Samaritan or Samarian in the Qur’an?

One of the attacks in the Qur’an is the using of the word Samaritan (in Qur’an translations) by Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) in addressing someone in the Qur’an,  yet the City of Samaria was formed centuries later after Prophet Moses (peace be upon him).

Nah! This one is too lengthy . . . .

Let us just read what other Muslim has about it, ok?

FROM: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/samaritan.html

M S M Saifullah, ʿAbdurraḥman Robert Squires, ʿAbdullah David, Elias Karim & Muḥammad Ghoniem

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Composed: 1st May 1999

Last Updated: 26th November 2006

Bookmark and Share


Assalamu-ʿalaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction

According to the Christian missionaries and apologists, comparisons between the Qur’anic and Biblical narrations expose serious errors within the Qur’an. The Qur’anic narrations are said to be either ‘absurd’ or ‘historically impossible’. Take for example the story of Moses as related in the Qur’an: the Qur’an mentions a certain Haman who was associated with the Court of Pharaoh – when in reality, say the missionaries, he was a counsellor of Ahasuerus who lived 1,100 years after Pharaoh; the Qur’an mentions that Pharaoh crucified or impaled his victims upon a stake, yet crucifixion was unknown in Egypt at that time.

Relying heavily on a single (prolific) Christian orientalist, the missionaries also state that the Qur’an, according to Surah 20, says the Israelites were led astray by a “Samaritan” – yet the Samaritan people did not exist until many centuries later. What evidence is presented to support these claims? Can the presuppositions of the Christian missionaries be taken seriously in the light of contemporary Samaritan scholarship? This paper proposes to examine the origin of the Samaritans as suggested by the Christian missionaries.

2. The “Samaritan” Error

The “Samaritan” error in the Qur’an can be traced to Judeo-Christian attitudes provided by a prima facie consideration of the Old Testament material. Even after the advent of critical biblical scholarship, it was supposed that the picture of the Samaritans as a people of mixed race and religion, as provided in II Kings 17, was for all intent and purposes an accurate one. A prime example comes from the 1898 edition of James Hastings’ A Dictionary Of The Bible. In the article “Samaria, Territory Of” by C. W. Wilson, the description of the Samaritans is given as:

In 2 K 17:29 these colonists are termed ‘Samaritans.’ Josephus says… that they were called Cuthaeans in Hebrew, from Cuthah, the city of their origin… and he regarded the Samaritans of his day as their descendents. The Cuthaeans and others brought their national gods, an act which was believed to have brought on them the vengeance of God of the land.[1]

Descriptions of Samaritans worshipping an admixture of gods owe a great deal to later day Jewish polemics, in particular, that arising from Josephus’ Antiquities as well as from the Old Testament itself. It is not surprising that the views concerning the Samaritans origins also positively influenced in a different way the anti-Islamic polemics in the West in the beginning of the 20th century CE. For example, while discussing the mention of al-Samiri in the Qur’an, Henri Lammens stated that:

“the most glaring anachronisms” is “the story of the Samaritan (sic) who is alleged to have made the Jews worship the golden calf…”[2]

That these claims have literally pullulated amongst the Christian missionaries is something of an understatement. For example, Anis Shorrosh says:

The Qur’an says the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites in the wilderness was molded by a Samaritan… In fact, the term Samaritan was not used until 722 BC, several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus.[3]

Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, presumably quoting Shorrosh, say:

The Qur’an says that the golden calf worshipped by the Israelites at Mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan. The term Samaritan was not coined until 722 B.C., several hundred years after the Exodus, when the idol was crafted.[4]

Similar claims have been made by Mateen Elass who says:

As-Samiri is not a proper name as the definite article before the hyphen makes clear. Most Muslim scholars understand this term to mean “the Samaritan,” but this is problematic since the Samaritans were not constituted as a separate people until after the deportation of the northern tribes of Israel under the Assyrian empire, some five hundred or more years after the golden calf incident.[5]

Gleason Archer in the section “Anachronism and Historical Inaccuracies in the Koran” finds difficulty in the explanation offered by Yusuf Ali for the word al-Samiri in the Qur’an. Archer says:

Yusef Ali suggests that Samariyyu may have been an Egyptian name meaning “stranger, foreigner,” or possibly a Hebrew term derived from Shomer (“watchman”) – in a valiant effort to avoid the charge of anachronism. Samaritan did not come into being as a race until after the 6th century B.C., and so there could have been no Samaritan around as early as 1445 B.C.![6]

Similar claims were also made by ‘Abdallah ‘Abd al-Fadi,[7] Robert Morey,[8] Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer.[9]

Jacques Jomier, however, offers a different form of argument concerning al-Samiri in the Qur’an. He says:

At the scene of the Golden Calf, a mysterious character appears: he is called the Samaritan (al-Sāmirī). It is hard to know what this word signifies. Some Westerners have seen a connection with the golden calves of Samaria, but this would take us several centuries beyond Moses. In the absence of other documents, one is very hesitant to subscribe such a hypothesis (cf. Qur’an 20. 85-95).[10]

According to Newman, the mention of al-Samiri in the Qur’an is the result of Muhammad’s confusion of the “time periods” and transferring “Jewish teachings about Samaritans to a single person.”[11]

Except for Jomier and Newman, almost all these claims can be traced back, whether directly or indirectly, to none but Tisdall – the fountainhead of all Christian polemic against the Qur’an. Confident in his ability to truthfully exegete the Qur’an, the “Samaritan” issue appears to be a source of amusement for Tisdall, who notes rather derisively,

But since the city of Samaria was not built, or at least called by that name, until several hundred years 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.[12]

It is interesting that Tisdall equated the Samaritans with the appearance of the city of Samaria to claim the anachronism. In the same vein, 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.

And furthermore:

How can a Samaritan have led the Israelites astray at the time of Moses [about 1400 B.C.] when the city of Samaria was founded by King Omri in about 870 B.C. (see 1 Kings 16:24)? But “the Samaritans” as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the Northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II in after 722 B.C. with non-Israelites which then adopt a syncretism [mixture] between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. Hence, it is historically impossible that a Samaritan could have led the Israelites into idolatry in the time of Moses. This is another time compression of at least 500, but rather 700 years.

Similar statements are repeated here, as if they singularly embody the truth, concerning the origins of Samaritans.

The problem with this claim is that the Samaritans were not known as a distinct ethno-religious group until around 722 B.C., when the term “Samaritan” was coined…

The claim of the Christian missionaries concerning the origin of the Samaritans rests on the events mentioned in II Kings 17. We will begin by discussing the claims of the Christian missionaries that II Kings 17 describes the origins of Samaritans. What do the scholars of Samaritan studies say about the claim that II Kings 17 accurately describes the origins of Samaritans? This will be discussed along with the usage of the terms “Samaritan” and “Samarian” in light of recent historical investigations. Finally, we will also consider recent scientific studies examining the principal characteristics of the Samaritan and Jewish genetic composition, in order to confirm if there is indeed any shared ancestry.

3. II Kings 17: The Source Of Samaritan Origins?

Before we go into the historical background of II Kings 17, a background relating to the events leading to sacking and exile of Israel in the 8th century BCE is necessary. About two centuries earlier a united Israel had reached its peak under the leadership of Saul, David and Solomon. However, after Solomon’s death, a civil war broke out and the former united kingdom split into two kingdoms: Judah in the south with Jerusalem as its capital, and Israel in the north whose capital was eventually established in Samaria. The two kingdoms struggled for nearly two centuries before Assyria destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel. The account in II Kings 17 implies that the Samaritans descended from peoples deported by the Assyrians from other parts of the vast empire during the mid-8th century BCE. The Assyrian ruler brought people from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath and Sepharvaim and settled them in the towns of Samaria to replace the Israelites. Eventually the term “Cuthean”, that is people of Cuthah, sometimes also referred collectively to denote new settlers, became the Jews’ name for Samaritans and a word of contempt for these genetically and religiously impure people. This name was also adopted by Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities in his polemics against the Samaritans. Thus, according to the Jewish version of history, the Samaritans are a mixed race people, being a native or inhabitant of Samaria, a distinct territory or region in central Palestine. The question now is whether there is any truth in this version of the history.

SAMARITANS OR SAMARIANS?

As mentioned earlier, the traditional view of the origins of Samaritans is based on II Kings 17. The verse in question is II Kings 17:29 where the Hebrew word shomronim or shomeronim appears and is usually translated into English as “Samaritans” (underlined in the Hebrew text below).

But every nation still made gods of its own, and put them in the shrines of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in the cities which they dwelt… (RSV)

The name shomronim that appears in II Kings 17:29 is associated with the worship of idols. However, the Samaritans do not address themselves by this name at all. They call themselves shamerin , that is “keepers” or “observers” of the Torah.[13] The Samaritans themselves make a clear distinction between their own ancestors and the inhabitants of Samaria. For example, in the part of the Samaritan Chronicle II which corresponds to I Kings 16 of the Hebrew Bible, the biblical account of the founding of Samaria by Omri is followed by a note which explains that the inhabitants of Samaria and its nearby cities were called “Shomronim after the name Shomron“.[14] Thus the distinction between the people of Samaria and the Samaritans is clearly maintained in the Samaritan Chronicle II. Put simply, shomronim means the “inhabitants of Samaria” and it has nothing to do with shamerin, “keepers” or “observers” of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. In fact, a long line of Samaritan scholarship has already pointed out this fact, which, unfortunately, is ignored by the missionaries at their own peril. For example, about 100 years ago James Montgomery pointed out that the Samaritans:

…. call themselves by the ancient geographical apellative, Samerim, which they interpret however as meaning “the Observers”, i.e., of the Law.[15]

Similarly, The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible confirms that:

… the Samaritans prefer to style themselves ‘Shamerim’ i.e., “the observant” – rather than ‘Shomeronim’ i.e., “the inhabitants of Samaria.”[16]

The Encyclopaedia Judaica under the entry “Samaritans” says:

Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans. The Bible uses the name Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29, but this probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called themselves Shamerin; i.e., “keepers” or “observers” of the truth = al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being in constant use in their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean inhabitants of the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the probable origin of the word Shomronim is to be found).[17]

Contrary to the claims of the missionaries, the use of the term shomronim in II Kings 17 tells us nothing about the origins of the Samaritans because this word means “inhabitants of Samaria”. Now that the issue of the names that differentiates the Samaritans from the inhabitants of Samaria is dealt with, let us now move to the claim of the missionaries which says that the Samaritans as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of foreigners in the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE.

II KINGS 17:18-24 – A HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OR A HISTORICAL ABSURDITY?

The narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 relates that the population of Israel in its totality was deported and exchanged to an alien population. However, the archaeological evidence shows that this narrative is incorrect. Estimates of the population in Israel show that in the Middle Bronze Age II [2000 – 1550 BCE] it was approximately 140,000 and in the Iron Age [1200 – 586 BCE],[18] during the period of divided monarchy, the population of northern kingdom of Israel reached nearly 600,000.[19] A survey of Judea, Samaria and the Golan carried out in 1967-1968 suggests a total of 560,000.[20] On the other hand, Roland de Vaux estimated the total population during this time to be around 800,000.[21]

The Assyrian ruler Sargon II was responsible for defeating the northern kingdom of Israel and sending them into exile. An Assyrian inscription from the time of Sargon II records that he deported 27,290 prisoners from Samaria,[22] suggesting a depopulation of the order of nearly 5% of Israel’s population.[23] Hence 95% of the population remained. Also it can be claimed that the Assyrian kings in their royal inscriptions tended to exaggerate the number of exiles, as they considered a larger number to show the extent of their power and might.[24] If we accept this, then the total number of people exiled would be further reduced. We are essentially left with most of the population intact. Obviously there is a serious historical problem here with II Kings 17:18-24. Commenting on this historical discrepancy and how it undermines the Bible concerning the claim of the Samaritans’ origins, A. D. Crown says:

This is a prima facie evidence that the greatest concentration of people remained in the province until at least sixth century B.C.E. Clearly the story of Samaritan origins in the Bible must be viewed with caution.[25]

A similar observation was made by Coggins about 30 years ago. Using the estimate of Roland de Vaux of 800,000 people in the northern kingdom of Israel and the inscription from the time of Sargon II, he says:

If this is at all accurate it would imply the deportation of between 3 and 4% of the population. Not much stress can be placed on the actual wording of the Assyrian annals, but they would suggest – and the circumstances of a siege would bear out – that the majority of the deportees would have been the inhabitants of Samaria itself, no doubt including many who had gone there as refugees during the siege.[26]

Such discrepancies were also mentioned by Frank Cross[27] and The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible.[28]

Coggins and others have suggested that most of the affected people would have been from the upper class, as they would be readily identifiable as potential leaders of resistance.[29] In place of those exiled, the settlers brought in would not have enjoyed the majority, as the native Israelites continued to enjoy being the overwhelming majority of the population. Clearly, the narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 claiming that the population of Israel in its totality was deported by the Assyrians and exchanged to an alien population is unsupported by the archaeological evidence.

How do the Samaritans portray themselves during the period of Assyrian rule? According to their Chronicles, the righteous remnants who belonged to “the community of the Samaritan Israelites, that is the tribe of Ephraim and the tribe of Manasseh, sons of Joseph, and a few other priests and a small number from the rest of the tribes of Israel” who “did not deviate from the way of the holy law, nor did they worship other gods. They did not behave as the nations did, and did not forsake the chosen place Mount Gerizim Bethel, but they continued to worship the Lord their God…”.[30] As Coggins pointed out, even if this idealization is discounted in the Samaritan Chronicles, it is clear that the “religious features of later Samaritanism show no sign of any syncretism brought about by a mixture between native Israelites and those whom the Assyrians brought into the country”.[31]

Unlike the claim of the Christian missionaries, there is nothing to suggest in the Samaritan Chronicles that they adopted a syncretism between the religion of the Jews and their own polytheistic background. On the contrary, the Chronicles clearly affirm their monotheism during the Assyrian rule. It must be emphasized that the Samaritans’ devotion to the Torah was already recognized from the fact that it alone constituted their canon of Scripture. This is further emphasized by the word shamerin – the keepers of the Torah. This very name implies a group which maintained the traditional ways and was suspicious of change.

AN APPRAISAL OF THE MISSIONARY VIEWS

The Christian missionaries and apologists have had some difficulty in coming to terms with Samaritan scholarship. Although this is partly due to basic errors in comprehension, more seriously, it is primarily due to the fact that contemporary scholarship including the archaeological evidence undermines the veracity of the biblical account. Recognising these basic problems of method, the missionaries have attempted to synthesise their views on the Samaritans into one coherent account; resultantly we are left with nothing more than a mishmash of interpretations with little validity. For instance, consider the Christian missionary Andrew Vargo’s “three views ” of the Samaritan origins:

The Jewish view. The Samaritans are the descendants of the colonists that King Shalmaneser, of Assyria, brought from Cutha, Babylon, Hamath, and other foreign regions after he conquered Samaria in 722 B.C.. King Shalmaneser then deported the native population according to II Kings 17.

Samaritan view: The Samaritans are remnants of the northern Israelite tribes who were left behind when their brethren were deported by the Assyrians.

Modern Scholars: The Samaritans are descendents of Mesopotamian tribes who were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians to Samaria.

He claims that “all three explanations of the origins of the Samaritans are correct, at least to some degree”. It is hard to see why all the three “explanations” can be true to “some degree” at the same time. Simple logic dictates that if the “Samaritans are remnants of the northern Israelite tribes” then they could not have been simultaneously “the descendants of the colonists” resettled by the Assyrian rulers. Furthermore, Vargo claims on behalf of unnamed and unknown “modern scholars” that the Samaritans are “the descendents of Mesopotamian tribes who were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians to Samaria”. In fact, we have not come across this view at all in modern scholarship on the Samaritans. What we know is that modern Samaritan scholarship has firmly rejected equating shomronim in II Kings 17:29 with Samaritans. Shomronim means the “inhabitants of Samaria” and it has nothing to do with shamerin, “keepers” or “observers” of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. Moreover, it was seen that there are serious historical problems with II Kings 17:18-24 which severely undermines the biblical account concerning the claims of the Samaritan origins.

To complete the argument what does modern scholarship say about II Kings 17 being the alleged source of the Samaritans’ origins? Let us start with A Companion To Samaritan Studies published in 1993. One can consider it as a dictionary ‘desk reference’ for Samaritan studies. As for II Kings 17 and the origins of the Samaritans, it says:

Older scholarship took 2 Kings 17 as a reliable account of the origins of Samaritanism and in many translations that is the only place where the word Samaritans is found in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. KJV, RSV). The idea that this passage can give us information about the Samaritan origins is now abandoned though it is undeniable that at an early date the text of understood in this sense. Thus Josephus (Ant. 9:291) states that the heterodox community formed after the Assyrian capture of Samaria was the direct forerunner of the Samaritan or Cuthaean community of his day. Egger has shown how many of Josephus’ references to the Samaritans cannot properly be understood of the Samaritan religious community. Josephus’ work is a clear example of anti-Samaritan polemic at work extrapolating materials from one setting to another as part of his condemnation of the Samaritans.[32]

Similar conclusions were also reached by Lester Grabbe. He says:

The origins of the [Samaritan] community and cult are still uncertain. The origins according to interpretations of 2 Kings 17 (pagan foreigners brought in) and Josephus (dissident Jerusalem priests) are the product of considerable bias and cannot be taken at face value.[33]

Writing in 2002, Anderson and Giles in their book The Keepers: An Introduction To The History And Culture Of The Samaritans say that II Kings 17 cannot be considered an objective account of Samaritan history:

The Cutheans are simply the inhabitants of the north, not the Samaritan sect. Sargon’s deportation of the indigenous Israelite population probably affected primarily the aristocracy within the city of Samaria. The people groups brought into the region replacing the deportees remained a minority. The invectives of the 2 Kings account address this select few and not the general population, and certainly not a religious sect [i.e., the Samaritans] that had, according to the bulk of evidence, not yet attained a sense of self-awareness.

It is generally recognized that the account in 2 Kings 17 is not objective and unbiased history. The purpose of 2 Kings 17, as well as other passages in the Hebrew Bible (particularly in Chronicles and Ezra), is to highlight the primacy of Jerusalem over any potential rivals.[34]

After examining the evidence, Anderson and Giles conclude that the Samaritans did exist during the time of Assyrian invasion, not as a separate sect but as a part of the northern kingdom of Israel. In other words, Samaritans did not emerge after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE.

After doing a detailed discussion on the alleged presence of the Samaritans in II Kings 17, Coggins concluded that:

The simple truth is, as it is hoped that the first main part of the study has shown, that there is no reference to the Samaritans in the Hebrew Old Testament. Some of the allusions in the work of the Chronicler may point to a situation which would later develop into Judaeo-Samaritan hostility, but that is most that can be said.[35]

The New Bible Dictionary under the entry “Samaritans” says:

… Samaritans are mentioned only in 2 Ki. 17:29, a passage which describes the syncretistic religion of those peoples whom the king of Assyria transported to the N kingdom of Israel to replace the exiled native population after the fall of Samaria (722/721 BC).

Several reasons argue strongly against the identification, favoured by Josephus and many others since, of this group with the Samaritans as they are more widely known from the NT…, some of whose descendents survive to the present day in two small communities at Nablus and Holon: (i) the word used (haššōmrōnîm) seems merely to mean ‘inhabitants of (the city or province of) Samaria (šōmrôn)’, and this fits the context of 2 Ki. 17 best; (ii) there is no evidence that the later Samaritans inhabited Samaria. The earliest certain references to them, by contrast, all points clearly to their residence at Shechem…, whilst one of the Josephus’ sources refers to them as ‘Shechemites’…; (iii) nothing whatever that is known of later Samaritan religion and practice suggests the pagan influence of 2 Ki. 17 or Ezr. 4.[36]

It is worthwhile adding that modern biblical scholarship has recognized that antagonism between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel existed for many centuries which goes back to the period of the united monarchy. The account in II Kings 17 was written from a southern viewpoint and was quick to highlight the primacy of Jerusalem over any potential rivals. Independence from Jerusalem, an identifying characteristic of Samaritanism, draws unqualified criticism in the Hebrew Bible.[37] Modern Samaritan scholarship also realizes that there was no sudden break that separated Jews and Samaritans. Rather, the rift developed over a long period of time with certain events causing more hostility than others.[38] Perhaps it was after John Hyrcanus destroyed the temple on Mount Gerizim in 2nd century BCE, the two communities went separate ways.

To summarize, modern scholarship conclusively refutes the claim of Samaritan origins based on II Kings 17. The Christian missionary and apologist views, including Vargo’s “Jewish view” and the views of his unknown and unnamed “modern scholars”, can now be safely discarded.

4. What Do The Samaritans Say About Their Origins?

As we have seen from our discussion on II Kings 17, until the middle of the 20th century it was widely believed that the Samaritans originated from a mixed race people living in Samaria at the time of the Assyrian conquest in 722 BCE. Scholarship has moved ahead since then and in recent years research based on the study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. The Encyclopaedia Judaica (under “Samaritans”) summarizes both past and the present views on the Samaritans’ origins. It says:

Until the middle of the 20th Century it was customary to believe that the Samaritans originated from a mixture of the people living in Samaria and other peoples at the time of the conquest of Samaria by Assyria (722/1 B.C.E.). The Biblical account in II Kings 17 had long been the decisive source for the formulation of historical accounts of Samaritan origins. Reconsideration of this passage, however, has led to more attention being paid to the Chronicles of the Samaritans themselves. With the publication of Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available: the chronicles, and a variety of non-Samaritan materials.

