Killing the mockers # 2, Mohammed’s response to dissent and criticism, a post by Sam Shamoun

The Death of Asma and Abu Afak
Does the Quran Prohibit the Killing of Mockers?

 

Sam Shamoun

In this second part (cf. Part 1) we will seek to interact with some of the typical Muslim polemics used to deny the veracity of the Islamic reports that mention Muhammad ordering the cold-blooded murders of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan. More specifically, we will try to address two main objections raised by the Muslim site Bismikaallahuma and polemicist Hesham Azmy.

Here is how Bismikaallahuma responds to the charge that Muhammad was a murderer for killing Asma and Abu Afak:

The first thing that strikes us here is that five out of the six alleged cases of “assassination” and “massacre” relate to Jews. The Jews were “the people of the Book,” and ordinarily the dealings of Muslims with the people of the Book were much more lenient than their dealings with Arab idolaters. How was it then that the people of the Book, people whose Prophets are frequently mentioned with the utmost respect in the Holy Qur’an – how was it that these very people were chosen for assassination and such crimes were not perpetrated against the Arab idolaters who had most relentlessly persecuted the Muslims for thirteen years at Makkah, and had taken up the sword to deal a decisive blow at Madinah? Sir William Muir assert that all these persons were murdered for no offence other than that of composing verses “which annoyed the Mussalmans.” Poetry was not a special vocation of the Jews, and verses abusing Islam and the Muslims were produced in much greater abundance by idolatrous Arabs than by Jews. In fact, it was the Arab, not the Jew, whose particular vocation was poetry, and satire and abusive poetry were used as weapons to discredit and defame Islam specially by the Arabs. Neither Muir nor the missionaries has taken the trouble of testing the reliability of the record on whose basis he has dared to condemn the most merciful and truest of men as cruel and treacherous. If the writer had gone to the root of the question, he would have found that the Prophet and the Muslims bore patiently the severest abuses and the annoying verses of all their opponents, whether Jews or idolaters. Indeed, the Holy Qur’an had plainly enjoined on them that they should bear all abuses patiently, whether they came from idolaters or from Jews and Christians. Here is a verse belonging to a period when the Muslims had already entered on a state of war with their opponents:

“And you will certainly hear from those who have been given the Book before you and from the idolaters much abuse. And if you are patient and keep your duty, surely this is an affair of great resolution” (3:186)

This verse occurs in a chapter which contains an account of the battle of Uhud, fought in the 3rd year of Hijrah, and could not therefore have been revealed earlier than that year, and this is just the period to which most of the alleged assassinations relate. How was it possible for the Prophet and his follower’s to go directly against the plain injunction of the Holy Qur’an? The Holy Prophet could not go against any Quranic injunction, and the Qur’an says plainly, and says it at a time when war was going on with both the polytheistic Arabs and the Jews, that Muslims shall have to hear such abuse, and they must not only bear the abuse patiently but should even guard against doing similar evil, to say nothing of murdering their abusers. How could the Prophet in the face of such a plain injunction order the murder of those who abused him, and how could the Muslims carry out an order which was directly opposed to the Holy Qur’an? It was simply impossible, and if Ibn Hisham or Waqidi says that the Prophet(P) ordered the assassination of his abusers, it is Ibn Hisham or Waqidi — a frail authority after all — that must be rejected, and not the Qur’an, which is admittedly the most reliable source of information as to the doings of the Prophet. The Qur’an had allowed fighting against an aggressive enemy, yet it refused to give sanction to the murder of any who abused the Prophet(P) and Islam; nay, it plainly required such abuse to be borne patiently. It is simply inconceivable that the Prophet(P) should order the murder of people for annoying poems and, at the same time and in the same breath, forbid that abuse should be met with otherwise than by patient endurance. (MENJ, False Allegations of Atrocities By Prophet Muhammad (I); source)

There are several problems with the foregoing statements. First, Islamic sources provide plenty of examples of Muhammad killing individuals for satirizing him, showing that he did not act in accord with the injunction of Q. 3:186. Thus, by accepting the argument of Bismikaallahuma we must conclude that Muhammad was a sinner since he broke the explicit orders of his god to put up with those who were insulting him!

Second, the text of Q. 3:186 is contradicted by other passages which command Muslims to fight Jews and Christians, as well as those who mock Islam:

Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled. S. 9:29 Arberry

But (even so), if they repent, establish regular prayers, and practise regular charity, – they are your brethren in Faith: (thus) do We explain the Signs in detail, for those who understand. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith, – fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained. S. 9:11-12 Y. Ali

This last text expressly permits Muslims to fight those who taunt Islam, as even some of Islam’s greatest exegetes admit:

(And if they) the people of Mecca (break their pledges) which are between you and them (after their treaty (has been made with you) and assail your religion) and defame the Religion of Islam, (then fight the heads of disbelief) fight the leaders of disbelief: Abu Sufyan and his host. (Lo! they have no binding oaths in order that they may desist) from breaking their pledges. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

But if they break, [if] they violate, their oaths, their covenants, after [making] their pact and assail your religion, slander it, then fight the leaders of unbelief, its heads (here an overt noun ['the leaders of unbelief'] has replaced the [third person] pronominalisation) – verily they have no [binding] oaths, [no] pacts (a variant reading [for ayman, 'oaths'] has the kasra inflection [for the alif, sc. iman, ‘[no] faith’]) – so that they might desist, from unbelief. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

with disapproval and criticism, it is because of this that one who curses the Messenger, peace be upon him, or attacks the religion of Islam by way of criticism and disapproval, they are to be fought. This is why Allah said afterwards,

so that they may refrain from the disbelief, rebellion and the transgression they indulge in. Qatadah and others said that the leaders of disbelief were Abu Jahl, `Utbah and Shaybah, Umayyah bin Khalaf, and he went on to mention several others. Al-A`mash narrated from Zayd bin Wahb from Hudhayfah; “The people of this Ayah were never fought again.” A similar statement was reported from `Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him. However, this Ayah is general, even though the specific reason behind revealing it was the idolators of Quraysh. So this Ayah generally applies to them and others as well, Allah knows best. Al-Walid bin Muslim said that Safwan bin `Amr narrated that `Abdur-Rahman bin Jubayr bin Nufayr said that when Abu Bakr sent an army to Ash-Sham, he advised them, “You will find some people with shaved heads. Therefore, strike the swords upon the parts that contain the devil, for by Allah, it is better to me to kill one of these people than to kill seventy other men. This is because Allah said,

” Ibn Abi Hatim collected it. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri; sources: 1, 2; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Muslimah Aisha Bewley provides the translation of several other renowned Muslim exegetes, one of whom includes:

as-Suyuti:

(If they break their oaths…) This ayat is used as a proof by those who say that if a dhimmi attacks Islam or the Qur’an or mentions the Prophet in a bad manner, HE IS KILLED whether he has broken a treaty or not. Those who say that his repentance is accepted use as a proof, “hopefully they will stop.” (source; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Seemingly aware of the contradiction between Q. 3:186 and 9:12 and 29, certain Muslims resorted to the doctrine of abrogation to explain away the discrepancy:

Narrated Usama bin Zaid:

That Allah’s Apostle rode over a donkey covered with a Fadakiya (velvet sheet) and Usama was riding behind him. He was visiting Sa’d bin ‘Ubada (who was sick) in the dwelling place of Bani Al-Harith bin Al-Khazraj and this incident happened before the battle of Badr. They proceeded till they passed by a gathering in which ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul was present, and that was before ‘Abdullah bin Ubai embraced Islam. In that gathering there were Muslims, pagan idolators and Jews, and among the Muslims there was ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha.

