The author : Father Zakaria Boutros
The publisher: www.fatherzakaria.com
Ahmed Didat wrote in his book "the accoutrement of fighting" page14
under the title: "several irrational superstitious in the Holy Bible" many
criticisms of the Holy Bible,
He said is it possible to have in the Holy Bible a speaking Jenny?
The speaking Jenny:
1-That mentioned in (the book of Numbers 22:28):" The Jenny saw the angel of the lord and she lay down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he struck the Jenny with his staff, The lord opened the mouth of the Jenny and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?"
2-That story concerning Balaam had spiritual purpose not realized by Didat: as Balaam was a prophet of God, one day a king asked him to curse the people of God; he refused first to do so, then the king enticed him by money, he accepted, and went in his way to curse the people of God, the lord sent an angel to stop him , but he didn't see the angel of the lord standing with a sward , as his spiritual vision was blinded, while the Jenny saw the angel and tried to avoid him, so she moved aside the way, crushing the leg of the prophet against the wall, Balaam struck the Jenny with his stick, and the lord opened the mouth of the Jenny , so in spite of being an animal, her eyes was open to see, while the prophet's eyes were blinded by money when he disobeyed God, that was the spiritual purpose of that story
3- The translator commented saying: that was not similar to the beast of earth , mentioned in the Ants chapter(Surat An-Naml ) 82:"And when the word is fulfilled against them, we shall bring out from the earth a beast to them, which will speak to them because mankind believed not with certainty in our Verses "
It was mentioned in Ibn Kathir and Al-Quortoby exegesis about that verse: narrated the prince of the believers Ali Ibn Abe Taleb:" that beast has feathers, unguis, has no tail, and has a beard, and Ibn Jarih, narrated from Abe Al-Zoubir, described the beast saying: her head is the head of ox, her eyes are those of a pig, her rears are those of an elephant, her horns are those of a camel, her neck is that of an ostrich, her chest is that of a lion, her color is that of a tiger, her waist is that of a cat, her tail is that of a ram, her body is that of a camel, and in-between each two joints there are twelve arms coming from them the stick of Moses and the ring of Solomon , she is hitting each believer in his face by the stick of Moses causing a while mark that will spread out, turning his face all white, and for each disbeliever , she is hitting his face by the ring of Solomon, causing a black mark that will spread out turning his face all black, and people will call each other in the market: how much is that believer , how much is that disbeliever, and the family members will sit together around their table knowing each other who is the believer and who is the disbeliever, then the beast will say: O you rejoice you are among the people of the paradise , and O you are among the people of the Fire, that's God's saying:"And when the word is fulfilled against them, we shall bring out from the earth a beast to them, which will speak to them because mankind believed not with certainty in our Verses "
4-The translator was justifying the difference between the two stories saying: the speaking of the beast of earth is a sign of the day of resurrection, as the earth will change and the rules of nature will be altered, and he was wondering : did the day of resurrection come, or not yet?
As if the translator was speaking to kindergarten children telling children stories
5- I am telling him: you should differentiate between two things:
The Almighty capability of God and the carnal timings
6- Is it among God's capability to make the Jenny or the beast speak? Regardless of the reasons, the timings and circumstances as those things you can't choose, as only God know the proper timings and the reasons to show his capability
7- The most important is that you admitted that it is among God's capability
to make the Jenny or the beast speak
Apart from the beast of earth, what do you think about the hoopoe of
Solomon and his ant?
It was mentioned in the Ants chapter (Surat An-Naml) 17-28:"
1- The speaking ant:" And there were gathered before Solomon his hosts of jinn and men, and birds, and they all were set in battle order, till, when they came to the valley of the ants, one of the ants said: "O ants! Enter your dwellings, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you, while they perceive not." So Solomon smiled" as he understood what the ants said
2- The speaking hoopoe:" He inspected the birds, and said: "What is the matter that I see not the hoopoe? Or is he among the absentees? "I will surely punish him with a severe torment, or slaughter him, unless he brings me a clear reason." But the hoopoe stayed not long, he came up and said: "I have grasped the knowledge of a thing which you have not grasped and I have come to you from Saba' with true news"
3- It was mentioned in the exegesis of Ibn Kathir :" the hoopoe stayed not long" meaning that he went out for a while, and" he came up and said: "I have grasped the knowledge of a thing which you have not grasped "meaning that I knew things that you and your soldiers didn't know and his saying" I have come to you from Saba' with true news" meaning that with truthful news from Saba', and Saba' were the kings of Yemen
4- Then Solomon replied him saying:" "We shall see whether you speak the truth or you are among the liars." Go you with this letter of mine, and deliver it to them, then draw back from them, and see what answer they return."
5- Did Didat and his translator read those verses in their quran?
Did Didat read the story of the donkey Ya'four?
