Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the... context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.show more