When a cloud of dust raised by (the movement of) the animal covered that gathering, ‘Abdullah bin Ubai covered his nose with his garment and said, “Do not cover us with dust.” Allah’s Apostle greeted them, stopped, dismounted and invited them to Allah (i.e. to embrace Islam) and recited to them the Holy Qur’an. On that ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul said to him, “O man! There is nothing better than what you say, if it is the truth. So do not trouble us with it in our gatherings, but if somebody comes to you, you can preach to him.” On that ‘Abdullah bin Rawaha said “Yes, O Allah’s Apostle! Call on us in our gathering, for we love that.” So the Muslims, the pagans and the Jews started abusing one another till they were about to fight with one another. Allah’s Apostle kept on quieting them till all of them became quiet, and then Allah’s Apostle rode his animal and proceeded till he entered upon Sa’d bin ‘Ubada. Allah’s Apostle said, “O Sa’d! Didn’t you hear what Abu Habab said?” (Meaning ‘Abdullah bin Unbar). “He said so-and-so.” Sa’d bin Ubada said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Let my father be sacrificed for you! Excuse and forgive him for, by Him Who revealed to you the Book, Allah sent the Truth which was revealed to you at the time when the people of this town had decided to crown him (‘Abdullah bin Ubai) as their ruler.

So when Allah had prevented that with the Truth He had given you, he was choked by that, and that caused him to behave in such an impolite manner which you had noticed.” So Allah’s Apostle excused him. (It was the custom of) Allah’s Apostle and his companions to excuse the pagans and the people of the scripture (Christians and Jews) as Allah ordered them, and they used to be patient when annoyed (by them). Allah said: ‘You shall certainly hear much that will grieve you from those who received the Scripture before you…..and from the pagans’ (3.186).

He also said: ‘Many of the people of the scripture wish that if they could turn you away as disbelievers after you have believed. ….’ (2.109) So Allah’s Apostle used to apply what Allah had ordered him by excusing them TILL HE WAS ALLOWED TO FIGHT AGAINST THEM. When Allah’s Apostle had fought the battle of Badr and Allah killed whomever He killed among the chiefs of the infidels and the nobles of Quraish, and Allah’s Apostle and his companions had returned with victory and booty, bringing with them some of the chiefs of the infidels and the nobles of the Quraish as captives, ‘Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul and the pagan idolators who were with him, said, “This matter (Islam) has now brought out its face (triumphed), so give Allah’s Apostle the pledge of allegiance (for embracing Islam.).” Then they became Muslims. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 226)

And:

3:186.

Allah said to the believers upon their arrival at Al-Madinah, before Badr, while comforting them against the harm they suffered from the People of the Scriptures and the polytheists;

Therefore, Allah commanded the believers to be forgiving, patient and forbearing until He brought His awaited aid.

Al-Bukhari recorded that Usamah bin Zayd said that Allah’s Messenger rode a donkey with a saddle covered by a velvet sheet and let Usamah ride behind him (on the donkey). The Prophet wanted to visit Sa`d bin `Ubadah in Bani Al-Harith bin Al-Khazraj, and this occurred before the battle of Badr. The Prophet passed by a gathering in which `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul was sitting, before `Abdullah bin Ubayy became Muslim. That gathering was made up of various Muslims as well as Mushriks, who worshipped the idols, and some Jews. `Abdullah bin Rawahah was sitting in that gathering. When the Prophet reached `Abdullah bin Ubayy, the donkey caused some sand to fall on the group. Then, `Abdullah bin Ubayy covered his nose with his robe and said, `Do not fill us with sand.’ The Messenger of Allah greeted the gathering with Salam, called them to Allah and recited some of the Qur’an to them. `Abdullah bin Ubayy said, `O fellow! No other speech is better than what you said, if it was true! However, do not bother us in our gatherings. Go back to your place and whoever came to you, narrate your stories to him.’ `Abdullah bin Rawahah said, `Rather, O Messenger of Allah! Attend our gatherings for we like that.’ The Muslims, Mushriks and Jews then cursed each other, and they almost fought with each other. The Prophet tried to calm them down, until they finally settled. The Prophet rode his donkey and went to Sa`d bin `Ubadah, saying, `O Sa`d! Have you heard what Abu Hubbab said (meaning `Abdullah bin Ubayy)? He said such and such things. ‘ Sa`d said, `O Messenger of Allah! Forgive and pardon him. By Allah, Who sent down the Book to you, Allah brought us the truth that you came with at a time when the people of this city almost appointed him king. When Allah changed all that with the truth that He gave you, he choked on it, and this is the reason behind the behavior you saw from him.’ The Messenger of Allah forgave him. Indeed, the Messenger of Allah and his Companions used to forgive the Mushriks and the People of the Scriptures, just as Allah commanded them, and they used to tolerate the harm that they suffered. Allah said,

3:186, and,

2:109.

The Prophet used to implement the pardon that Allah commanded him UNTIL HE GAVE HIS COMMAND (to fight the disbelievers). When the Messenger fought at Badr, and Allah killed, by his hand, the leaders of the disbelievers from Quraysh, `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul and the Mushriks and idol worshippers who were with him said, `This matter has prevailed,’ and they gave their pledge to the Prophet and became Muslims.

Therefore, every person who stands for truth, enjoins righteousness and forbids evil, will be harmed in some manner. In such cases, there is no cure better than being patient in Allah’s cause, trusting in Him and returning to Him. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; source; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Whether Q. 3:186 has been abrogated or not, this point is clear: the command of Q. 9:12 to fight those who taunt Islam, which naturally includes those who mock Muhammad, provides corroboration that the murders of Abu Afak and Asma most likely occurred.

This now leads us to our next section.

Do the Murders of Abu Afak and Asma Violate
The Prohibition of Killing Women and the Elderly?