The story of the donkey Ya'four was mentioned in:
(The beginning and the end by Ibn Kathir 6/158, the lion of the forest by Ibn Alathir, the justice balance by Al-Zahaby 4/ 34, the tongue of the balance by Al-Hafez Ibn Hajar 5/426, the conquest 6/70, the fabricated pearls by Al-Syouty 1/276, and Sahih Al-Bokhary , the chapter of "the horse and the donkey , converse number 2856, and in Muslim 49, also it was mentioned by the She'ian Al-Kafy 1/184 in his book the pretension: in the chapter: what the imams had of the messenger's weapons )and many other references
The converse text:
"Narrated Abe Manzour: when God gave his prophet the conquest of Khaiber, his own loot was: four pairs of shoes, four pairs of slippers, ten ounces of gold and silver and a black donkey , the prophet asked the donkey: what is your name?, the donkey replied him: Yazid Ibn Shehab, God brought from the siblings of my grandfather sixty donkeys , all of them had been ridded by prophets , no one left of my grandfather's offspring but me, and none left of the prophets but you, so I expect you to ride me, before you I was owned by a Jewish man, I was deliberately stumble with him ( as he was a Jewish) , he was hurting my belly and kicking my back, the prophet told him: I am giving you the name" Ya'four" the donkey said: I am your servant, the prophet asked him: do you like females ? The donkey said: no
The prophet was ridding him when he needed , when he got down of him, he was sending him to the door of the man he wanted , the donkey was knocking the door by his head ,when the owner of the house comes out , he was gesturing to him by his head ,telling him to go to the messenger of God , when the prophet died, he went to a well belonging to Abe– Al-hitham Ibn Al-Tayhan, he jumped into it , so it became his grave, grieving for the death of the messenger of God
Some Muslims had said that such converse was among the Israeli converses,
some said that it was among the Nazarene converses, others said that the
She'ian had put that converse as a revenge from the Sunnah
Some said that it was a placed converse, forbidden converse, or uplifted one etc... Those pretensions they mention to escape mentioning those converses, we don't really know where the truth in the Islamic books is?
How they deny that converse, while it was mentioned in such big number
of references? Are they sceptical in the Islamic resources?
Actually, the proselytiser Ahmad Didat showed his Bluff and deceit exploiting the ignorance of the vast majority of Muslims
In fact, The reason why I didn't rebut Ahmed Didat during
his life or had a debate with him, is that at that time I was in Egypt,
with my mouth muzzled, and because I published some books defending our
creed against those who were accusing us of being disbelievers and polytheism,
I was jailed twice on 1981 for about a year, and on 1989 , and they
wished that I will be behind bars for good, but the surpassing God's plan
didn't allow that , I was expelled from my country , and I am still till
now in the land of exile , away from my country of birth ,
Here I am speaking freely as I am living in a free country, not for attacking the Muslims but for rescuing them through knowing the truth
I am affirming that we have no other motive but the love for all
The birds walking on four limbs
1- In page 14 of his book," the accoutrement of fighting" Didat mentioned
what is in
Levites 11:20 "'All flying insects that walk on all fours"
2- As usual Didat didn't comment on that verse, but he just pulled the verse from its contexture, and dropped the rest of the verses explaining that matter, on the way of "Approach not the prayer"
3- Isn't that considered a lack of scientific honesty, and a humiliation of God's words, that the quran attested for it?
4- Listen well to the verse and judge yourself on that proselytiser
the complete verses are" All flying insects that walk on all fours ) then he explained that saying: Yet you may eat these: of all winged creeping things that go on all fours, which have legs above their feet, with which to hop on the earth. Even of these you may eat: any kind of locust … and any kind of grasshopper"
5- What is the problem of insects flying and walking on four, six legs or more, didn't he see the locust and flies flying and walking?
6- That's the non-scientific and unhonestely diction of Didat, it is really disgraceful for him
7- I am asking now that important question: why did Didat use that unclean diction? Leaving for every nimble one to answer it
Bearing of girls doubles the impurity of the mother
1-Didat said:" Bearing of girls doubles the impurity of the mother, the translator added saying: after the Holy Bible mentioned that if the women bears a male child, she will be unclean for a week, the bible said: and if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her period; and she shall continue in the blood of purification sixty-six days"( Levites 12:1- 5)
2- I want to disclose the manipulation of verbalism committed by Didat to distort the truth as he used the wrong expression saying:" Doubles the impurity of the mother" as the impurity is the same in all its forms, he should say it doubles the length of her purification period
3- If Didat and his translator had read the Christian exegesis books, they wouldn't provoke this delusive accusation
4- That matter is connected with Adam and Eve's sin, reminding people that Eve was the one who incited her man, aiming to get away from the incitement of Satan
5- If Didat and the translator had studied the issue from the Christian prospective, he would find that as the woman ( Eve) was the cause of the falling down , also by the woman ( Virgin Mary) was the salvation of the world by the incarnation of the Christ from her
6- When the Christ died over the cross, he lifted the transgressions of the whole mankind, and the impurity had vanished, but only those who accept the Christ as the only redeemer and only savoir will benefit from that privilege
7- One last point what does Didat think of the quran verse in the cow chapter Surat Al-Baqarah) 222:" "They ask you concerning menstruation. Say: that is an a harmful thing, therefore keep away from women during menses and go not unto them till they have purified. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them"
8- What he thinks of the converse concerning the woman whether menstruating or not saying:" the dog, donkey, and woman nullify the prayer", then Aeisha said: you made us similar to dogs and donkeys" (1)
Concerning that converse, the translator said in the footnote: they are claiming that the Muslim woman is aggrieved, but Islam had conserved the woman's rights and dignity
Is it really the Islam had conserved the woman' rights and dignity, as the translator said:
1- Is it among the woman's dignity to be considered deficient in mind and religion?
2- Is it among the woman's dignity to be beaten as animals for any reason?
3- Is the woman's testimony equal to that of the man in the Islamic legislation?
4- Is the woman's right in inheritance equal to that of the man?
5- Could the woman marry two, three or four and whoever her right hand can possess as man?
6- Could the woman divorce or dismantle her husband, saying: Go you are divorced, or divorced trice as man can do?
7- Could the woman enjoy 72 male in the Islamic paradise, as man enjoys 72 Hourin (paradise women)?
8- Did Islam conserve the woman's rights and dignity after all of that and much more?
9- If that's true, then why we see now in the Arabic countries that
conflict between what was mentioned in the quran and converses and the
human rights, specially the woman rights?
(1) Sahih Al-Bokhary, the chapter of the prayer, converse number
© jesusmarie.com pour la traduction française