According to the former, 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. They claim to have continuously occupied their ancient territory in central Palestine and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh and attracting some northern Israelites to his new cult there. For the Samaritans, this was the ‘schism’ par excellence.[39]

Furthermore, even to this day the Samaritans still claim descent from the tribe of Joseph:

The laymen also possess their traditional claims. They are all of the tribe of Joseph, except those of the tribe of Benjamin, but this traditional branch of people, which, the Chronicles assert, was established at Gaza in earlier days, seems to have disappeared. There exists an aristocratic feeling amongst the different families in this petty community, and some are very proud over their pedigree and the great men it had produced.[40]

Clearly, if the Samaritans trace their origins from the time of Joseph’s descendants, then they were certainly in existence in the time of Moses. However, the Samaritan Chronicles, just like the books of the Hebrew Bible, especially the book of Kings, are late compilations.[41] Moreover, as observed earlier, the literature of both the Jews and Samaritans have their own inherent bias in them. They were written from their own point of view and thus exhibit to varying degrees a polemicizing of the events.[42] Nevertheless there are some indications that the Rabbis were aware of the Samaritans’ ancient origins and conceded that they were of genuine Israelite stock. An interesting narration is found in Genesis Rabbah, part of which involves Rabbi Meir discussing the plausibility of the Samaritan claim to have a continuous ancestral link to the tribe of Joseph. The discussion proceeds as follows:

R. Meir met a Samaritan and asked him: ‘Whence are you descended?’ ‘From Joseph,’ he replied. ‘That is not so,’ he said. ‘Then from whom?’ ‘From Issachar,’ he told him. ‘How do you know this?’ he countered. – Because it is written, AND THE SONS OF ISSACHAR: TOLA, AND PUVAH, AND IOB, AND SHIMRON – the last name referring to the Samaritans.’[43]

Although disputing the Samaritan version of the account, Rabbi Meir concurs with their claim to be of genuine Israelite origin. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, the Samaritans can in fact trace their lineage to a time that precedes the advent of Moses.

The problem of establishing the authenticity of the claims of the Jews and Samaritans concerning the origins of the latter is not as insurmountable as it seems. We have already seen that II Kings 17 has nothing to do with the Samaritan origins. On the other hand, the Samaritans claim that they have continuously occupied their ancient territory in central Palestine and to have been at peace with other Israelite tribes until the time when Eli disrupted the Northern cult by moving from Shechem to Shiloh. Perhaps the most crucial question now is whether the Ten Tribes, especially the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh from which Samaritans claimed to have directly descended, survived the Assyrians onslaught? The answer to this question has been dealt with in detail by Nathan Schur using information gleaned from the Hebrew Bible and corroborating it with the archaeological records. His observations can be summarized as follows.[44]

From the Assyrian and biblical records, it is clear that Sargon II moved settlers to the city of Samaria in 722 BCE. If all or most of the new settlers went to the city of Samaria, obviously most of the rest of the country was left basically untouched. This is confirmed by the Hebrew Bible itself in II Chronicles 30:1, 10 which says that King “Hezekiah [727-698 BCE] sent word to all Israel and Judah and also wrote letters to Ephraim and Manasseh, inviting them to come to the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem and celebrate the Passover to the Lord, the God of Israel… The couriers went from town to town in Ephraim and Manasseh, as far as Zebulun, but the people scorned and ridiculed them. Nevertheless, some men of Asher, Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves and went to Jerusalem.” If the people of the northern kingdom of Israel had been completely replaced, as claimed in II Kings 17, there would have been no point to try and get them to come to Jerusalem for Passover. Moreover, the old tribal names would have lost their meaning. What is more interesting is that in the above passages the new foreign upper classes are not even mentioned, which can be taken to mean that their numbers and influence could not have been very sizeable. Ephraim’s old attitude to Jerusalem seems to have been quite unchanged, and only members of the peripheral tribes agreed to come to Jerusalem and follow the lead of the king of Judah. It has been claimed that the disdainful attitude of Ephraim was due to a massive implant of foreign settlers, but if so, why call them by the Israelite tribal name? Furthermore Ephraim’s attitude here is not much different from the traditional one of previous centuries. There is no need, therefore, to stipulate foreign settlers, though their presence, at least in the capital, is of course well established.

In the Book of Ezra further plantations of foreign settlers are mentioned from the times of Assyrian kings Esarhaddon [681-669 BCE] (Ezra 4:2) and Assurbanipal [669-627 BCE] (Ezra 4:10). However in the 12th year of Josiah [628 BCE], after his initial reforms in Jerusalem, he extended them also to the area of the northern kingdom, which he had occupied after the collapse of the Assyrian empire in the west. II Chronicles 34:6 mentions again the old tribes: “And so did he in the cities of Manasseh, and Ephraim, and Simeon, even unto Naphtali …” Thus a hundred years after the fall of Samaria and after the latest Assyrian settlements the old tribal names were still in use and no new, foreign ones had superseded them. It has to be assumed therefore that the old inhabitants were mostly still residing in their old homes and had not been displaced by new settlers.

This conclusion is strengthened by the attitude of Jeremiah. He is reported to have said in chapter 31 that Ephraim is still enjoying the love of God and prophesises its complete restoration jointly with Judah. Nowhere does he allude to Ephraim’s having been supplanted by newcomers. The same goes for Ezekiel. He speaks in the same terms of Ephraim as of Judah. There, too, is no allusion to a strange people having displaced the original settlers.[45]

We lack information of what passed in Samaria during the time of the Babylonian rule. However, even in Judah no new settlers were brought in instead of those exiled to Babylon. The Babylonians do not seem to have taken over the Assyrian concept of replacing local populations by others – or might have lacked the power and resources to do so. Thus it does not seem likely that there were any further settlements in Samaria after those of Assurbanipal. If the old tribal framework was basically intact after the time of this last important Assyrian ruler, the resident Israelite population, with a slight admixture of foreign settlers in the main towns, cannot have changed its composition till the time of Persian rule and the initial Jewish return from Babylonian exile. After making this detailed argument, Schur concludes by saying:

Our conclusion is therefore that the Samaritan tradition is generally correct in claiming direct descent from the Ten Tribes of Israel.

This conclusion can be checked now also by archeological evidence. Except for the destruction of the towns sacked by the Assyrians, such as Samaria and Shechem, other places, where occupation was continuous, show no trace of a different material culture intervening in the later Assyrian period. In the 1967/8 survey ceramic remains of 81 sites were also examined in the province of Samaria, and no differences of nuances could be discovered between the Assyrian period on the one hand and the Persian on the other. The same results were obtained in the 1978/9 survey of the Dotan region, in the exploration of western Samaria and by further archeological excavations of the last 15 years in Samaria.[46]

Nearly similar conclusions were also reached by Frank Cross concerning the uninterrupted existence of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh before and after the Assyrian invasion, although he considers that the earliest form of Samaritanism to be an old Israelite religion.

Accordingly, the later Jewish tradition comes to call the Samaritans en bloc Kutians (kwtym), or sardonically, “lion-proselytes” in light of the anecdote in 2 Kings 17:25-28. For their part, the Samaritans of the later times claimed to be the remnants of Ephraim and Manasseh, authentic Israelites who alone preserve the ancient faith and service of the god of Israel unsullied by Judaean innovations.

In fact, neither of these two polemical positions can stand close critical scrutiny. On the other hand, there are very strong arguments to support the conclusion that the bulk of the men of Ephraim and Manasseh remained in the land; on the other hand, there is equally strong evidence… that Samaritanism in the form we find it in the Roman Age and later is not a survival of old Israelite religion, pure or syncretistic, but rather is essentially a sectarian form of Judaism.[47]

Thus, it can be said the Samaritan tradition is correct in claiming direct descent from tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. Since the Samaritans trace their origins from the time of Joseph’s descendants, then they were certainly in existence during the time of Moses. However, it is not known from the Samaritan Chronicles or the Hebrew Bible as to when the label shamerin was first used by the Samaritans to identify themselves as a distinct group. The Qur’an suggests that this label was already in place during the time of Moses.

The claims of the Samaritans about their Israelite origins were partially corroborated by a recent study involving genetics which we will now turn to.

5. A Genetic Perspective

The Samaritans are a distinct religious and cultural minority in the Middle East. They number slightly over 500 and they reside in Holon, a suburb of Tel Aviv and Nablus, near their holy site of Mount Gerizim.[48] The Samaritans, according to their origins, are divided into three large clans: children of Ephraim (the Danafi and Joshua-Marhiv families), the children of Manasseh (Tsdaka family), and the Priests (Cohanim). As for the priests, the Samaritan Chronicle tells us that in 1624 CE, the priestly house descended from Aaron became extinct, and that since then their sacred functions devolved upon the Levites. Thus the modern-day priestly Cohen lineage is from the tribe of Levi.[49]

Throughout the whole of their history, the Samaritans adhered to an endogamous marriage system that was practised not only within the limits of the community but also within the limits of the lineage. Female Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are expelled from the sect, while the children of male Samaritans who marry non-Samaritans are regarded as Samaritans. Recent studies have shown that around 84% of marriages occur between cousins, producing the highest inbreeding coefficient recorded for any population.[50] This gives a good opportunity to study their genetic character and compare it with Jewish and non-Jewish populations.

Before we go into the issue of genetics, let us first clarify some terms used. A haplotype is the genetic constitution of an individual chromosome and is a contraction of the phrase “haploid genotype”. A haplogroup is a large group of haplotypes. In human genetics, the haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups, both of which can be used to define genetic populations. Both these haplogroups have their distinct advantages. The Y-chromosome has the advantage of being passed solely along the patrilineal line (i.e., only via father), while mtDNA is passed solely on the matrilineal line (i.e., only via mother). Hence these haplogroups can be used to study the lineage especially of those groups/sects who marry within their own groups/sects.