Bismikaallahuma appeals to specific statements in the hadith literature which forbid the killing of women and the elderly in order to disprove the veracity of the stories of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan:

Interdiction against Killing Women

Let us now take the cases individually. The first case cited is that of Asma’ of the tribe of Aus. She is said to have been a poetess who wrote some verses stating that the ProphetP) was an upstart who had slain many of their chiefs, referring to the battle of Badr. It is stated that she was brutally murdered for this abuse by a Muslim named `Umair, and that the Prophet not only approved of this murder but also praised `Umair for the deed. The authorities quoted are Waqidi, Ibn Hisham and Ibn Sa’d. That this is not a reliable record is shown not only by what has been stated above — that the Holy Qur’an never allowed the murder of an abuser — but also by clear directions repeatedly given by the Prophet(P) that no woman was to be killed even though she took part in actual war with the Muslims. No less an authority than Bukhari has a chapter on the “Murder of Women during War” (Kitab al-Jihad) in which the following report from Ibn `Umar is recorded: “A woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Holy Prophet, so the Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women and children.” If the Holy Prophet forbade the killing of women even when they were actually accompanying the enemy forces, how could he approve or applaud the killing of a woman for simply abusing or composing some annoying verses? Even the Companions of the Holy Prophet were so well aware of his strict orders against the killing of women that when Abul Huqaiq’s wife interposed herself between them and Abul Huqaiq, they had to withhold their raised swords “because they remembered that the Holy Prophet had forbidden the killing of a woman”1. In the face of this clear testimony, none but a biased mind can accept as reliable a report which relates that the Holy Prophet had ordered and applauded the killing of a woman simply for the offence that she composed annoying verses. This report is undoubtedly a forgery.

The fact is thus established beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Holy Prophet gave a clear interdiction against the murder of women even in wars. In this connection, a saying of the Holy Prophet has been quoted from the most reliable traditionist of Islam, the Imam Bukhari. The heading under which Bukhari quotes this saying is “Murder of Women during Wars,” thus showing that the interdiction against the murder of women was to be observed even in wars. Bukhari is not alone in reporting the incident and the interdiction; it is contained in all the books of the Sahih as-Sittah2 with the exception of only one, and therefore its authenticity is beyond dispute. Moreover, their interdiction is accepted as a basic principle by later jurists. Thus according to Malik and Auza’i, the killing of women and children is not allowed under any circumstances whatsoever, and according to Shafi’i and Kufis, a woman may be killed only when she is a combatant, while according to one authority, even when a woman is a combatant it is not lawful to kill her intentionally unless she is about to kill or attack a man with the intention of killing him. 3. According to Malik and Auza’i, however, as already stated, a woman should not be killed under any condition, so much so that if a fighting force takes the shelter of women and children or takes shelter in a fort or a boat in which there are also women and children with them, it is not lawful to shoot at or set fire to the fort or the boat 4. In the face of these facts it is simply unthinkable that the Prophet should have ordered the assassination of a woman, under peaceful conditions, for no other fault than singing certain annoying verses.

It goes on to say regarding Abu Afak that:

Abu Afak

The next incident is that relating to the alleged assassination of Abu Afak, “an aged Jewish proselyte, whose offence was similar to that of Asma’.” We have no hesitation in calling this story as baseless a fabrication as that relating to the murder of Asma’. Our reason for doing this is that the interdiction against the murder of women also included two other classes, viz., children and old men. It is true that the saying of the Prophet as reported in the Bukhari mentions only women and children, and not aged persons, but there is a hadith in Abu Dawud5 reported by Anas, son of Malik, according to which the Holy Prophet said: “Do not kill an aged person, nor a child, nor a minor, nor a woman.” That the Prophet expressly forbade the killing of old men appears also from the directions given by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, to Yazid, son of Abu Sufyan, when he sent him in command of an army to Syria. In the directions given to him the following relates to our subject: “Do not kill children, nor women, nor old men.”6. It is clear that Abu Bakr could give such directions only on the authority of the Holy Prophet. Hence there was an interdiction against the killing of old men as there was against the killing of women. And it is impossible, we repeat, that the Holy Prophet should have given such clear injunctions and then himself ordered the killing of “an aged Jewish proselyte,” as Abu Afak is said to have been, and for no offence but that he composed some annoying verses.

Hesham Azmy uses this same argument (*).

In the first place, both Bismikaallahuma and Hesham Azmy are operating under the false assumption that Muhammad acted consistently and that he faithfully carried out his own commands. The fact of the matter is that Muhammad often acted contrary to his own directives and failed to live up to his standards (*). To, therefore, quote certain texts where Muhammad prohibited the killing of older persons and women doesn’t mean that the stories of Abu Afak and Asma are fabrications; it simply means that Muhammad failed to comply with his own moral and ethical standards. The arguments of the Muslims are simply non sequitur.

Illustration: For centuries the German people have been known as “das Volk der Dichter und Denker” (the nation of poets and philosophers). Looking at their history and highly developed culture, including the ethical and legal traditions, it is simply inconceivable that they would commit the atrocities that happened in the Third Reich under Hitler. Moreover, for the last fifty years Germany had a stable democracy and was clearly committed to peace. Does that imply the holocaust never happened? Certainly not! Neither admirable traditions nor moral values of the past, nor exemplary behavior afterwards can undo or disprove horrible crimes like the holocaust nor any other historical event. Germany did start World War II, the Nazi regime did kill millions of Jews (and other people as well). Having had or preached high values or principles doesn’t disprove a historical fact. Muhammad was neither the first nor the last person who acted inconsistently, who said one thing and did another.

More importantly, in the case of Muhammad, this issue is not really a case of inconsistency. These murders were not simply two horrible exceptions, completely out of character for this otherwise peaceful and tolerant ruler. No, Muhammad had his critics killed rather regularly, see the section on Muhammad and his enemies (1; 2).

In fact, the ahadith literature contains statements which allow Muslims to murder older persons, women and children. Certain narrations claim that Muhammad permitted his soldiers to engage in night raids that would have exposed innocent women and children to physical harm:

Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:
The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” I also heard the Prophet saying, “The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256)

I.e., they are all the same—both the women and children are nothing more than pagans! This tradition testifies that some of Muhammad’s fighters had apparently a more sensitive conscience. They felt uneasy about night raids and the consequence of killing innocent people during those attacks. Muhammad disregarded this concern and explicitly allowed their killing despite the objection of some of his followers. The above narration is repeated in several, different hadith collections:

Chapter 9: PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE

It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4321)

It is narrated by Sa’b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4322)

Sa’b b. Jaththama has narrated that the Prophet (may peace be upon him) asked: What about the children of polytheists killed by the cavalry during the night raid? He said: They are from them. (Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4323)

NOTE: The statement found in the subheading regarding the killing of women and children being permissible as long as it isn’t deliberate is not part of the narration. The hadiths do not explicitly say this, and yet the compiler assumed that this was the clear implication and meaning of these narrations.

One Muslim apparently was so troubled by this concession on the part of Muhammad that he claimed that the killing of women and children was abrogated!

Al-Sa‘b b. Jaththamah said that he asked the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) about the polytheists whose settlements were attacked at night when some of their offspring and women were smitten. The Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: They are of them. ‘Amr b. Dinar used to say: They are regarded in the same way as their parents.

