2) Moses did not tarry overly long. 3) 26

Aaron did not lead the people astray.

4) The Levites didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t act any differently. Supreme Being confirms the third point stated above. In Deuteronomy, 1] Moses presents his own behavior as above and beyond. 2] He fasts and intercedes for the people forty days and forty nights. 3] God is angry at Aaron and Moses even intercedes on his behalf as well. And the God/god [Supreme Being ] was angry enough with Aaron to destroy him but at that time I prayed for Aaron. 9:6-29. But this verse does not indicate in the least meaning that the Supreme Being Yahavah [ Yahuvah/Yehveh] was angry at Aaron for his Sin of making the statue of the calf. On the contrary it appears that Aaron what so ever his Sin was , it was not the making of the animal statue. Since in Exodus the following sentence is found:= And the Lord replied to Moses , who so ever sinned against Me , I shall blot out of my book. 32:37. This proves with certainty that Supreme Being did not accepted Moses alleged request for bloting His Noun from the Divine Book in the case the sinners are not forgioven. The sinners were given the punishment that their nouns were blotted , erased and deleted from the Divine book. Divine Supreme Being neither forgave the Sinners nor accepted the Request of Moses that in the case the transgressors are not forgiven then the Noun of Moses may be blotted. The word Sin is a common noun and not a proper noun, and can be applied to any sin , So Supreme Being was angry so that any sin with in the period of time from going of Moses to his coming, was not forgiven, Even the request stated above was not accepted. But the noun of Aaron is found in the Divine Book and is not blotted. This proves that Aaron was not guilty of making or worshipping the calf. This does shew that as the Noun of the real sinner was blotted , the name of Aaron was incorrectly substituted in its absence.

Now we come to the problem that if Exodus and Deuteronomy differ at least in the meaning that each one is silent about some event which the other one reports then many astonishing details may be missing from both of them simultaneously. It general speech and silence do not contradict each other yet if both forms of the stories in regard to same events are studied it becomes clear that there are two different authors and each one is unaware of the events narrated by the other. Or at least each one is as if ignorant of the events of the other one. 27

This shews that what had happened in the past was incorrectly recorded and in their confusion they substituted the Noun of Aaron in place of the original Transgressor. It is the basic Semitic Constitution the Omnipotent and Omniscient Narrator the Supreme Being Can Narrate the events correctly and accurately , that have occurred at the period of time by His Divine Omniscience and Divine Spectatorness [Witnessess]. The Omnipotent and Omniscient Narrator the Supreme Being did Narrate the Events Correctly and Accurately. As Deuteronomy does not accuse Aaron guilty of the greatest of Sins, the Sin of making the idol of calf. Divine Narration is that ------------ is incorrect in accusing Aaron. So it was Necessary if not Absolutely Necessary then certainly Relatively Necessary that Aaron was Not Guilty of crafting the idol of the calf as the Supreme Being the God of Israel. How ever the Noun of the original Criminal was out of the memories Divine Omniscient Supreme Being informed the Noun As Samiriy. He also informed about the punishment given to him. There are many academic approaches that explain in detail the specific differences and the relationship of the two versions of the golden calf story to each other. So to accuse Al Quran for distorting the actual events is purely based on the believe that one of the books of Pentateuch is telling the truth. Other wise there is no possible reason to claim that Quran is informing incorrectly. This Arabic legend, in describing the fate of Samiri as that of a man compelled to wander, barred from all intercourse with his fellow-men, whom he himself is bound to warn by his pitiful cry, "Touch me not," to come not near him, seems to be one of the earliest forms into which was cast the later story of the Wandering Jew current among Christians.

This is based on the assumption that existence of some Similarities is a proof of the claim of borrowing. This is a wrong claim that if two stories have some similarities then existence of similarities is a proof that the former is a donor and the latter is the borrower. This is the worst type of fallacies ever coined by the skeptics and septic. For example it has been tried to prove that the dying and rising of Iesous is borrowed from the .stories of SunGods. Those who have tried to shew that the New Testamental Idea of Dying and Rising of Iesous Kristos is borrowed from ancient Solar Gods have presented a number of events where a God in Ancient Religion Has Died or He Had risen after his death. Modes and Cases of death and rising may be different yet the common thing is that they either die one way or the other or rise as well in one way or the other. But these are 28

