Jalal Abualrub
“I am not related to Winn although I have read his works. I have a couple of points to make: 1) How can you say Winn will not debate with you when you both appeared on the same radio show (I heard it) and you have debated by e-mail for some time? 2) One of your main points of argument is that Winn does not speak Arabic. This is irrelevant since he uses five copies of the Qu’ran, all of which are recognised as used by Muslims in the west and are respected and acknowledged by scholars. The issue of language becomes irrelevant if, as seems likely, many Muslims now rely on these translations.”
Jalal Abualrub wrote: Fair questions; here is my answer. First, for about a year before I and Winn were interviewed on the Mike Gallagher Show, Winn consistently refused to debate me on his book, The Prophet of Doom. We did not debate each other in the emails that were exchanged between me and Winn before the show. I was mainly asking him to debate publicly, while he was stubbornly refusing and calling me a moron and other offensive words. I still have copies of the emails. On the Mike Gallagher show, I only had about 12 minutes of total time to speak, while Winn had much more; this is why I complained to the show’s host that Winn spoke for more time than I had.
A formal debate is where the two parties to the debate have substantial and, most importantly,
Second, with regards to Arabi, Winn claims that only 500 people today can read and understand the original Quran, i.e., Muhammad’s Quran. He doesn’t deny that the original Quran is in Arabi; it certainly is not in English. Yet, Winn wrote hundreds of pages and was interviewed dozens of times attacking the meaning contained in Muhammad’s Quran by using English translations of the meaning contained in the Quran. Winn cannot have it both ways. These English translations either explain the meaning contained in the original Quran, in which case, hundreds of millions of people –not only 500- have access to the original Quran, even if in English. Or else, Winn is attacking a book that some people erroneously call ‘Quran,’ but is not the original Arabi Quran, and consequently, he has no quarrel with Muhammad’s Quran, which only 500 people today can read and understand, according to Winn.
Winn claims that only 500 people today can read and understand Muhammad’s Arabi Quran. Since Winn doesn’t speak Arabi, then he too has no access to the original Arabi Quran or its meaning. Unless he claims that he is one of the select 500, and if so, he must then speak Arabi like the other 499 people who alone can understand the original Quran.
Every English translation of the meaning contained in the Quran is the effort of the translator; it is not divine, nor inspired, even if Winn describes, Seerat Ibn Is`haq, as being inspired. The translations are often in conflict with each other and often contain errors when compared to how the scholars of Islam explained the Quran. All Winn has access to, is the choice of words made by these translators, nothing more. Winn cannot compare what the translations say in English to what is truly found in the Quran according to how Islam’s scholars explained it, because he does not speak Arabi and because he is not interested in serious research. Unlike other religions, we have our divine book in its original language and have direct access to numerous books that explain its meaning and implication. Thus, we can compare and contrast. Even Winn must have noticed the numerous differences between the different English translations of the meaning contained in the Quran, because if they were identical, he would only need one of them.
Winn freely explains Quranic and Sunnah texts as his heart
As I explained in my articles refuting Winn, this Prophetic statement describes the fear Allah threw in the hearts of Muhammad’s combatant enemies who planned attacks against Muslims. When the Prophet, peace be on him, knew of their treachery and departed Madinah with his army to preempt their attack, and when the enemies heard of his marching towards them, they scattered in the desert in fear. Consequently,
Winn could have saved himself this embarrassment had he explained Islamic texts as they truly are found in Arabi, even as they truly mean in English. The English translations of the meaning contained in the Quran that Winn uses are generally brief, made as such for the benefit of the English reader. Almost none of them offers opposing views on the meaning of Quranic sentences, and ‘depth of research’ is mainly not found in them because of their nature. Any person with a hint of knowledge in Islam knows how deep and well-researched the books that explain the Quran and Sunnah are. These treasures are found in Arabi; they allow researchers the tools to compare and research various topics.
All original resources of Islam are found in Arabi. The Quran is found today in its original form, in Arabi. Winn does not speak Arabi. So, how can he claim to be an expert on Islam or Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, when his scope of research is limited to only a few English translations of the Quran mostly devoid of depth because of the nature of their audience, i.e., they are meant to offer a brief insight into the Quran and Sunnah to those who have no access to Islam’s original resources?
How can anyone deny the significance of reading the Quran and Sunnah in their original form, if the purpose is to understand the two resources of Islam as they truly are? Orientalists, far more intelligent and capable than Winn, knew this fact. This is why they learned Arabi first and studied the original resources of Islam themselves.
I still haven’t debated Winn on his books. If Winn is an expert on Islam, the Quran (including the one that only 500 can read today!), and Muhammad, as he claims, why does he not debate me and why does he shy away from the chance to expose Islam by defeating a Muslim author like me? It seems that Winn knows very well that he is on extremely shaky grounds. He knows how shallow his knowledge in Islam is. He knows how every word he says about Islam will be challenged by contesting his explanation on the Quran and Sunnah and by quoting original Arabi texts and explaining their meaning as Muslim scholars stated, with evidence. My challenge still stands, unanswered. I am willing, able, Allah willing, and ready to debate Winn on his books.