Al-Zuhri said: Thereafter the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) prohibited to kill women and children. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2666)

Not all Muslims share al-Zuhri’s conviction. The English translator makes the following comments regarding the above narration:

  1. This tradition allows to kill women and children of the infidels IN THE BATTLE. The other traditions indicate that it is prohibited to kill women and children in the battle. These CONTRADICTORY traditions have been reconciled by saying that the tradition of al-Sa‘b b. Jaththamah has been abrogated. The other interpretation is that it is allowable to kill women and children when the settlements of the infidels are attacked AT NIGHT, as they cannot be distinguished from the fighting men in the dark. (Sunan Abu Dawud, English translation with explanatory notes by Prof. Ahmad Hasan [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters; Lahore, Pakistan, 1984], Volume II, p. 739; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Ahmad Hasan’s explanation is no excuse and provides absolute no comfort for the women and children who were killed, or for their surviving families. A true God-inspired prophet would be more cautious and not allow such night raids so as to prevent the unnecessary killing of women and children.

Nearly all cultures have the honor codex that in wars the women and children are to be spared, i.e. the fight only goes against the men of a group or nation. The very fact that Muhammad is asked this question shows that the questioner had doubts in his mind about it. Maybe Muhammad had ordered such a raid or attack, and the Muslim wanted to be sure that Muhammad knew the consequences if they went ahead with it. It was going against his conscience, but if Muhammad would order it anyway, knowing of the parameters, then he would obey. The answer of Muhammad shows that these women and children were of little concern to him. The advantage gained by a surprise attack in the night was more important to him, even if it meant the killing of women and children.

Abu Dawud provides a couple of more examples of women being killed for disparaging Muhammad:

Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas:

A blind man had a slave-mother who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4348)

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib:

A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4349)

Noted Islamic commentator and historian Al-Tabari mentioned another:

In this year a raiding party led by Zayd b. Harithah set out against Umm Qirfah in the month of Ramadan. During it, Umm Qirfah (Fatimah bt. Rabi‘ah b. Badr) suffered a cruel death. He tied her legs with rope and then tied her between two camels until they split her in two. She was a very old woman.

Her story is as follows. According to Ibn Humayd – Salamah – Ibn Ishaq – ‘Abdallah b. Abi Bakr, who said: The Messenger of God sent Zayd b. Harithah to Wadi al-Qura, where he encountered the Banu Fazarah. Some of his companions were killed there, and Zayd was carried away wounded from among the slain. One of those killed was Ward b. ‘Amr, one of the Banu Sa‘d b. Hudhaym: he was killed by one of the Banu Badr [b. Fazarah]. When Zayd returned, he vowed that no washing [to cleanse him] from impurity should touch his head until he had raided the Fazarah. After he recovered from his wounds, the Messenger of God sent him with an army against the Banu Fazarah. He met them in Wadi al-Qura and inflicted causalities on them. Qays b. al-Musahhar al-Ya‘muri killed Mas‘adah b. Hakamah b. Malik b. Badr and took Umm Qirfah prisoner. (Her name was Fatimah bt. Rabi‘ah b. Badr. She was married to Malik b. Hudhayfah b. Badr. She was a very old woman.) He also took one of Umm Qirfah’s daughters and ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘adah prisoner. Zayd b. Harithah ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfah, and he killed her cruelly. He tied each of her legs with a rope and tied the ropes to two camels, and they split her in two. Then they brought Umm Qirfah’s daughter and ‘Abdallah b. Mas‘adah to the Messenger of God. Umm Qirfah’s daughter belonged to Salamah b. ‘Amr b. al-Akwa‘, who had taken her – she was a member of a distinguished family among her people: the Arabs used to say, “Had you been more powerful than Umm Qirfah, you could have done no more.” The Messenger of God asked Salamah for her, and Salamah gave her to him. He then gave her to his maternal uncle, Hazn b. Abi Wahb and she bore him ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Hazn. (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII, pp. 95-97; bold emphasis ours)

The above story is also found in Ibn Hisham’s recension of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasulullah:

The Attack of Zaid bin Harithah against Bani Fazarah and the fate of Um Qarfah

Ibn Ishaq narrated: When Zaid bin Harithah came back (from a battle), he vowed not to wash himself up until after he retaliated against Banu Fazarah. Once his wounds were healed, the messenger of Allah sent him to Bani Farazah with an army. Then Zaid fought them at al-Qura Valley, and he inflicted them with losses. And Qays bin Al Ma’shar Al Ya’mary killed Mas’adah bin Hakamah bin Malik bin Hudhayfah bin Badr. Also captured was Umm Qarfah Fatima bint Rabee’ah bin Badr, and she was a very old lady; her daughter and Abdullah bin Mas’adah were captured too. Then Zaid bin Harithah ordered Qays bin Al Ma’shar to kill Umm Qarfah. And he did kill her in a violent way. Then they came to the messenger of Allah and they brought with them her daughter and the son of Mas’adah. (Sirat Ibn Hisham, Part 2, translated by Mutee’a Al-Fadi; source)

As if this weren’t bad enough, al-Tabari mentions that Muhammad ordered the beheading of the young boys of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah:

The Messenger of God had commanded that all of them who had reached puberty should be killed. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, p. 38)

Abu Dawud informs us as to how the Muslims were able to determine whether a person had reached puberty:

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 38, Number 4390)

Moreover, both al-Tabari and Abu Dawud confirm that Muhammad had one of the women of Banu Qurayzah beheaded:

According to Ibn Ishaq, the conquest of the Banu Qurayzah took place in the month of Dhu al-Qa‘dah or in the beginning of Dhu al-Hijjah. Al-Waqidi, however, said that the Messenger of God attacked them a few days before the end of Dhu al-Qa‘dah. He asserted that the Messenger of God commanded that furrows should be dug in the ground for the Banu Qurayzah. Then he sat down, and ‘Ali and al-Zubayr began cutting off their heads in his presence. He asserts that the woman whom the Prophet killed that day was named Bunanah, the wife of al-Hakam al-Qurazi- it was she who had killed Khallad b. Suwayd by throwing a milestone on him. The Messenger of God called for her and beheaded her in retaliation for Khallad b. Suwayd. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, pp. 40-41; bold capital ours)

Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
No woman of Banu Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? She said: I. I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. She said: The man took her and beheaded her. She said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2665)

Abu Dawud also records Muhammad’s command to kill old men:

Narrated Samurah ibn Jundub:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Kill the old men who are polytheists, but spare their children. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 14, Number 2664)

There is more. When Muhammad conquered Mecca he ordered the murder of a couple of singers solely because they had made fun of him in song!