responded by shewing the dissimilarities between the Christological death and the modes of deaths and differences in the cases of rising from death. This is a perfect refutation and this does prove the claim that mere some similarities cannot proof a claim of borrowing from former to latter. Although we do not believe in death and resurrection of Iesous but this is most probable that these two believes are not borrowed from ancient religions. One may not believe in an article of faith even if it is not borrowed from any previous religion. Coming back to the point as some similarities may exist between to different narrations but they cannot prove the claim of borrowing or even the claim of influencing . Such claims were once supposed to be astonishing but on critical study it is found that parallel traditions may emerge independent of each other and independent of the places of their respective emergence. Logically it is possible that two or more different persons are awarded one an same punishment not on the earthly level but also on Divine level. That is Supreme Being Hath Power to award one and the same punishment to two different persons in two different places at two different times. Additionally it is Absolutely Possible that a True Story may have some similarities with a False Story with out being borrowed or influenced or both. So these Possibilities falsify the claim of borrowing and break the alleged arguments for the claim of borrowing. It may be the case that the fate of Samiri: was known to some generations and some how latter generations confused the it by the Wanderer. Any how the actual problem was that As Samiri [ meaning “The Keeper”] was punished and he probably developed hyper sensitivity, so that he would have felt pain when he ever come in contact by some one who so ever he might be. THE PROBLEM OF ANCIENT COMMENTATORS:= Two commentators are quoted in their commentary of Qur’a:n. Tabri and Baidavi. It must be noted that there are several types of commentaries on each Verse of Holy Qur’a:n. Commentaries based on weak traditions or Pre- Islamic Traditions are doubtful and are unauthentic even if the book of commentary is authentic in general [] Min H:ais’ ‘Al Majmu:”[]. So if Tabri hath claimed that As Samiri: means Samaritan his error hath nothing to do with the Qur’a:nic Truth. He is just accepting some unauthentic Traditions. 29

Any Book of Commentary on Qur’a:n how so ever authentic as a whole is inauthentic in those particular cases of commentary of verses where it baseth its commentary on Un Authentic Traditions. What is true for Tabri is true for any other Book of Commentary.For example Baid:avi etc. So one cannot compel any one to agree with Baid:avi or T:abri on these issues. The Two Problematic Points:= Instead of accepting the correction of Omniscient reporter a number of Objections Makers and Skeptics were confused by the two things. 1] The Noun or Epithet or Appellation As Samiri. 2] The statement “ Touch Me Not”. A] As for the first one , as Al Qur’a:n declareth Aaron the Brother of Moses not Guilty of the act stated above he is immune from the event. The word ‘As Sa:miriy [Sa:miri] cannot be translated as The Samaritan , but either as Samarian or [ Shamerin ] which means “The Keeper” Or “ The Observer”. He may be a keeper appointed by Moses or else against the post of keeping or observing [ some thing].. The other statement is a punishment and not borrowed from the alleged Wanderer. If the story of the wanderer is false and fabrication, a concoction then this implies that some one did have some information but they concocted a new tale for it. If the story of Wanderer is not a fabrication then at most it can be said that After As Samiri he was an other person who was punished with the same punishment. The Basis Of Problem:= The Problem as generated by the incorrect identification of the Subject of the word “Sa:mitiy”. It was incorrectly assumed that the Sa:miri is the Arabitized form of Hebraic word

Shomronim .[whose Latinized form is “Samaritan” in English]. But it is the Arabitized form of Hebraic word Shamerin [whose Latinized form is Samarian in

English]. But instead of looking deep into the matter it was claimed that Sa:miri is the Arabitized form of Samuel . This is one of the mistakes that is the root cause of the problem. On this error an other error was made that the entire story of Wanderer was applied to the Sa:miri. As Samiri is used as the noun of the person in the past and not as a Personal Proper Noun but a Noun that was used form him. He was called as As Samiri. 30

ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKERS AND THEIR TECHNIQUES. Anti Islamic Elements adopt the following techniques:= In reqard to Qur’a:n the make objections as if they follow the rules of Atheists, and in reqard to their own books what so every they may be, the used a different approach. For example if Qur’a:n informeth a thing of past they consider it as either borrowed from some former work or document or tradition or a product of imagination, and if Genesis informs a thing of past they believe it as a historical fact. In the case of Calf Qur’a:n Informeth that a person called as As Samiri:y made the calf and not the Holy Prophet Ha:ru:n /Aaron [Peace Be Upon Him]. Objection Maker thinks that is an error, whether it is a correction by the Absolute Corrector. Objection Maker thinks that Qur’a:n Confuses The Wanderer story with the calf story. But he did not consider the slightest possibility that As Samiri might be the first person to be punished like that and any other person on earth if punished by the same punishment other then him be not the first person. Speaking mathematically in the series of persons from 1st to ηthε he may be εth person ,where ε,η are natural numbers. But when Pentateuch informs that there was a person named Aaron, the learned and respected Objection Maker did not try to find the evidence of Aaron from Egyptology and other secular sources. The reason is that he believes then as self authentic which do not require any other evidence. The same he do not accept for Qur’a:n. ISLAMIC AWARENESS VS ANSWERING ISLAM In the response of the answer of Islamic Awareness the Answering Islam tried to prove that the work cited by Islamic Awareness is not a Post Islamic Work but a Pre Islamic work. If Islamic Awareness tried to shew that it is not a Pre Islamic work and is unable to prove it, and Answering Islam is able to Prove that it is a Pre Islamic work, then cannot prove the claim of borrowing. In logical form: If it is a Post Islamic Work then the claim of Borrowing is falsified. If it is a Pre Islamic Work then the claim if Borrowing is Not Proved . In either case the claim is either false or not proved. The problem of Miracle. It is tried to argued that as Qur’a:n informeth that the calf produced a sound, which misguided a number of people thy Objection Maker calls it Miracle. 31

But this is a Mistake . Muslim Theologians divide Super Natural Events in different types. 1] Mu”azzah. An Act that appeareth on the Hand of a Prophet. 2] Kara:mah. An Act that appeareth on the Hand of a Saint or Righteous Person. 3] ‘istadra:j. An Act that occurs by a disbeliever or a faithless person or a heretic. Mu”azza:t [pl] and Karamat [pl] are the Acts of Supreme Being and not of any Created Suppositum what so ever. If the appeareth as if done by a Rational Created Suppositum, it is just an appearent act , not done by the stated above suppositum but by Divine Supreme Being with His Supreme Authority and Omnipotence. What Samiri: did was either an act done by some invention or technique or it was an Istadra:j or it was a Magic. But it was not the Mu”azzah[pl Mu”azza:t]. It was just a Istadraj. A number of commentators , who have accepted the statement of As Sa:miriy as true ,have opined that he did lifted some mud from the footstep of an Angel [Jibri:l] AS and this caused the Statue to produce a sound. But some of the Commentators do not accept the statement of As Samiti as true but as false. According to him he had not spoken the truth but he had spoken the falsehood. The production of sound was either a scientific technique or an experiment which worked or it was an Istadra:j. If the learned Objection maker thinks that some commentaries of Qur’an are incorrect then it is RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE COMMENTARY, and it is not valid to the content of Text of Holy Qur’a:n. It may be seen that there are differences Commentaries of Biblical Verses and New Testamental Verses. It is not necessary that New New Testamental Commentator AGREE with the old ones , yet the same method is not accepted for Al Qur’an. But if it is assumed that As Samiri is telling the truth even then this at most proveth that As Samiri did took something from the foot step of the Apostle [Angel] But the sound was not produced by the thing, it might be produced by some technique or invention. The Calf was some how designed that a sound was produced when the air passed through it. As Samiri must be inspired by the Satan to make an ancient proto-type sound producing system. If the argument of those Anti-Islam Objection Maker that it implies that Supreme Being Himself Decieveth People is correct then this atmost imply that this commentary of some 32