The haplogroups were used to study cohanim who are descended from Aaron. According to biblical tradition, after the Jewish exodus from Egypt, Moses’ brother Aaron was selected as the first cohen. The designation was bestowed upon his sons, providing the basis for a firmly entrenched Jewish tradition in which a male cohen bestows the status upon his children. A daughter of a cohen can become a priest, but she cannot pass on the honour. The Y-chromosome passes solely from father to son, akin to the cohen status. If all modern cohanim were indeed descendants of Aaron, or a relative of him, their Y-chromosomes should have an ancient common origin. Skorecki and his colleagues have found that the cohanim indeed have some Y-chromosome features distinct from other Jews, implying that the cohanim do share some common ancestry.[51] This shared genetic material comes from an ancestor who lived several thousand years ago, roughly the time estimated for the beginning of the Jewish priesthood. This led to the development of a set of Y-chromosomal markers called the “Cohen modal haplotype” that might have been shared by Aaron. A similar study was used to support the claim of the Lemba clan, an endogamous group from southern Africa, that they were a tribe of Jews. One of the Lemba clans carries a particular Y-chromosome which is “Cohen modal haplotype,” at a very high frequency, which is known to be characteristic of the paternally inherited Jewish priesthood and is thought, more generally, to be a potential signature haplotype of Judaic origin.[52]

What about the Samaritans? As we have noted earlier, the Samaritans have the highest inbreeding coefficient as they have an endogamous marriage system that is practised not only within the limits of the community but also within the limits of the lineage. The Samaritans claim that they possessed a high priesthood descending directly from Aaron through Eleazar and Phinehas. If this is true, it should be reflected in their Y-chromosome haplogroup and it should have close relationship with the “Cohen modal haplotype”. This is precisely what has been observed. Shen et al. concluded from Y-chromosome analysis that Samaritans descended from the Israelites; and mtDNA analysis shows descent from the foreign women. This effectively has validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans. Shen et al. say:

Principal component analysis suggests a common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. Most of the former may be traced back to a common ancestor in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) at the time of the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel.[53]

Furthermore, the authors say:

This study confirms the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture… [T]he data … indicate that the Samaritan and Jewish Y-chromosomes have a much greater affinity than do those of the Samaritans and their longtime geographical neighbors, the Palestinians. However, this is not the case for the mtDNA haplotypes. In fact, Table 4 shows that distances of Samaritans to Jews and Palestinians for mtDNA are about the same. Further, the low mitochondrial haplotype diversity suggests that the rate of maternal gene flow into the Samaritan community has not been very high despite their tradition to regard children of male Samaritans born to females from outside as Samaritan… Based on the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype, we speculate that the Samaritan M304 Y-chromosome lineages present a subgroup of the original Jewish Cohanim priesthood that did not go into exile when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in 721 BC, but married Assyrian and female exiles relocated from other conquered lands, which was a typical Assyrian policy to obliterate national identities. This is in line with biblical texts that emphasize a common heritage of Jews and Samaritans, but also record the negative attitude of Jews towards the Samaritans because of their association with people that were not Jewish. Such a scenario could explain why Samaritan Y-chromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Y-lineages…, while their mitochondrial lineages are closest to Iraqi Jewish and Palestinian mtDNA sequences… Finally, the high degree of homogeneity in each of the four male Samaritan lineages, which holds with two exceptions even over 13 microsatellite loci…, underscores the strong male-based endogamy of the Samaritan culture that has effectively limited any male-driven gene flow between the four families.[54]

It is worthwhile adding that this scientific study only establishes the common ancestry of Jews and Samaritans patrilineages; it can’t say when the split between them happened, although the authors of this study have speculated that it could have happened during the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel. We now know that this is not true as modern scholars have conclusively rejected II Kings 17 as a source for the origins of Samaritan and clearly not in “line with biblical texts” as Shen et al. have claimed. Despite this error, the scientific study clearly establishes the common ancestry of Samaritan and Jewish patrilineages. As for the mitochondrial lineages of Samaritans, a different historical explanation needs to be sought.

Vargo did not like this evidence and he tried to dismiss it by saying:

All humans on this planet are descendents of people who were alive during the time of the Exodus, however, all of the ethno-religious groups, which developed over time, cannot/do not seriously claim to have been present at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses was receiving the law! Another problem is that there are many other groups which carry the Cohen modal haplotype. Among the Bantu speaking Lemba of southern Africa nearly fifty-two percent of males carry the Cohen modal haplotype! The Cohen Modal haplotype is also found in significant numbers among Italians and Kurds.

Obviously, the missionary has not taken the opportunity to read the paper carefully enough. The paper clearly says that the Samaritan Y-chromosome lineages cluster tightly with Jewish Y-lineages, the reason being the close relationship of the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes with the Cohen modal haplotype. The issue is not about just having the Cohen modal haplotype, it is about how closely the Samaritan haplogroup J six-microsatellite haplotypes relates with the Cohen modal haplotype. Similarly, the Lemba tribe from sub-Saharan Africa carries a particular Y-chromosome which is a Cohen modal haplotype, at a very high frequency. This suggests a close genetic relationship between the cohanim and the Lemba tribe. The Cohen modal haplotype is also found in Kurds and Italians. Why should this be surprising? There was a Jewish Kingdom of Adiabene in ancient Kurdistan, where the royals and some of the common people converted to Judaism. Nebel et al. have studied the genetic landscape of the Middle East. Concerning the Kurds, they concluded that:

The dominant haplotype of the Muslim Kurds (haplotype 114) was only one microsatellite-mutation step apart from the CMH [Cohen modal haplotype]… The acceptance of Judaism by the rulers and inhabitants of the Kurdish Kingdom of Adiabene in the first century of the Common Era resulted in the assimilation of non-Jews into the community (Brauer 1993). This recorded conversion does not appear to have had a considerable effect on the Y chromosome pool of the Kurdish Jews.[55]

Perhaps Vargo is under the illusion that genetic information disappears if a Jew, who had a long illustrious lineage, converts to either Islam or Christianity. If this person marries with people from a different genetic stock, there will be some genetic changes but not profound. It is only when there is a lack of endogamy over a few generations, the genetic information slowly gets diluted. The case of the cohanim, the Samaritans and the Lemba clan in sub-Saharan Africa is different from the Kurds. Unlike Kurds, the cohanim, the Samaritans and the Lemba clan are tightly knit groups and marriages are usually endogamous (especially the last two groups) and hence the genetic information is preserved, from which one can make reasonable conclusions about their ancestry.

In other words, the conclusion of this study is that the origins of an endogamous community of Samaritans can be traced back to a common ancestor in the cohen or the Jewish priestly family which was paternally inherited. This study establishes a common ancestry for both Jews and Samaritans, the mixed descent of Samaritans which could be due to marriages with foreign women and corroborates the Samaritan claims of Israelite origins.

6. Conclusions

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 a similar vein, the Christian missionaries and apologists have claimed that the Samaritans as a distinct people only emerged after the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel and the resettlement of the area under king Sargon II after 722 BCE. Based solely on the evidence of II Kings 17, the missionaries and apologists claim the Qur’anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as “the Samaritan” (Qur’an 20:85, 87 and 95) during the time of Moses is a historical contradiction.

Contrary to the claims of the missionaries and apologists, specialists in Samaritan studies have noted that the use of the term shomronim in II Kings 17 tells us nothing about the origins of the Samaritans. Shomronim means the “inhabitants of Samaria” and it has nothing to do with shamerin, “keepers” or “observers” of the Torah, which the Samaritans use for themselves. Furthermore, the narrative in II Kings 17:18-24 claiming that the population of Israel in its totality was deported by Assyrians and exchanged to an alien population is unsupported by archaeology. This historical discrepancy severely undermines the veracity of the biblical claim concerning Samaritan origins. Consequently, modern scholars have conclusively rejected II Kings 17 as a source for the origins of Samaritans.

In recent years, research based on a more careful study of the Chronicles of the Samaritans has led to a re-evaluation of their origins. Specifically, with the publication of the Samaritan Chronicle II (Sefer ha-Yamim), the fullest Samaritan version of their own history became available. A historical analysis of this chronicle reveals that 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 common ancestry of both the Jews and Samaritans was also established by recent genetic studies, going back to cohen or the Jewish priestly family. This study also validated both local and foreign origins of the Samaritans.

The missionaries and apologists, ignorant of the Samaritans’ own version of their history as well as recent scholarly investigation and critical analysis, content themselves with repeating the claim made by William St. Clair Tisdall. Unfortunately, Tisdall was also not fully cognizant with the Chronicles of the Samaritans or the extant archaeological evidence; consequently, the missionaries and apologists make claims contrary to recent historical investigation. As we observed in this study, the Qur’anic mention of the name al-Samiri sometimes translated as “the Samaritan” (Qur’an 20:85, 87 and 95) is consistent with modern investigations into the origins of the Samaritan sect.

And Allah knows best!

Advertisements

About [defenderben]

"We will soon show them Our signs in the Universe and INSIDE THEIR SELVES, until it will become quite clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient as regards your Lord that He is a witness over all things?" ~ (The Noble Qur'an, 41:53)
This entry was posted in Qur'an Errors(?), Started From Others and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Samaritan or Samarian in the Qur’an?

  1. [defenderben] says:

    FROM: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBsamari.html

    To Moo Or Not To Moo, That Is The Question!

    Elias Karim, M S M Saifullah & Muhammad Ghoniem

    © Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

    First Composed: 21st October 2001

    Last Updated: 21st January 2006

    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 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: 85-95 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. Muhammad 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.[2] 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 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[4] 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,[5] `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi[6] and N. A. Newman.[7]

    Thus, Tisdall proposes that Muhammad used the source Pirke De-Rabbi Eli’ezer to compose the account found in surah 20:85-95.

    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 cites are in oriental Christian as well as talmudic and haggadic literature. 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 Pirqe de Rabbi Eli’ezer, for example, would seem to have been finally redacted after the advent of Islam.[9]

    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.[10]

    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:

    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?

    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?

    It is quite clear in the Qur’an that God will test people:

    Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, “We believe”, and that they will not be tested? We did test those before them, and Allah will certainly know those who are true from those who are false. [Qur’an 29:2-3]

    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 she-camel.

    There’s no such thing as a free ticket to Paradise!

    And Allah knows best!

    • IF ALLAH KNOWS BEST, then HE would have known that THERE WERE NO SAMARITANS or AL-SAMIRI during the TIME of MOSES.

      The FACT that the ISLAMIC SCHOLARS CONFIRM the MENTION of AL-SAMIRI or THE SAMARITAN in QURAN 20, then the ERROR is ADMITTED and indicates that the ALLAH who Muslims claim originated that information may NOT be THE ALLAH who KNOWS BEST.

  2. [defenderben] says:

    . . . “Saamiree” in the Qur’an does NOT
    mean Samaritan, as the city of Samaria did not exist then. The “Samiri” came
    from a village called “Sâmarrâ”, and a culture in which cows were
    worshipped. Yusuf Ali is wrong in his explanation of the term, and the
    “Samaritan” mistake is repeated by Aisha Bewley in her recent translation
    “The Noble Qur’an” (the same title used by Khan & Hilali, but a different
    work) . . .

    – Matthew Smith

    • The MISTAKE about the “al-Samiri” or “The Samaritan” cannot be hidden or denied.

      Did the “Samiri” come from a “village called Sâmarrâ” and not from Samaria? Where is this Samarra?

      And how can someone from this “Samarra” be with the Israelites during the Exodus out of Egypt?

      Should this be accepted, it will only point to another ignorance in Muslim belief. The Israelites are all descendants of Isaac and no Israelite can claim to be from any village called “Samarra.”

      Islamic defenders are coming up with so many lies and inventions just to cover up this glaring mistake about the “al-Samiri.”

      Meanwhile, Islamic defenders are belittling their scholars who admit that this “al-Samiri” means “the Samaritan.”

      Here is what the MAJOR SUNNI TAFSIR of Jalal ad-Din al-Mahalli:
      “But those he supposed [to be following him] had remained behind, for He, exalted be He, said, ‘Indeed We tried your people after you, that is, after your departure from them, and the Samaritan led them astray’, so they took to worshipping the [golden] calf.”

      See?

      TAFSIR AL-JALALAYN is a classic Sunni tafsir of the Quran started in 1459 and completed in 1505.

      Notice that it is honest enough to admit that al-Samiri means “the Samaritan.”

      But recent Islamic defenders unable to explain the contradiction in Surah 20:85 are refuting this CLASSIC TAFSIR by making up all kinds of dubious explanations.

      Just admit it. This error cannot be denied or refuted.