Also among them was ‘Abdallah b. Khatal, a member of the Banu Taym b. Ghalib. The Messenger of God ordered that he should be killed only for the following reason: He was a Muslim, and the Messenger of God sent him to collect alms, sending with him one of the Ansar. With him went a mawla of his, also a Muslim, to serve him. He halted at a resting place and commanded the mawla to slaughter him a goat and make him a meal; then he went to sleep. When he woke up, the mawla had done nothing for him; so he attacked him and killed him. He had two singing girls, Fartana and another with her. The two used to sing satire about the Messenger of God; so the latter commanded that the two of them should be killed along with him…

Also among them were ‘Ikrimah b. Abi Jahl and Sarah, a mawla of one of the sons of ‘Abd al-Muttalib. She was one of those who used to molest the Messenger of God in Mecca…

‘Abdallah b. Khatal was killed by Sa‘id b. Hurayth al-Makhzumi and Abu Barzah al-Aslami: the two shared in his blood. Miqyas b. Subabah was killed by Numaylah b. ‘Abdallah, a man of his own clan…

As for Ibn Khatal’s two singing girls, one was killed and the other fled. The Messenger of God later was asked to grant her a promise of safety, and he did so. [As for Sarah, he was asked to grant her a promise of safety, and he did so.] She lived until someone in the time of ‘Umar b. al-Khattab caused his horse to trample her at al-Abtah and killed her. Al-Huwayrith b. Nuqaydh was killed by ‘Ali b. Abi Talib.

According to al-Waqidi: The Messenger of God commanded that six men and four women should be killed. Of the men, [al-Waqidi] mentioned those whom Ibn Ishaq named. The women he mentioned were Hind bt. ‘Utbah b. Rabi‘ah, who became a Muslim and swore allegiance; Sarah, the mawla of ‘Amr b. Hashim b. ‘Abd al-Muttalib b. ‘Abd Manaf, who was killed on that day; Quraybah, who was killed on that day; and Fartana, who lived until the caliphate of ‘Uthman. (The History of Al-Tabari, Volume VIII, pp. 179-181; bold emphasis ours)

Muhammad’s command to kill women for mocking him conclusively shows that he was more than willing to have people murdered who would dare satirize him, and therefore corroborates the historical veracity of his ordering the death of Asma bint Marwan for writing poems against him.

We now turn to Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri’s Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law In Arabic English Text, Commentary And Appendices edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Amana Publications, Beltsville Maryland, revised edition 1994). It is one of the more respected, classical works in Islamic theology. This 1200+ page volume contains fundamentals of Islamic jurisprudence compiled by “the great 13th century hadith scholar and jurisprudent”, Imam Nawawi, and others. Keep in mind that this work was not written with a Western audience in mind since Imam Nawawi wanted to produce a book on Islamic law that was precise, and accurate, one that taught true Islamic values, specifically for a Muslim audience. All bold, capital and underline emphasis is ours:

O9.3 Jihad is also (O: personally) obligatory for everyone (O: able to perform it, male OR FEMALE, old or YOUNG) when the enemy has surrounded the Muslims… A woman too has a choice between fighting or surrendering if she is certain that she will not be subjected to an indecent act if captured. If uncertain that she will be safe from such an act, she is obliged to fight, and surrender is not permissible).

WHO IS OBLIGED TO FIGHT IN JIHAD

O9.4 Those called (O: to perform jihad when it is a command obligation) are every able-bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane. (p. 601)

THE RULES OF WARFARE

O9.10 It is not permissible (A: in jihad) to kill women or children UNLESS they are fighting against the Muslims. Nor is it permissible to kill animals, unless they are being ridden into battle against the Muslims, or killing them will help defeat the enemy. It is permissible to kill old men (O: old man (shaykh) meaning someone more than forty years of age) and monks. (p. 603)

Let us not forget that Islam views any criticisms of its prophet as a type of fighting, as even Ibn Taymiyyah, the darling of Salafi anthropomorphists and cultists, admitted:

“As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare]. Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for woman and children and they constitute property for Muslims.” (Sheikh Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad, p. 28; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

According to this Shaykh, to speak against Islam and Muslims is considered fighting and anyone engaging in this type of warfare can be killed, which agrees with Q. 9:12. Thus, any man, woman or child who has made comments and/or written articles or books disagreeing with Muhammad and Islam, or has publicly exposed and called into question Muhammad’s actions, is an enemy that can be murdered, their blood being lawful for a Muslim to shed without impunity!

This puts to rest the claims of Bismikaallahuma that Islam only permits the killing of women that are engaged in combat against Muslims, which they take to mean physical or military action, since the Islamic source material defines criticisms of Muhammad as fighting which thereby justifies the killing of such persons.

Moreover, Ibn Taymiyya’s comments demonstrate that the reason why some scholars stated that women and children should not be killed is because they are nothing more than the property of the Muslims to do with them as they see fit! In other words, the reason for sparing them has nothing to do with the sanctity of life, that human life is precious and sacred because humanity bears the divine image of its Creator (cf. Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-3; 9:4-6). Since Islam views them as nothing more than property, chattel, they have no real value in the eyes of Muslim terrorists and Jihadists.

This is why the Quran allows for the raping of married women that have been taken captive by the Muslims:

Forbidden to you are your mothers and your daughters and your sisters and your paternal aunts and your maternal aunts and brothers’ daughters and sisters’ daughters and your mothers that have suckled you and your foster-sisters and mothers of your wives and your step-daughters who are in your guardianship, (born) of your wives to whom you have gone in, but if you have not gone in to them, there is no blame on you (in marrying them), and the wives of your sons who are of your own loins and that you should have two sisters together, except what has already passed; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

And all married women EXCEPT THOSE WHOM YOUR RIGHT HANDS POSSESS (this is) Allah’s ordinance to you, and lawful for you are (all women) besides those, provided that you seek (them) with your property, taking (them) in marriage not committing fornication. Then as to those whom you profit by, give them their dowries as appointed; and there is no blame on you about what you mutually agree after what is appointed; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise. S. 4:23-24 Shakir

It makes economic sense to spare the women and children since their Muslim overlords could either sell them into slavery or, in the case of the women, enjoy them sexually.

Dealing with One Muslim’s Inconsistency

What makes this even more interesting, in fact intriguing, is that one of the main writers of Bismikaallahuma named Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi (MENJ) tried to defend Muhammad’s order to murder Asma bint Marwan, which means that he accepts the historicity of this event. In a reply to a Buddhist which he posted on the Bismikaallahuma forum (*), MENJ writes:

She thus proceeds to quote from the following link, of which she claims

….is a Buddhist “Hadith” of how the Buddha advised his disciples on how to deal with criticism directed against him.

and then attempts to “contrast” the above with the missionary polemic on Asma’ bint Marwan. Of her comments on the Christian missionary polemic surrounding the incident of Asma’ bint Marwan, she says

Here we’ll see how Muhammad gave an ultimate example to his followers on how to treat anyone critical against him/Islam that is still devotedly practiced by Muslims around the globe to the horror of the rest of humanity.