Commentators is wrong. It does not imply that the verse is wrong. Impartial Laws of Criticism:= 1] If an objection is in valid on Qur’a:n on certain arguments and argumentations, and the same objection or similar objection is invalid on Bible or New Testament or any other book of any religion on similar arguments and argumentations , the objection is invalid in all cases. 21] If an objection is in valid on on Bible or New Testament or any other book of any religion on certain arguments and argumentations, and the same objection or similar objection is invalid on Qur’a:n on similar arguments and argumentations , the objection is invalid in all cases. Was As Samiri telling truth or he was telling falsehood. If it is assumed that Samiri was an engineer of his days who either had learned to produce sound in statues or he had invented a method to do so , the objection ceases. Only this shews that he did posses the technology to produce a sound in a calf some how. Yet he put some thing probably mud or clay etc. But it is not due to the mud or clay which made the calf’s statue to produce sound. The sound was produced either by some technique or by some ancient technology or trick what so ever. But what so ever he put in the statue was just for shew. WHAT IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE THING USED CAUSE THE STATUE TO PRODUCE SOUND. It it is supposed that the thing which was put in the statue made the calf to emit sound , and as it was lifted from the foot print of the Apostle who so ever he may be. It miraculously made the statue TO PRODUCE SOUND, the answer to the objection is that it was the misuse of a thing which had some super natural properties. The alleged miracle was not in the production of sound but in the strange super natural properties of the thing. It is just like the misuse of some medicine made to cure some diseases, yet a Doctor or a Physician uses it to kill a person. So the misuse of a thing is one thing and producing the properties to be used in super natural acts is another thing. If Supreme Being made some Super Natural Properties in a thing it is the miracle. If some one misuses the thing for some evil purpose instead of some good purpose it is an other thing. 33

There are some examples. One of the greatest example is that Supreme Being Send Scriptures say Torah for good purpose yet some heretics misused its verses to deceive people even according to Christian Standard. So if Supreme Being made some extra ordinary properties in a thing this is a miracle of Supreme Being. If dome one misuses a thing it is not the miracle. The ability or quality of ability to do a thing is the miracle, but the act/doing is not. Therefore those who distinguish between a quality and a doing , can clearly accept this commentary and those who do not , do not accept this commentary. All the Sunnism [ Not Heretic Barailvism] accept that Miracles are not in the Power of Prophets and are directly the Divine Acts. If the sound was produced by the thing placed in the calf then it is the property of the thing and not the Direct act of Supreme Being. But The Direct Divine Act was to Make Super Natural Properties and Hyper Natural Qualities in it. THE PROBLEM OF BEGUILETH

The question of whether, or not, God would deceive people into sinning highlights the differences between the God of Christianity and the god of Islam. The Quran testifies that Allah is a deceiver: Lo! the hypocrites seek to beguile Allah, but it is He Who beguileth them. When they stand up to worship they perform it languidly and to be seen of men, and are mindful of Allah but little; (Sura 4:142) It appears that the learned Objection Maker is too literalist and does not believe in interpretation. In this case his literalism makes problem even in New Testament. According to 2nd Corinthians 4:4:=

â&#x20AC;&#x153;in whom the goD of this worlD hath BlinDeD the minDs of them which Believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of christ, who is the image of goD, shoulD shine unto them.â&#x20AC;? If the learned Objection Maker believes that the GOD OF THIS WORLD is the First Hypostasis of Trinity or Second Hypostasis of Trinity or Third Hypostasis Of Trinity or The Very Trinity It Self or the GODHEAD then all his objections are on the Verse Of New Testament stated above. If the learned Objection Maker assumes that the THE WORD GOD in the verse of 2nd Corinthians stated above is for Satan then there are just to options left. 34

Either he believes in two GODS. In this case he is like a Jehova Witness who are often accused for believing in two GODS by Trinitarians of Christianity. Or he is going to interpret the word GOD, in some other meanings, like metaphor or figure etc. In this case the same answer can be used in the case of Qur’anic Verse cited above. To make an objection on a book what so ever it may be but not to make the objection on an other book under similar reasoning and argumentations doeth shew that the Objection Maker is one sided and baised. See an other example:

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." —Matthew 24:24 May one ask Respectable Objection Maker that Who is the Creator of these signs. If Supreme Being is the Creator then his own objection is reversed upon him. If some one else that this is to believe an other CREATOR beside GOD. If the signs have no Creator then this means that They are Creato-rless things. I have not heard that the three Majority Christian sects Roman Catholics , Greek Orthodox and Protestants believe in Creator less Things. In this case the Objection Maker must have face a difficult choice. WE SHALL BE OBLIDGED IF OUR ANSWERS ARE USED TO REFUTE ATHEISTS AND SECULARISTS BY THE FOWWERS OF ANY RELIGION IN CASE OF OBJECTIONS MADE BY SECULARISTS AND ATHEISTS. SINCE WE DO NOT BELIEVE TO ARGUE LIKE ATHEISTS ETC. AGAINST SOME RELIGIONS AND TO ARGUE LIKE A BELIEVER FOR SOME RELIGIONS. NOTE: THERE MAY BE SOME SPELLING EROORS. THEY MAY BE REMOVED LATTER.

] .