kufrcleaner Faiz e Mustafa

  1- The scriptural  evidence  : Is there in the Holy Bible..... what is called (slaughter)... or (cutting throats)?? Here you go: In the Book of Samuel, Chapter 17, it says: ((The Story of David and Goliath)) and from it: 49 Then David put his hand into the bag, and took a stone from it  , and slinged it, and struck the Philistine on the forehead; and the stone stuck in his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground. 50 So David gained the upper hand over the Philistine with the sling and the stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. And there was no sword in David's hand...  ((that is, David killed the man with a sling and not a sword)) 51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine  and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him and  cut off his head with it  .  And when the Philistines saw that their mighty man was dead, they fled. And as we have seen, according to the Old Testament, David did not stop at kil...

  The suspicion of bringing two agents for one action (1) The origin of this suspicion is the Almighty’s saying: (Their hearts are distracted, and those who do wrong whisper, “Is this not a human being like you? Then do you practice magic while you see?”) (2). Their evidence in this verse is the combination of: “and they whisper,” “those who do wrong,” because they asserted that the “waw” in “they whispered” is the agent, just as they asserted that “those” in “those who do wrong” is also the agent. And since every action requires only one agent, they shouted at the top of their voices, saying: The Qur’an made a mistake by making two agents for one action?! The response to the doubt: The Sheikh of the rhetorical interpreters, Imam Jar Allah Mahmoud bin Omar Al-Zamakhshari, said: “Those who wronged replaced the ‘waw’ with ‘wa-asraw’ to indicate that they are the ones who are known for their gross injustice in what they kept secret. Or it came in the language of those who said: The fl...

  The suspicion of bringing the pronoun referring to the dual in the singular The origin of this suspicion: is the Almighty’s saying: (They swear to you by Allah to please you, but Allah and His Messenger are more deserving that they should please Him, if they are believers) (1). They mentioned this verse, and their attention was drawn to the mention of Allah, then the mention of His Messenger in apposition to Him, then the occurrence of the verb “yurrida” on the singular pronoun, which is the “ha” in “yurridahu” and it is their witness in this suspicion, then they said: “So why did He not dualize the pronoun referring to the two, the name of the Majesty and His Messenger, and say: that they should please them”?! The response to the suspicion: This verse, and the structure that they thought or were stubborn and said was a linguistic and grammatical error, is only a Quranic glimpse related to the belief in the oneness of Allah Almighty. Those who raise these suspicions do not know a...

  The suspicion of bringing the plural instead of the dual . The origin of this suspicion is the Almighty’s saying: (If you both repent to Allah, your hearts have indeed become inclined. But if you both back up against him, then indeed, Allah is his Protector, and so is Gabriel and the righteous believers) (1). The witness in the verse, according to them, is “your hearts,” as the complement (hearts) came in the plural, and the complement to it “as” is dual. And what is being spoken of in the Almighty’s saying: “you both repent” is dual as well. They commented on this and said: “Why did he not say: your two hearts” because two people do not have more than two hearts?! The response to the doubt: The Arabs found it difficult to combine two duals in one word, so they would change from the dual to the plural, because the first plural for them was the two. Among what the imams of language and grammar said about the plural of “hearts” in the verse is their saying: “And your hearts” is one...

  The response to the claim that it is permissible for the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, to forget the Qur’an or intentionally omit it. The issue of the Prophet forgetting. Some atheists have cast doubt on the basis upon which the writing and compilation of the Noble Qur’an was based, which is the Prophet’s memorization of the Qur’an, claiming that it is permissible for the Prophet to forget. They have provided evidence for this with two pieces of evidence: The first is the Almighty’s saying: “We will make you recite, and you will not forget, except what God wills.” (29) They claimed that the verses indicate - by way of exception - that Muhammad intentionally omitted or caused verses to be forgotten that no one had come to remind him of, and they also indicate that it is permissible for the Prophet to forget . The second is what Al-Bukhari narrated on the authority of Aisha, may God be pleased with her, who said: The Prophet heard a reciter reciting at night in th...