      • Hey, ur words are “extra-branching” . . . kung saan-saan ka na yata napupunta. Ang punto dito ay KUNG ANG “SAMARII” BA NA TINUTUKOY AY KASAPI NG MGA SAMARITAN O SAMARIAN NA BIBABANGGIT SA BIBLIYA, OO o HINDI? At ang sagot ay HINDI.

        Sa mga tinutukoy mo na mga scholars, wala ako paki-alam sa kanila sa ngayon. What is between us is just between us. No out, no in.

        I rely on the ORIGINAL. I’m unlike you, relying on lies.

  3. [defenderben] says:

    From: svirk@hotmail.com
    Subject: Samaritan error?
    Date: 03 Jun 1999 00:00:00 GMT
    Message-ID:
    X-Folder: SRI
    Approved: sri-admin@hrweb.org
    Sender: ariel@rahul.net
    References:
    X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.100.125.66
    X-Original-Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
    X-Original-Message-ID:
    Moderator: sri-admin@hrweb.org (SRI Moderator)
    X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x40.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 128.100.125.66
    Organization: Deja.com – Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
    Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
    NNTP-Posting-User: ariel

    In article ,
    jkatz@math.gatech.edu wrote:

    > In article ,
    > “Dr. M S M Saifullah” writes:
    >
    >> Samarians or Samaritans? The Christian missionaries have
    >> claimed that the mention of Samaritans during the time of
    >> Moses and Aaron(P) in the Qur’an is a historical
    >> contradiction.

    JK
    > …discussion snipped, we may pick it up at a later time…

    Dr.S.
    >> If the Samaritans trace their origins from the time of
    >> Joseph’s(P) descendants, then they were certainly in
    >> existence in the time of Moses(P)!

    JK
    > Just for clarification let me ask this:
    >
    > The usual response by Yusuf Ali and Jamal Badawi on this
    > issue has been to deny that this word refers to a
    > Samarian/Samaritan (that is really insubstantial). Even
    > though it is the exact same Arabic word as the one that
    > is used for the Samaritans, it is supposedly not derived
    > from it, but from some other entity, so goes the reasoning.

    SV
    That is one possible line of reasoning. The Quran could refer
    to a name or title that existed in the time of Moses which
    was eventually applied to a group of people, the Samaritans.
    Where did they get their name from? From where did the city
    or area called Samaria derive its name? Do you wish to argue
    that the name or title was unknown at the time of Moses(pbuh)
    and could only have been invented at a much later time?

    JK
    > Now, it seems to me that Saifullah does no longer want to
    > hold to this kind of evasive explanation, but instead
    > tries to prove that these Samaritans can already (by their
    > own claim) be traced back far enough to make the Qur’anic
    > mentioning valid, and no longer a contradiction.

    SV
    That too is a possibility. The Samaritans trace their own
    history to a period before Moses(pbuh).

    JK
    > Before we discuss the issue, I would like to have this
    > clarification:
    >
    > Does Saifullah agree with most non-Muslim writers now
    > (and we agree too) that this Qur’anic verse talks about
    > a Samaritan (i.e. a name for a people group or ethnic/
    > tribal entity, just like saying “a German” or “an Arab”
    > or “a Levite”) and not about a man who for whatever reason
    > had the personal name of “as-Samiri” but this has nothing
    > to do with Samaritans.

    SV
    It might refer to one or the other, both or neither.
    As-Samiri might just have been the persons name, it might
    have been a title used to refer to a group of people or it
    might just be an attributive title the Quran employs to
    describe the person in question.

    JK
    > If we agree on this, then we have a basis for discussion.
    > If he wants to play both sides of the issue, then there is
    > no point of even discussing this. Can’t have your cake and
    > eat it too.

    SV
    Your claim is that the Quran is in error. How can that be
    when there are several very reasonable ways to remove the
    alleged error?

    JK
    > Is in your eyes, “as-Samiri” a proper personal name, or
    > is it a term telling us about his belonging to the group
    > of “Samari(t)ans” whether they existed at this time as
    > Saifullah claims, or not as many other claim?
    >
    > Please commit yourself clearly to an interpretation and
    > then we discuss the rest of the evidence. But first I want
    > to know what exactly we are discussing.

    SV
    I say we are discussing all possible interpretations. If
    it is proven that a particular interpretation is incorrect
    then we can dismiss it.

    Personally, I think ‘as-Samiri’ was an attributive name
    applied to the leader or the group among the Jews who
    conspired and taught others to worship the calf-idol.

    Referring to the Bible we can note two interesting facts.
    First let’s refer to Ezekiel:

    “The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, confront
    Jerusalem with her detestable practices and say, ‘This is
    what the Sovereign LORD says to Jerusalem: Your ancestry
    and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father
    was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.
    [Bible, Ezekiel 16:1-3]

    The chapter continues making much use of metaphorical
    language to describe Jerusalem and it’s adulterous practices
    until we reach the following:

    “You(Jerusalem) are a true daughter of your mother, who
    despised her husband and her children; and you are a true
    sister of your sisters, who despised their husbands and
    their children. Your mother was a Hittite and your father
    an Amorite. Your older sister was Samaria,…”
    [Bible, Ezekiel 16:45,46]

    According to this Samaria is the older sister of Jerusalem.
    Does the Bible then not recognise the antiquity of Samaria?
    Jerusalem is a very old city and it appears Samaria is older.
    We find that Jerusalem is indeed an old city when the Bible
    refers to it in Genesis:

    “After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the
    kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet
    him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley).
    Then Melchizedek king of Salem [Jerusalem] brought out
    bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,”
    [Bible, Genesis 14:17,18]

    We find that, in his time, Abraham(pbuh) meets the King of
    Jerusalem and the Bible suggests that Samaria is Jerusalem’s
    older sister. In other words it would be possible for the
    Quran to refer to a Samaritan in the time of Moses(pbuh),
    during the Exodus.

    Now let’s refer to the second passage of the Bible relevant
    to our discussion:

    “In the thirty-first year of Asa king of Judah, Omri became
    king of Israel, and he reigned twelve years, six of them
    in Tirzah. He bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for
    two talents of silver and built a city on the hill, calling
    it Samaria, after Shemer, the name of the former owner of
    the hill.” [ Bible, 1 Kings 16:23,24]

    According to the above passage, Samaritans are named after
    a city, named after a hill, named after a previous owner of
    the hill whose name was Shemer. Thus we can suggest that the
    names Shemer or even Samiri had been in use long before there
    was a city built in the area.

    For now, let us pretend that the Christian is correct and
    there was no such thing as a Samaritan in the time of
    Moses(pbuh) and let us pretend that the Quran is in fact
    referring to a Samaritan.

    Since, Samaria is named after a hill, which is a location,
    we can refer to people who lived in the vicinity as Samaritans
    whether or not Samaria actually existed at their time or not.
    For example, if I say that in 1000 AD the main source of
    food for Native Americans was buffalo and fish, have I made
    some sort of mistake? After all, the name “America” did not
    even exist at that time. No, it might be proper to refer to
    them by that name as it signifies the area or geographical
    location in which they lived.

    So, if a person was from an area that was later called Samaria,
    would it be wrong to refer to that person as a Samaritan? If
    the Samiri of the Quran simply lived in the area that later
    became known as Samaria, there should be no harm in referring
    to him as a “Samaritan” in the same way one might refer to
    Native Americans. In fact, that is exactly what the Bible
    itself appears to do in the above quoted passage. The hill is
    called Samaria before that name actually existed. Unless we
    assume the hill or area was already called Samaria and the
    Bible is wrong that it was named after the man who sold it.
    (I think that is likely)

    Now let us turn to the Quran and the Arabic word “as-Samiri”
    which appears to be derived from “samar”. One possible
    derivation is “Se-me-ra” which means to pass the night
    in conversation. The word has been used in the Quran in this
    sense:

    “My communications were indeed recited to you, but you used
    to turn back on your heels, In arrogance; talking nonsense
    about the Quran, and left him like [one telling fables by
    night.](Sa-mar-an)” [Quran 23:66,67]

    Another derivative of “Samar” is “Samra” which means “to nail
    something. “Samir” is a “person who nails”. The word “Samir”
    (one who nails) can be used to refer to those who carry on
    the profession of blacksmiths or carpenters.

    Now if we examine the passage of the Quran that refers to
    as-Samiri we find that both interpretations would fit the
    person who led the people of Moses(pbuh) astray with the
    golden calf. The Quran states:

    “Allah said, ‘WE have tried thy people in thy absence, and
    the Samiri has led them astray.’ So Moses returned to his
    people,… They said, ‘We did not break our promise to thee
    of our own accord; but we were laden with loads of people’s
    ornaments and we threw them away, and likewise did the
    Samiri cast.’ Then he produced for them a calf…”
    [Quran 20:85-88]

    We see that it was the Samiri who used the ornaments to
    create the calf suggesting that he was some sort of artisan
    or blacksmith. We also see that it was the Samiri who led the
    people astray. According to the Quran, Aaron tried to guide
    his people but they would not listen because they had been
    beguiled by the Samiri. When confronted by Moses(pbuh), the
    Samiri states he was more insightful than the other people;
    claiming he saw or understood what they could not.

    This appears to establish both senses of the word. As-Samiri
    was a capable blacksmith or artisan and he was someone who
    lead people astray through vain talk or discourses. That we
    should be aware of such arrogant dealers of deception among
    us, appears to be the purpose of including this event in the
    Quran. It is most fitting that the Quran closes the affair
    with the following words:

    “Thus do WE relate to thee the tidings of what has happened
    before. And WE have given thee from US a Reminder.”
    [Quran 20:99]

    The verse is in one sense a prophecy; That Muhammad(pbuh) and
    the Muslims would face similar conditions and people like
    as-Samiri. Wasn’t it a person much like as-Samiri, Abdullah
    bin Saba, who stirred up revolt against the third Khalif,
    Uthman, which ended in Uthman’s assassination and the split in
    Islam? Wasn’t Ali accused of being an accomplice in the
    assassination? Compare to how the Christians and Jews still
    accuse Aaron(pbuh) of creating the golden calf when in fact
    it was the doing of as-Samiri. Had the Samiri had his way it
    would surely have caused a split between the Israelites.
    It is interesting to note that much later in time some
    Israelites did split away from the rest of the Israelites
    and became known as a distinct community, the Samaritans.

    These Samaritans claim that they have existed from a time
    before the Exodus. If the Christian wishes to cast doubt on
    the Quran by interpreting it as referring to a Samaritan
    during the Exodus he will have to prove that the Samritans
    are lying or wrong when they state they existed at the time.

    Finally, if the Christians wishes to argue about something,
    why doesn’t he argue about the more important issue about
    which the Quran and Bible are in conflict? The Bible accuses
    Aaron of creating the idol while the Quran states Aaron tried
    to stop them. I doubt the Chritian would want to pursue this
    discussion.