And of course, here is where we beg to differ. The reason why Asma’ bint Marwan was treated as such was nothing to do with the freedom to criticise or criticism of Islam, but rather, it was her incitement and her behaviour in sowing distress and resentment amongst Muslims which leads to her killing. Islam’s history is replete with people speaking their mind and even openly disagree with the Prophet (P), to which he(P) would listen their views and calmly answers them if their views are in contrast to what Islam teaches. (MENJ, A Point-By-Point Response To A Buddhist Inquiry Into The Character of Muhammad(P); source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

MENJ went on to say the following on September 05, 2003, 05:07:36 PM:

Good claim, but a really bad understanding of the polical[sic] situation at the time. Since Asma’ bint Marwan was a war criminal, she would not bow down to the judgement of the Prophet (P) and yet she would still remain under the protection of her tribe and free to do her mischief… (Bold emphasis ours)

Note how MENJ justifies her murder on the basis that she was a war criminal, which essentially confirms what we stated earlier, namely that Islam does permit the killing of women who criticize Muhammad since this is classified as warfare or fighting.

Yet here is where MENJ exposes his blatant inconsistency. Notice that if MENJ or his Bismikaallahuma team can show that the story of Asma bint Marwan is based on weak sources he or they will then try to adopt the position that such murders are implausible on the grounds that Islam prohibits the killing of women. But if he thinks that Asma’s murder is based on historically credible sources he will conveniently adopt the stance that her killing was justified on the grounds that she was a war criminal who incited unbelievers against the Muslims! Thus, MENJ is not basing his arguments on absolute justice but on whatever answer serves his purpose in defending Islam. MENJ will basically adopt whatever explanation happens to absolve Muhammad from his crimes, which shows that he is not interested in truth.

Moreover, MENJ wants us to accept that Muhammad was right to kill Asma on the grounds that she was trying to incite individuals against him, even though she was simply seeking justice for his murders. MENJ wants his readers to believe Muhammad was completely righteous in killing Abu Afak and Asma for speaking out against his atrocities whereas Asma was wicked for demanding that Muhammad suffer for his crimes!

Finally, MENJ conveniently avoids mentioning that the reason Asma incited people to fight Muhammad is because he had ordered the bloody murder of Abu Afak (at least according to the version of Ibn Ishaq). Asma was demanding justice since she knew that Muhammad couldn’t be allowed to continue with his murdering spree. Unfortunately, there was no one who was willing to hold Muhammad responsible for his crimes against humanity.

Concluding Remarks

The preceding data demonstrates that the assertion that Islam prohibits the killing of women and older individuals cannot be conclusively proven from the primary Islamic sources. Specific narrations do allow Muslims to kill women and elderly people under certain circumstances, especially when such persons compose songs and/or recite poems mocking Muhammad.

What the foregoing basically means is that there is nothing in Muhammad’s orders to murder Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan that go against the Islamic directives. Thus, whereas we have a solid basis to accept the historical veracity of these events we have no good reasons to reject them. At the very least, Bismikaallahuma and Hesham Azmy haven’t provided any valid arguments which would lead us to question whether these murders ever happened.

SOURCE: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/asma_afak2.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Killing the mockers # 1, Mohammed’s response to dissent and criticism, a post by Sam Shamoun

Time to make Muhammad cry again due to the braying of this jack-ass:

The Death of Asma and Abu Afak
Examining the Historical Basis for these Murders

Sam Shamoun

Introduction

Muhammad didn’t like people to mock or satirize him and had several persons killed for it. Two of the individuals who were murdered at the orders of Muhammad were a 120-year-old Jewish man named Abu Afak, and a Jewish poetess named Asma bint Marwan.

The killing of these individuals has caused problems for some Muslims who seek to present Muhammad as a tolerant, peace-loving, and merciful prophet akin to Jesus Christ. It is, therefore, not surprising that these Muslims have come up with reasons to reject the veracity of these murders.

The goal of this present article is to present the source material and address the common Muslim responses which question the historicity of these reports.

The Evidence

The following material is taken from the oldest extant history of Muhammad’s life, Sirat Rasulullah, translated by noted Islamicist Alfred Guillaume:

SALIM B. UMAYR’S EXPEDITION TO KILL ABU AFAK

Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:

“Long have I lived but never have I seen
An assembly or collection of people
More faithful to their undertaking
And their allies when called upon
Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,
A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
“Permitted”, “Forbidden”, of all sorts of things.
Had you believed in glory or kingship
You would have followed Tubba

The apostle said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?” Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the “weepers”, went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:

You gave the lie to God’s religion and the man Ahmad! [Muhammad]
By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!
A “hanif” gave you a thrust in the night saying
“Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!”
Though I knew whether it was man or jinn
Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).

(Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad), translated by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, tenth impression 1995], p. 675)

And:

When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”, so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, “I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.” That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the “Reader”, and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit. The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam. (Ibid., p. 676)

Here is another early Muslim version of the events:

SARIYYAH OF ‘UMAYR IBN ‘ADI

Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn ‘Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against ‘Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. ‘Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the Prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. ‘Umayr Ibn ‘Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced upto her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the Prophet, may Allah bless him, at al-Madinah… The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, said to him: Have you slain the daughter of Marwan? He said: Yes. Is there something more for me to do? He said: No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. The Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, called ‘Umayr, basir (the seeing).

SARIYYAH OF SALIM IBN ‘UMAYR

Then occurred the sariyyah of Salim Ibn ‘Umayr al-‘Amri against Abu ‘Afak, the Jew, in Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him. Abu Afak, was from Banu ‘Amr Ibn ‘Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, and composed (satirical) verses. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said: I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu ‘Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. (Ibn Sa’ad’s Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India), Volume II, pp. 30-31)

The next quotes are taken from the writing of another noted Islamicist, Rev. Prof. William Montgomery Watt. Words in brackets [] are mine:

In Medina itself the victory [Badr] considerably strengthened Muhammad’s position, which had perhaps been deteriorating during the previous few months when it looked as if he was unlikely to achieve anything… Two persons who had written poems against him – ‘Asma’ bint Marwan of Umayyah b. Zayd and Abu ‘Afak of B. ‘Amr b. ‘Awf were killed by persons belonging to their own or related clans, but nothing was said and no blood feud followed. (W. M. Watt, Muhammad at Medina [Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1956], p. 15)

Out of the same awareness of the importance of the ideological aspect sprang events like the assassinations of ‘Asma’ bint Marwan and Abu ‘Afak who had made verses criticizing Muhammad, and the expulsion from Medina of the Jewish tribe of Qaynuqa’. (p. 18)

It is convenient at this point to narrate the subsequent history of this ‘pagan opposition’, since it never was of prime importance in the affairs of Medina. Abu Qays died before Badr, and the other leading men also held aloof from Muhammad, though there were some converts among the rank and file, presumably some younger men. Those who remained pagans were bitter about the advance of Islam. In particular, ‘Asma’ bint Marwan (of Umayyah b. Zayd of Aws Manat), the wife of a man of Khatmah, composed verses taunting and insulting some of the Muslims. If those quoted by Ibn Ishaq are genuine, the chief point was that the persons addressed were dishonouring themselves by submitting to a stranger not of their blood. Shortly after Badr (according to the most probable version), a man of Khatmah called ‘Umayr b. ‘Adi (or Udayy) went to the house of ‘Asma’ by night and killed her. Muhammad did not disapprove, no one dared take vengeance on ‘Umayr, and many of the clan (and perhaps of the rest of Aws Manat) now professed Islam openly; some of these are said to have been secret believers previously. The assassination of ‘Abu Afak of ‘Amr b. ‘Awf about the same time by a man of his clan had similar motives and probably similar effects, since some sections of ‘Amr b. ‘Awf were close to Aws Manat both in outlook and in physical situation. Abu ‘Afak had taunted his hearers with allowing an outsider to control their affairs, a man who confused right and wrong and who aimed at kingship. After these events we may assume that there was little opposition to Muhammad among the pagans… (p. 178)

The Muslim Response to the Evidence

Troubled by these murders, some Muslims have come up with some expedient explanations to undermine their historical veracity. Certain Muslims claim that the chroniclers of these murders do not give an isnad, a chain of transmission by which to know whether these stories come from reliable sources.