    “Other scholars, such as Sigmund Mowinckel, believe that the
    narrative about the golden calf, which presents Aaron in an
    unfavourable light, was part of the ancient tradition in
    the Yahwist work, being the only passage in it that mentions
    him. This narrative, according to these scholars, originally
    came from the northern kingdom of Israel and described Aaron
    as the ancestor of the priests in northern Israel; later it
    was rewritten in a way defamatory to Aaron. But there are
    also features in the narrative that may indicate that a later
    source (or traditionist), the Elohist, tried to excuse Aaron
    and to put the main responsibility on the people.”
    [Aaron, Enc.Britannica online]

    The Bible scholars appear to be uncertain about Aaron’s
    involvement in the affair. If only they could see the truth
    as found in the Quran. I may bring this up again under the
    discussion on apostasy.


    Wasalaam,
    Saqib Virk

    • This essay simply shows us the effort of Islamic defenders in trying to explain the MISTAKE in Surah 20:85.

      They cannot give one or two credible explanations so they give a smorgasbord or menu of “possible” responses.

      The excuse of Saqib Virk for providing an entire menu of explanations is “I say we are discussing all possible interpretations. If it is proven that a particular interpretation is incorrect then we can dismiss it.”

      How convenient. It is like saying, he will try to GUESS until he finds one that can be credible. As we say in Pilipino, “Baka maka-tsamba.” (He hopes to get lucky). Now, Islamic defenders are putting their faith on luck?

      Anyway, lets look at the GUESSES of SV and see if any comes close to being credible.

      1. Samaria, Jerusalem’s ‘older sister’

      SV SAID:
      “You(Jerusalem) … Your older sister was Samaria,…”
      [Bible, Ezekiel 16:45,46]

      According to this Samaria is the older sister of Jerusalem.
      Does the Bible then not recognise the antiquity of Samaria?
      Jerusalem is a very old city and it appears Samaria is older.
      We find that Jerusalem is indeed an old city when the Bible
      refers to it in Genesis:

      “… Then Melchizedek king of Salem [Jerusalem] brought out
      bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High,”
      [Bible, Genesis 14:17,18]

      We find that, in his time, Abraham(pbuh) meets the King of
      Jerusalem and the Bible suggests that Samaria is Jerusalem’s
      older sister. In other words it would be possible for the
      Quran to refer to a Samaritan in the time of Moses(pbuh),
      during the Exodus.

      SV’s conclusion is based on false assumptions.

      a. Note that Ezekiel called Samaria as Jerusalem’s “older sister” sometime between 593BC and 662 BC, at a time when the Kingdom of Israel was already divided between North and South.

      Here, Samaria is the capital of the Northern Kingdom and is figuratively called “older” because it consisted of 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel and was even called Israel.

      Jerusalem was the capital of the Southern Kingdom, which consisted only of two tribes: Judah and Benjamin. Being lesser in number, Jerusalem was “younger” than Samaria.

      SV’s wrong understanding of what “older sister” meant led him to believe that Ezekiel was referring to age, thus he related Ezekiel 16 to Genesis 14 and his assumption that “Samaria” had existed during the time of Abraham.

      SV could not be more wrong. His assumption is not only erroneous but pretentious, aiming to deceive.

      b. Knowing that Saqib Virq’s understanding of Ezekiel 14 is wrong, discussing Genesis 14 is already irrelevant.

      However, it is noteworthy to say that in Genesis 14:17, “Jerusalem” was NOT even CALLED “Jerusalem” but “Salem.” It was also called Jebus prior to the conquest of David in 1000BC.

      Also, Samaria was non-existent at that time. SV proved this fact when he quoted 1Kings 16:23-24. During that time of 1Kings, the kingdom was already divided. Notice that Judah (Southern Kingdom) had a king and Israel (Northern Kingdom) had its own king.

      It was only after Omri, king of the North, did Samaria exist. This proves further that the mention of “al-Samiri” in Surah 20:85 during the time of Moses is indeed an ERROR.

      So, SV’s GUESS NO. 1 is PROVEN WRONG.

      2. SV said, “According to the above passage, Samaritans are named after
      a city, named after a hill, named after a previous owner of
      the hill whose name was Shemer. Thus we can suggest that the
      names Shemer or even Samiri had been in use long before there
      was a city built in the area.”

      SV is confused.

      The owner of the hill, Shemer, existed only during the time of Omri as stated in 1Kings 16:24. So, how can people during the time of Moses be named after him?

      SV’s GUESS NO. 2 is PROVEN WRONG.

      3. SV said: “Since, Samaria is named after a hill, which is a location,
      we can refer to people who lived in the vicinity as Samaritans
      whether or not Samaria actually existed at their time or not.”

      Saqib Virk made a wrong conclusion.

      Before Omri bought the hill, it was not yet called “Samaria.” It was only Omri who gave it that name. And that was already around 884BC.

      So, how can people during the time of Moses in 1400BC?

      SV is only applying the same MISTAKE that was applied when SURAH 20:85 was written.

      A MISTAKE will not correct another MISTAKE.

      So, SV’s GUESS NO. 3 is PROVEN WRONG.

      4. SV said, “if a person was from an area that was later called Samaria,
      would it be wrong to refer to that person as a Samaritan? If
      the Samiri of the Quran simply lived in the area that later
      became known as Samaria, there should be no harm in referring
      to him as a “Samaritan” in the same way one might refer to
      Native Americans.”

      SV has created more problems for himself with this next GUESS of his.

      First, how did anyone know that the person who misled the Israelites came from that hill that had not yet been called “Samaria”?

      Second, during the time of Moses, that hill was part of Canaan, which was not part of Egypt, thus was independent.

      What would a Caananite be doing with the Israelites leaving Egypt?

      When the Israelites left Egypt, they had been living there for centuries. So, how can anyone leaving Egypt be called a “Samaritan” when they had been residents of Egypt for generations?

      Third, the Israelites were descendants of Jacob. There is not evidence that even Jacob lived on that hill that was later called Samaria.

      Fourth, there was no city or town on that hill before Omri bought it from Shemer. Historians say it was a plantation for making wine and oil.

      So, this GUESS NO. 4 of SV is WILD. As WILD as the GUESS done in SURAH 20:85.

      5. SV says: “In fact, that is exactly what the Bible itself appears to do in the above quoted passage. The hill is called Samaria before that name actually existed. Unless we assume the hill or area was already called Samaria and the Bible is wrong that it was named after the man who sold it. (I think that is likely)

      And where did SV get this idea?

      His conclusion is utterly baseless.

      1Kings 16:24 says that Omri named the hill “Samaria” only AFTER he bought it from Shemer. Before that time, the hill did not have any name.

      Again, SV’s GUESS NO. 5 is PROVEN WRONG.

      6. SV said, “Now let us turn to the Quran and the Arabic word “as-Samiri”
      which appears to be derived from “samar”. One possible derivation is “Se-me-ra” which means to pass the night in conversation…

      Another derivative of “Samar” is “Samra” which means “to nail something. “Samir” is a “person who nails”. The word “Samir” (one who nails) can be used to refer to those who carry on the profession of blacksmiths or carpenters.

      We see that it was the Samiri who used the ornaments to create the calf suggesting that he was some sort of artisan or blacksmith. We also see that it was the Samiri who led the people astray. According to the Quran, Aaron tried to guide his people but they would not listen because they had been beguiled by the Samiri. When confronted by Moses(pbuh), the Samiri states he was more insightful than the other people; claiming he saw or understood what they could not.

      This appears to establish both senses of the word. As-Samiri was a capable blacksmith or artisan and he was someone who lead people astray through vain talk or discourses…

      This reference of SV to the QURAN creates problems for him.

      First, SV should first establish that the QURAN came from an EXTRAORDINARY SOURCE, like GOD or a DIVINE BEING.

      So far, NO MUSLIM has been able to prove that any part of the Quran was SPOKEN by GOD HIMSELF to the Islamic prophet. In fact, they admit that Allah never spoke any word of the Quran to Muhammad.

      To skirt that fact, Muslims claim that it was an “angel” who revealed the Quran to their prophet. But then, Muslims admit that no one can prove that an angel indeed revealed the Quran to him. They cannot produce any witness who would say that he or she heard this “angel” reveal anything to Muhammad.

      Muslims have what they call “Hadith Jibril.” But which “Hadith Jibril” should be believed? There are many “Hadith Jibrils” and they contradict one another. Also, no version of this hadith was related by an actual witness. All are hearsay.

      The next problem of SV in citing the Quranic account is that it totally contradicts the account in the Bible, where NO SAMARITAN was ever mentioned as instigating the making of the golden calf.

      In the Biblical account, it was the people who asked Aaron to make them an idol. (Exodus 32:1) And it was Aaron who asked them to give them their gold (Exodus 32:2). Later, it was Aaron who fashioned the golden calf and gave it to them as their “god.” (Exodus 32:4)

      Now, faced with these contradictions, which account would we believe? The Quranic account whose origins is unknown or the Biblical account which comes from the Israelites themselves?

      Definitely, the Biblical account is the credible and reliable one.

      So, SV’s GUESS NO. 6 is PROVEN WRONG and even UNRELIABLE.

      7. SV said, “It is interesting to note that much later in time some Israelites did split away from the rest of the Israelites and became known as a distinct community, the Samaritans.

      These Samaritans claim that they have existed from a time before the Exodus. If the Christian wishes to cast doubt on the Quran by interpreting it as referring to a Samaritan during the Exodus he will have to prove that the Samritans are lying or wrong when they state they existed at the time.

      SV did not read his own ideas. He himself said that the Samaritan only came into being after a “much later in time some Israelites did split away from the rest of the Israelites and became known as a distinct community, the Samaritans.”

      So, how can he say that Christians still need to disprove the Samaritans’ claim of antiquity? SV already knows the answer!

      Now, if the Samaritans are claiming that they precede the Exodus, then they should be the ones to prove that. The Bible itself has shown that they only existed after Omri bought a hill and built a city on it as stated in 1Kings 16:24.

      And so, SV’s GUESS NO. 7 is PROVEN WRONG.

      Again, SV said “If [a GUESS] is proven that a particular interpretation is incorrect then we can dismiss it.”

      After examining all of his GUESSES, we have shown that SV has RUN OUT of SUPPOSITIONS and IMAGININGS. NONE of his GUESSES proved credible to remove the MISTAKE in SURAH 20:85.

      The Samaritan in SURAH 20:85 remains a GRAVE ERROR.

  4. [defenderben] says:

    Finally, there is NO strong evidence that As-Samari in the Qur’an belong to the Samaritans or Samarians in the Bible. The problem is with the translators! They translate As-Samari as Samaritan or Samarian, which is a grave mistake! What is true is that there is a certain As-Samari during the time of Moses. Making this As-Samari ‘thing’ is NOT an error on the part of the Qur’an! Idiot Christian attackers of Qur’an! Wew!

    Example:

    Sahih International
    [ Allah ] said, “But indeed, We have tried your people after you [departed], and the “Samiri” has led them astray.”
    ~ Quran 20:85

    Transliteration
    Qala fa-inna qad fatannaqawmaka min baAAdika waadallahumu “assamiriy”

    Visit http://quran.com/20/85-95 and click transliteration. 😀

    • “1catholicdefender says:
      2012/05/04 at 10:17 PM (Edit)

      IF ALLAH KNOWS BEST, then HE would have known that THERE WERE NO SAMARITANS or AL-SAMIRI during the TIME of MOSES.