There are several main criticisms we would like to make to this oft-repeated assertion. First, many of the collections that do contain an isnad were compiled centuries after Muhammad’s death, as the following site shows:

Collection during the 3rd Century H.: The Hadith was collected and categorized in the latter part of the third century of Hijrah resulting in six canonical collections (Al-Sihaah Al-Sittah)

Sahih of Al-Bukhari, d.256 A.H. [870 A.D.]: 7275 (2712 Non-duplicated) out of 600,000.
Sahih of Muslim, d.261 A.H. [875 A.D.]: 9200 (4,000 Non-duplicated) out of 300,000.
Sunan of Abu Dawood, d.276 A.H. [889 A.D.] 4,800 of 500,000.
Sunan of Ibn Maajeh: d.273 A.H. [886 A.D.]
Jami’ of Tirmidhi, d.279 A.H. [892 A.D.]
Sunan of al-Nisaa’i, d.303 A.H. [915 A.H.]. (Source; dates within brackets ours)

As the keen reader can see, there is simply no possible way for someone writing two hundred years after the fact to completely insure that all the names of the chain going back two hundred years prior are correct, or that such men were completely honest. The only way to have such certainty is to consult earlier documents that were compiled closer to the time that these events took place and see if they mention such narrations or narrators.

This leads us to our second point. Consulting such early sources will help verify whether some of the specific persons from that early period that are mentioned in these later lists did indeed transmit such stories. But this is something which Muslims can’t do since they have basically called into question one of the earliest written sources on Muhammad’s life, namely the Sira of Ibn Ishaq. If Ibn Ishaq, who was writing closer in time to Muhammad, is questionable then what makes us assume that the documents written long after Muhammad’s time are any more reliable?

Furthermore, one can easily account for Ibn Ishaq not providing an isnad for some of his reports on the grounds that he didn’t feel he needed to include it since he was writing not too long after these events (at least as far as he was concerned). He may have assumed that these facts were common knowledge by the people he was writing to, and that there was no reason to substantiate them by providing a chain of transmitters.

Moreover, note the obvious double standard at work here. These same polemicists will use Ibn Ishaq when it presents Muhammad in a favorable light, but discard him on the basis that his Sira contains weak material, or that he failed to provide an isnad or chain of transmission for many of his anecdotes.

Yet other Muslim chroniclers, both past and present, do not question the historicity of these murders and have no problems citing them as genuine events in Muhammad’s life. For instance, Ibn Hisham, one of the oldest editors of Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, is known to have omitted material he deemed negative or inauthentic from Ibn Ishaq’s work, but retained the stories of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan being murdered:

After Abu Afak was murdered, Asma wrote a poem blaming Islam and its followers of killing their opponents.

When Muhammad heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”, so Umayr went back to his people. Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, “I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.” That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma.

The day after bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.

Umayr was the first one to convert amongst the men of Khatma, he was called “the reciter” and Abdallah ben Aws and Khazima bin Thabit. (Hisham, Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, p. 306; source)

Another Muslim authority, the renowned Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, whose work Ash-Shifa’ bi-ta’rif huquq Mustafa (“Healing by the Recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One”) is still considered a classic and must reading by Muslim scholars till this day, used these murders as an example of what happens to people who mock Muhammad:

In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He asked, “Who will deal with Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His Messenger.” He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, in distinction to other idol-worshippers. The cause of that lay in his causing harm to the Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something other than idol-worship. It was for causing him harm. Abu Rafi’, who used to harm the Messenger of Allah and work against him, was also killed.

Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.

In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said, “Who will save me from my enemy?” Khalid said, “I will,” so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.

‘Abdu’r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, “Who will save me from my enemy?” Az-Zubayr said, “I will.” He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.

It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, “Who will save me from my enemy?” Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.

It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent ‘Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.

Ibn Qani’ related that a man came to the Prophet and said, “Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him,” and that did not distress him.

Ibn ‘Abbas said that a woman from Khatma satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, “Who will deal with her for me?” A man from her people said, “I will, Messenger of Allah.” The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet who said, “Two goats will not lock horns over me.” (Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad), Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], pp. 378-379; source)

The translator has a note identifying the woman from Khatma:

2. A tribe allied to the Aws. She was ‘Usma’ bint Marwan. (Ibid., p. 378; source)

Wasn’t this renowned scholar aware that such stories were fraudulent, that they had no basis in historical fact, and that they should not be submitted as evidence?

A more recent biography also refers to these murders:

Muslims Kill Abu ‘Afk and Asma

Before the victory of Badr the Muslims used to fear the Madinese non-Muslims, for they were still too weak to return any aggression inflicted upon them. But when they returned victorious from Badr, Salim ibn ‘Umayr took upon himself the job of getting rid of Abu ‘Afk, a tribesman of Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf. The latter was a poet who composed verses disparaging Muhammad and the Muslims and inciting his own tribe to rise against them. Even after Badr, Abu ‘Afk still composed and disseminated abusive verse. Salim attacked Abu ‘Afk in his sleep in his own yard and killed him. Likewise, ‘Asma’, daughter of Marwan, of the tribe of Banu Umayyah ibn Zayd, used to insult Islam and the Prophet by encouraging bad feeling against the Muslims. The Battle of Badr did not make her reconsider. One day, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Awf attacked her during the night while she was surrounded by her children, one of whom she was nursing. ‘Umayr was weak of sight and had to grope for her. After removing the child from his victim, he killed her; he then proceeded to the Prophet and informed him of what he had done. When her relatives returned from the funeral, they asked him whether he had killed her. “Indeed so,” said ‘Umayr, “You may fight me if you wish. By Him Who dominates my soul, if you should deny that she composed her abusive poetry, I would fight you until either you or I fall.” It was this courage of ‘Umayr that caused the Banu Khutmah, the tribe of ‘Asma’s husband, to turn to Islam. Having converted to Islam but fearing persecution at the hand of their fellow tribesmen, some of them had hidden their conversion. Henceforth, they no longer did so. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, tran. Isma’il Raji al-Faruqi [American Trust Publications, USA 1976; Malaysian edition by Islamic Book Trust], p. 243; source)

In fact, just recently the following Salafi Muslim site used this incident to justify the killing of a Jewish slavegirl who disparaged Muhammad to her master:

4 – Similar things happened at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), such as the hypocrite who was killed by ‘Umar without the permission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when the hypocrite did not agree with the ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Then Qur’aan was revealed approving ‘Umar’s action. And there was the daughter of Marwaan who was killed by that man, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called him the supporter of Allaah and His Messenger. That is because the one whose execution becomes necessary because of his plot to corrupt the religion is not like one who is executed because of his sin of zina and the like. End quote from al-Saarim al-Maslool (285-286). And Allaah knows best. (Question No. 103739, Regarding the hadeeth about the blind man who killed his slave woman who had borne him a child (umm walad) because she reviled the Prophet; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Obviously, these Muslims must have known not to use fraudulent tales, especially anecdotes that cast their prophet in such a bad light. Yet they still went ahead and used them and the reason why they did should be obvious: they believed that, despite the fact that an isnad wasn’t provided, the early date of these works was a sufficient basis to assume that Muhammad did commit these murders.