      The FACT that the ISLAMIC SCHOLARS CONFIRM the MENTION of AL-SAMIRI or THE SAMARITAN in QURAN 20, then the ERROR is ADMITTED and indicates that the ALLAH who Muslims claim originated that information may NOT be THE ALLAH who KNOWS BEST.”

      My Reply: You are definitely stressing that the “As-Samari” MUST be one the Samarians/Samaritans of the Bible (the books of errors). Sadly, as I said, WHOEVER IS THAT AS-SAMARI WHOM PROPHET MOSES (PEACE BE UPON HIM) IS TALKING TO, AS-SAMARI WAS NOT A SAMARIAN OR SAMARITAN OF THE BIBLE, BUT AS-SAMARI IN ITS VERY WORD. That As-Samari was was NOT a “Waray” of Samar Provinces too. LOL. 😀

      True errors are can be found in your Bible, NOT IN THE HOLY QUR’AN. 😀

      What a pity.

      1 – Scientific Absurdities:

      Proverbs 6:6-8, ants have no commander, no ruler and no overseer! This is absurdly false, because ants live in colonies and ranks of rulership and authority. And they have a queen.

      Compare this falsehood to the Holy Quran’s Scientific Miracle about the ants ranks and 4 layers of communications which scientists today have recently confirmed: Ants do indeed talk to each others as the Holy Quran Stated!

      Revelations 12:1-9, the dragon will enter heaven and wage war with the angels! It is a classic fairy tale from a magical world.

      Matthew 27:51-53, the resurrection of the dead at crucifixion is not mentioned by three gospels, and is considered a fairy tale according to Bibles’ commentaries.

      Judges 9:7-16, trees voted for their own King. Judges 9:8 “The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them.”

      Carm.org said: “The Bible contains many different styles of writing such as poetry, narration, fiction, history, law, and prophecy and must be interpreted in context of those styles.”

      Leviticus 11:20-23, “All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.” No insect with four legs exists. Insects have six legs and six feet.

      Leviticus 11:6 “The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is unclean for you.” Rabbits, are lagomorphs, not ruminants; they do not chew the cud.

      The earth is flat, has four corners, is standing on pillars that prevent it from shaking, and is immovable. (1 Samuel 2:8, Job 9:6, Job 38:4, Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1, Job 38:13, Jeremiah 16:19, Daniel 4:11, Psalm 93:1-3, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Matthew 4:8)

      Daniel 4:10-11 declares the earth is flat, “10 These are the visions I saw while lying in my bed: I looked, and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. 11 The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth.”

      Matthew 13:31-32 “He (Jesus) told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds,” The mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds. Others, such as the orchid seed, are smaller.

      Mark 16:18 “they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.” Christians so bothered by the falsehood of this verse due to the many fatalities they suffered because of it, that the Bible theologians insist on denying these verses by saying: “The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” [1] [2].

      John 12:24 “I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.” That is scientifically false. The dead seed does not produce new seeds.

      James 5:3 gold and silver do rust.

      Genesis 1:16, GOD Almighty created two lamps, the sun and the moon, each giving an independent light to earth. The Hebrew says “two lamps”, meaning each giving off its independent light. Visit: http://biblelexicon.org/genesis/1-16.htm.

      Leviticus 12:2-5, a female causes double the pollution when she’s born than that of a boy. The mother remains unclean for 66 days after birth of a female instead of 33 days if she gives birth to a male.

      Please visit: How do the Bible and the Noble Quran view women?

      1 Corinthians 2:15 The spiritual leader is above the law; he is the supreme Law! He “The spiritual man makes judgment about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment.”

      The problem with this verse is that it is absurd at best, because the Christian spiritual leaders of all denominations are historically notorious in getting exposed with too much scandals in corruption, stealing, misusing the donations to themselves, prostitutions, homosexuality, too much pedophilia, and even war mongering and persecutions. So how can any man of any faith, who as a human can go astray any time, be above and beyond the Law that he himself is even looked at and is treated as the Supreme Law?

      1 Kings 11:4 “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods.”

      2 Kings 23:12-14
      12 He pulled down the altars the kings of Judah had erected on the roof near the upper room of Ahaz, and the altars Manasseh had built in the two courts of the temple of the LORD. He removed them from there, smashed them to pieces and threw the rubble into the Kidron Valley.
      13 The king also desecrated the high places that were east of Jerusalem on the south of the Hill of Corruption—the ones Solomon king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the vile goddess of the Sidonians, for Chemosh the vile god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the people of Ammon.
      14 Josiah smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles and covered the sites with human bones.

      King Solomon was one of the Bible’s Prophets with several books written by him. This verse proves that he never believed that he was a Prophet, nor was he ever inspired by GOD Almighty, which means that the Bible’s books are not the True Word of GOD Almighty.

      Please visit: Solomon and the idols for more verses.

      Note: Prophet Solomon of Islam is different from the false prophet of the corrupt bible.

      Voodoo practices in the Bible that originate from pagan practices in ancient Egypt and Palestine:

      Leviticus 14:49-53
      49 take two birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop.
      50 He shall kill one of the birds over fresh water in a clay pot.
      51 Then he is to take the cedar wood, the hyssop, the scarlet yarn and the live bird, dip them into the blood of the dead bird and the fresh water, and sprinkle the house seven times.
      52 He shall purify the house with the bird’s blood, the fresh water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop and the scarlet yarn.
      53 Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields outside the town. In this way he will make atonement for the house, and it will be clean.”

      Leviticus 14:14
      14 The priest is to take some of the blood of the guilt offering and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot.

      Lying is propagated and promoted in both the Old and New Testaments.

      1 Samuel 16:1-13, GOD Almighty commanded Samuel to LIE and say that he came to sacrifice for the LORD, when in reality he came to anoint David.

      Romans 3:1-8, Paul admitted that he lied and that he resorted to lying for the sake of spreading GOD Almighty’s Truth: “But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—”Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.”

      Philippians 1:15-18, Paul said that the end justifies the means even through false motives and lies: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”

      2- Textual and Historical Contradictions:

      From http://www.answering-christianity.com/authors_gospels.htm:

      2 Samuel 10:18 – David slew 700 and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
      1 Chronicles 19:18 – David slew 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen.

      2 Chronicles 9:25 – Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
      1 Kings 4:26 – Solomon had 40,000 stalls for horses.

      Ezra 2:5 – Arah had 775 sons.
      Nehemiah 7:10 – Arah had 652 sons.

      2 Samuel 24:13 – SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE.
      1 Chronicles 21:11-12 – THREE YEARS OF FAMINE.

      How did Judas die?
      Matthew 27:5 – Hanged himself.
      Acts 1:18 – And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out.

      2 Samuel 6:23 – MICHAL never had a child until she died.
      2 Samuel 21:8 – MICHAL had 5 sons.

      2 Kings 24:8 – Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began to reign.
      2 Chronicles 36:9 – Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign.

      1 Kings 16:6-8 – 26th year of the reign of Asa, Baasha reigned over Israel.
      2 Chronicles 16:1 – 36th year of the reign of Asa, Baasha reigned over Israel.

      How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?
      22 in 2 Kings 8:26
      42 in 2 Chronicle 22:2

      Who was Josiah’s successor?
      Jehoahaz – 2 Chronicle 36:1
      Shallum – Jeremiah 22:11

      Again, the Bible Declares:

      “All scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

      “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless….” (2 Samuel 22:31)

      “And the words of the LORD are flawless….” (Psalm 12:6)

      “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless….” (Psalm 18:30)

      “Every word of God is flawless….” (Proverbs 30:5) 🙂

      • Where is the flawless? Or do you know the meaning of the word flawless? I bit not.

      • DEFENDERBEN (ISLAMIC DEFENDER) SAID:
        You are definitely stressing that the “As-Samari” MUST be one the Samarians/Samaritans of the Bible (the books of errors). Sadly, as I said, WHOEVER IS THAT AS-SAMARI WHOM PROPHET MOSES (PEACE BE UPON HIM) IS TALKING TO, AS-SAMARI WAS NOT A SAMARIAN OR SAMARITAN OF THE BIBLE, BUT AS-SAMARI IN ITS VERY WORD. That As-Samari was was NOT a “Waray” of Samar Provinces too. LOL.

        Please read my POSTS, which I hope you would NOT HIDE.

        It was not I who INSIST that AS-SAMIRI is a SAMARITAN but YOUR SCHOLARS.

        And if you think they are FUNNY, then I AGREE WITH YOU.

        It is LAUGHABLE that MUSLIMS are FIGHTING AGAINST EACH OTHER about this GRAVE MISTAKE. One side is ADMITTING IT, while the other side is TRYING to HIDE IT.

        And again, YOU ARE TRYING to EVADE the ISSUE by again ATTACKING the BIBLE with your BASELESS ACCUSATIONS.

        IF YOU BELIEVE YOUR LIES, then ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE: IT IS EITHER ALL YOUR CLAIMS are TRUE or ALL OF THEM are FALSE. IF I PROVE ONE OF THEM AS FALSE then YOU WOULD ADMIT that ALL OF THEM are FALSE.

        DON’T RUN AWAY from THIS CHALLENGE.

        Otherwise YOU ARE ALREADY ADMITTING that ALL YOUR CLAIMS are LIES.

      • WHY DID YOU REMOVE MY RESPONSE to this ABSURD ANT MIRACLE of YOURS?

        ARE YOU ASHAMED that YOUR PROPHET “HEARD” ANTS TALKING?

        ARE YOU ASHAMED that YOUR PROPHET CLAIMED TALKING to ANTS?

        Or ARE YOU ASHAMED that CONTRARY to YOUR CLAIM that SCIENCE “PROVED” a QURANIC MIRACLE, IT HAS PROVEN the QURAN to be have MADE A BAD MISTAKE?

    • If that is your position then you have no other persons to blame but Islamic scholars like Jalal ad-Din al-Mahalli and his student Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti for this “grave mistake.”

      It is saddening that you should turn to blaming others for this “grave mistake.”

      Nonetheless, to prove that this “grave mistake” is indeed part of Surah 20:85, let us read what the DICTIONARY OF ISLAM says about “as Samiri” and “Samaritan.”

      According to the <a href="http://www.qurango.com/s.htm"<DICTIONARY OF ISLAM:

      SAMARITAN. [AS SAMIRI]

      AS-SAMIRI. Mentioned in the Qur’an (Surah xx. 87: “As-Samiri has led them astray”) as the person who made the golden calf for the Children of Israel. In Professor Palmer’s translation, it is tendered “the Samaritan,” which. is according. to al-Baizawi, who says his name was Musa ibn Zafar, of the tribe of Samaritans. [MOSES.]

      By the way, this DICTIONARY OF ISLAM is located at http://www.qurango.com, which is run by Amir Ali Tayyab, Webmaster, Ph: +1-201-204-9015 or +1-407-434-1786. E-Mail: aatayyab@yahoo.com, Skype/Yahoo: aatayyab

      So, Islamic defenders can deny all they want and try to hide this “grave mistake” but they cannot prevent the TRUTH from coming out.

    • If that is your position then you have no other persons to blame but Islamic scholars like Jalal ad-Din al-Mahalli and his student Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti for this “grave mistake.”

      They are the “idiots” that you are referring to.

      It is saddening that you should turn to blaming others for this “grave mistake.”

      Nonetheless, to prove that this “grave mistake” is indeed part of Surah 20:85, let us read what the DICTIONARY OF ISLAM says about “as Samiri” and “Samaritan.”

      According to the DICTIONARY OF ISLAM:

      SAMARITAN. [AS SAMIRI]

      AS-SAMIRI. Mentioned in the Qur’an (Surah xx. 87: “As-Samiri has led them astray”) as the person who made the golden calf for the Children of Israel. In Professor Palmer’s translation, it is tendered “the Samaritan,” which. is according. to al-Baizawi, who says his name was Musa ibn Zafar, of the tribe of Samaritans. [MOSES.]

      By the way, this DICTIONARY OF ISLAM is located at http://www.qurango.com, which is run by Amir Ali Tayyab, Webmaster, Ph: +1-201-204-9015 or +1-407-434-1786. E-Mail: aatayyab@yahoo.com, Skype/Yahoo: aatayyab

      So, Islamic defenders can deny all they want and try to hide this “grave mistake” but they cannot prevent the TRUTH from coming out.

      • Did that dictionary is presented by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? Any one “can” make a dictionary and give self-meaning to every terminologies they put there. 😀

        As for the team from Qurango.com, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEM. There are lots of Anti-Islam who make fake Islamic webs. Note: I’m not including Qurango.com 😀

      • I am NOT SURPRISED that YOU WOULD DISCREDIT FELLOW MUSLIMS who would PROVE YOUR MISTAKES.

        But don’t you find it HYPOCRITICAL that, in your VAIN EFFORT to try to dismiss the ERROR of THE SAMARITAN, YOU WOULD DISMISS a DICTIONARY MADE by YOUR FELLOW MUSLIMS and CITE BOOKS NOT WRITTEN BY MUSLIMS?

        DID MUHAMMAD WRITE the REFERENCES that YOU CITED regarding the EXCUSES about AS-SAMIRI or THE SAMARITAN?

        YOU ARE RUNNING OUT of EXCUSES.

      • Yes. I am dismissing their (be they are really Muslims or not) claims. And do not forget that this conversation/dialogue is between us. Ok? Are we clear?

        If you want a good bull’s eye attack. Prove to me that Samari is really meaning as Samaritan.

        You said: DID MUHAMMAD WRITE the REFERENCES that YOU CITED regarding the EXCUSES about AS-SAMIRI or THE SAMARITAN?

        Answer: Honest answer from an honest Muslim ===>> NO, he did not? And did Muhammad peace and blessing be upon him write a reference that Samari means Samaritan? like where in the pages of the Bible we can find: “the term “Son of …” was used by the Israelites, it was to refer to their PARENTAGE and ANCESTRAL LINEAGE. Thus, Jesus was called “son of David.” David was the ancestor of Jesus.”??? If you cannot prove that, still Jesus is a son of David. If you want you can make forge “evidence” to clear it, just make sure na hindi kita mabisto. Kung hindi, kawawa ka.

      • WHY DON’T YOU WANT TO REFER TO YOUR FELLOW MUSLIMS? ARE YOU SAYING that YOU ARE BETTER THAN ALL YOUR SCHOLARS?

        If you say that MUHAMMAD DID NOT MAKE the MISTAKE about AS SAMIRI or THE SAMARITAN then WHO MADE THAT MISTAKE?

        YOU CANNOT POINT to ALLAH because YOU CANNOT PROVE that GOD HIMSELF REVEALED the QURAN to MUHAMMAD.

        YOU CANNOT POINT to an ANGEL because YOU CANNOT PROVE that AN ANGEL REVEALED the QURAN to YOUR PROPHET.

        So, WHO DO YOU BLAME?

        STOP MAKING EXCUSES, BEN.

      • Cenon Bibe: If you say that MUHAMMAD DID NOT MAKE the MISTAKE about AS SAMIRI or THE SAMARITAN then WHO MADE THAT MISTAKE?

        My Reply: Aheem aheeem . . . who said that the “Samari” is a mistake? Who? And, does it have been “PROVEN” that the “Samari” is a mistake? Your question is pointing that “samari” is a mistake. Tell me too, on the basis of what?

        You are not paying attention, mi amigo. I clearly said (long time ago) to you that “the using of the translators of the Quran making the Arabic term Samari into Samaritan (or Samarian . . . whatever) (which refers to the Samaritans/Samarians of the Bible) is a grave mistake!” Reality says “there are no Samaritans (of the city of Samaria) during Prophet Moses’ time. So it is wrong to say/translate that the Samari is mentioned is a Samaritan os Samaria. Just like in a reality that “age 22 is not equal to age 42.”

        Ow, come on Cenon . . . I’ve been waiting for you to post a one-on-one discussion about Bible contradiction I am claiming right on your house (blogsite), but there is none. So, I made one here in mine.

      • DEFENDERBEN SAID:
        My Reply: Aheem aheeem . . . who said that the “Samari” is a mistake? Who? And, does it have been “PROVEN” that the “Samari” is a mistake? Your question is pointing that “samari” is a mistake. Tell me too, on the basis of what?

        CENON BIBE:
        YOU DENY “As Samiri” as a mistake. That is because you refuse to admit that it is YOUR MISTAKE.

        MUSLIM and NON-MUSLIM SCHOLARS have stated that “As Samiri” is rightfully translated as “The Samaritan.” As such, “As Samiri” speaking during the time of Moses and Aaron is clearly an error because the Samaritans NEVER EXISTED during that time.

        You may refuse to admit this mistake but it does not remove the error. You can turn a blind eye to this ridiculous blunder but that does not make it disappear. It only shows that you are willing to believe a lie just for you not to accept that you are wrong.

        +++

        DEFENDERBEN SAID:
        You are not paying attention, mi amigo. I clearly said (long time ago) to you that “the using of the translators of the Quran making the Arabic term Samari into Samaritan (or Samarian . . . whatever) (which refers to the Samaritans/Samarians of the Bible) is a grave mistake!”

        CENON BIBE:
        A MISTAKE? ACCORDING TO YOU … AFTER YOU FOUND YOURSELF UNABLE TO REFUTE OR DISMISS this “GRAVE MISTAKE” in QURAN 20:85.

        And even now, YOU or ANY MUSLIM APOLOGIST CANNOT EXPLAIN WHO this “AS SAMIRI” IS. YOU MAKE SO MANY EXCUSES but have ALL BEEN FOUND LAME and ILLOGICAL.

        FAILING to FIND ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION TO WHO this “AS SAMIRI” IS, NOW YOU ARE SIMPLY BRUSHING IT ASIDE as a “grave mistake.” INDEED, “As Samiri” is a GRAVE MISTAKE. IT IS A “GRAVE MISTAKE” FOUND in QURAN 20:85. It is a “GRAVE MISTAKE” that YOU WOULD HAVE TO LIVE WITH as long as YOU REMAIN in ISLAM.

        +++

        DEFENDERBEN SAID:
        Ow, come on Cenon . . . I’ve been waiting for you to post a one-on-one discussion about Bible contradiction I am claiming right on your house (blogsite), but there is none. So, I made one here in mine.

        CENON BIBE:
        I HAVE ACCEPTED YOUR CHALLENGE but I REFUSE that YOU TAKE ME FOR A LONG USELESS RIDE.

        So, I ISSUED MY OWN RELATED CHALLENGE which YOU HAVE REFUSED TO ACCEPT because YOU KNOW that I WILL EXPOSE YOUR FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST THE BIBLE.

        Anyway, PEOPLE READING OUR DISCUSSION ALREADY SEE that ALL YOUR CLAIMS AGAINST THE BIBLE ARE LAME and UNTRUE. YOUR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE PROVES THAT.

    • WHY DID YOU REMOVE MY RESPONSE to this ABSURD ANT MIRACLE of YOURS?

      ARE YOU ASHAMED that YOUR PROPHET “HEARD” ANTS TALKING?

      ARE YOU ASHAMED that YOUR PROPHET CLAIMED TALKING to ANTS?

      Or ARE YOU ASHAMED that CONTRARY to YOUR CLAIM that SCIENCE “PROVED” a QURANIC MIRACLE, IT HAS PROVEN the QURAN to be have MADE A BAD MISTAKE?

  5. I’m fair. I already “PROVED” that the “Samarii” thing in the Qur’an has no errors. I think this is a time to say ENOUGH OF THIS. 😀

    • What you have PROVED is that YOU CANNOT REFUTE the ERROR of the SAMARITAN.

      YOU are now CHOOSING to JUST IGNORE the ERROR.

      Well, I HOPE YOU ARE HAPPY with simply TURNING A BLIND EYE and HANGING ON to BLIND FAITH.

      • Prove to me Cenon, that Allah (swt) mean that the SAMARI in the Quran is really one of the Samaritans of the Bible is mentioning. [Put in your brain memory that I do not approve to the translations of Qur’an where they (translators) make Samari as Samaritan.]

        And by the way, I have been asking you to clear me Bible contradictions without changing the Biblical texts long time ago, but even until now you seem to keep me busy with your diverting tactics. If you think that I already forgotten about that. Think again, this is not anybody else but Ben Langcuyan Jr 😀

        Note: My claim is clear: Bible passages are contradicting. DON’T YOU EVER FORGET THAT.

      • FIRST, YOU CANNOT CLAIM that ALLAH was the one who REFERRED to “AS-SAMIRI.”

        YOU CANNOT PROVE that ALLAH HIMSELF TOLD MUHAMMAD ABOUT this AS-SAMIRI.

        SECOND, YOU CANNOT CLAIM that ALLAH REVEALED about this AS-SAMIRI THROUGH an ANGEL.

        YOU CANNOT PROVE that AN ANGEL INDEED REVEALED THE QURAN to YOUR PROPHET.

        SO, YOU CANNOT POINT to ALLAH as an excuse for THIS MISTAKE in QURAN 20:85.

        +++

        DEFENDERBEN SAID:
        I have been asking you to clear me Bible contradictions without changing the Biblical texts long time ago, but even until now you seem to keep me busy with your diverting tactics.

        CENON BIBE:
        I HAVE GIVEN YOU A CHALLENGE and YOU HAVE BEEN AVOIDING THAT CHALLENGE.

        I KNOW about YOUR TACTIC of FLOODING ACCUSATIONS which YOU KNOW ARE ALL FALSE.

        That is why YOU CANNOT ACCEPT MY CHALLENGE that IF I PROVE ONE OF YOUR CLAIMS as FALSE, the ALL YOUR CLAIMS are FALSE.

        YOU are ONLY MAKING EXCUSES because YOU ARE TOO PROUD to ACCEPT THAT YOU EMBRACED a RELIGION NOT FOUNDED BY GOD.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s