This now leads us to another point. This oft-repeated Muslim rebuttal fails to explain why Muslim historians, scholars, expositors etc., would include such stories when these anecdotes portray Muhammad in such a negative light. The most unpleasant events in early Islam have the strongest probability of really having occurred because it is inconceivable that Muslims would make them up on their own or receive them from non-Muslims. After all, if the enemies of Islam created these reports to discredit Muhammad why would respectable Muslims such as Ibn Ishaq and Qadi Iyad include them? Why didn’t they simply omit such details especially when they make Muhammad look so cruel and evil?

In fact, one of the arguments that Muslims employ to demonstrate the veracity of the Quran is to point to references where Muhammad is rebuked for some mistakes or sins he committed (cf. Q. 9:43; 40:55; 47:19; 8:1-2; 80:1-10). Muslims claim that these examples prove that Muhammad couldn’t have authored the Quran since he wouldn’t rebuke himself if he did. But this same logic also applies to these Islamic narrations that present Muhammad as a cold-blooded murderer, since why would any god-fearing Muslim want to paint such a picture of his/her prophet being a vicious cold-blooded killer? The fact that such anecdotes exist argues quite strongly for their veracity, since Muslims normally omit negative references to their prophet. They wouldn’t retain or concoct them.

It should be further noted that even modern western scholars, specifically those who almost always defend Muhammad and Islam, take these stories as genuine historical episodes. By using modern historical, textual and critical methods, these scholars invariably end up concluding that these anecdotes have a ring of truth to them due to how embarrassing they are for the Muslim position. Reputable historians, apologists, polemicists and students of Islam correctly reason that these are reliable traditions precisely because no Muslim scholar would dare create such negative portrayals and depictions of his/her prophet, nor would s/he want to preserve such narrations especially if they originated from non-Muslim circles.

The preceding factors give us good grounds for assuming that these vicious and cold-blooded murders are genuine events in the life of Muhammad and his followers. These harsh anecdotes and accounts cannot, therefore, be explained away in terms of the (alleged) unreliability of the source documents.

In light of the foregoing, we have the following questions for Muslims to answer:

Please explain: Why would Muslim sources contain anecdotes which present Muhammad in such a negative light? Why would believers include narrations that present Muhammad as a cold-blooded murderer?

Moreover, why would Muslims create such stories in the first place? It is often the tendency of people to overlook or hide the mistakes, sins, and errors of their leaders or heroes. People normally tend to make their heroes look better, not worse. This would especially be the case with Muslims who love Muhammad more than anything and view him as the greatest prophet and the best of creation. So why would Muslims make up stories that make Muhammad look evil?

If a Muslim says that these stories originated from unbelievers then why would Muslims want to circulate them? Why would god-fearing Muslims pass on the lies and fraudulent tales of unbelievers, especially when such stories serve to aid the disbelievers in their attempt to discredit and malign Muhammad?

And finally, we saved the best for last. There is a specific hadith report, which provides a chain deemed to be reliable by specific scholars, to substantiate the historicity of the murder of Asma bint Marwan. It comes from the hadith collection of Abu Dawud. The following Sira, after citing the murder of Asma bint Marwan, notes that:

Reported by Ibn Ishaq – Ibn Hisham (4/379), through a chain about which he did not mention clearly whether he himself heard. It is part of a report narrated in connection with the death of ‘Asma’, and so is weak. However it obtains strength from the trustworthy narrative in Abu Dawud as in the following note.
Ibid. It was also documented by Abu Dawud in his Sunan (4/528-29/The Book of Hudud, rulings on those who insulted the Prophet. He follows a chain other than that of Ibn Ishaq through a chain that is Connected and its transmitters reliable as ruled by Ibn Hajar in Bulugh Al-Maram (2/241). Nasa’i has also collected this report in his Sunan (7/107-108) as well as Tabarani in his Kabir. (A Biography of the Prophet of Islam In the Light of Original Sources: An Analytical Study, by Dr. Mahdi Rizqullah Ahmad, translated by Syed Iqbal Zaheer [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Jeddah, Sharjah, Lahore, London, Houston, New York; First Edition: November 2005], Volume 1, Chapter 6: Events and Expeditions between Badr and Uhud, pp. 431-432; underline emphasis ours)

This should sufficiently put to rest the Muslim arguments that are raised to undermine the fact that Muhammad murdered a helpless poetess and an older man.

Yet despite the above criticisms to the typical Muslim attempts which aim to undermine the historicity of these murders, some Muslim apologists think that they have found conclusive evidence that castigates these stories, some “irrefutable” points that are supposed to conclusively prove that these murders could not have occurred. It is to these claims that we now turn our attention.

SOURCE: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/asma_afak1.htm

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sam Shamoun replies to a Muslim who claims there are no contradictions in the Koran

  1. Sam Shamounsays:

October 27, 2014 at 2:08 am

Promulgating Black Stone Worship. Only in your wildest al-asra wa’miraj have your refuted the garbage you call the Quran. Here is just one example of what we have done to brain damaged Muhammadans like yourself who think they have refuted us. Enjoy!

Muhammad Alleged Night Journey
Further proof for the incoherence and incompleteness of the Quran

The Quran claims to be a scripture whose verses are fully detail

A Book where of the Verses are explained in detail; A Qur’an in Arabic for people who know. S. 41:3 Hilali-Khan

A Book, the verses of which have been expounded in detail and which will be repeatedly read, couched in clear, eloquent language, for a people who have knowledge, Sher Ali

A scripture whose verses provide the complete details, in an Arabic Quran, for people who know. Rashad Khalifa

However a careful examination of the Quran shows that such is not the case since the Islamic writ fails to provide adequate information and details for many of its stories and injunctions. The following text which is used to establish Muhammad’s miraculous ascent by night is a case in point:

Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque (Masjid al-Aqsa), whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things). S. 17:1

Here are some of the many problems which this passage raises against the Quran’s assertion that its verses are fully detailed.

The verse fails to identify who this servant is. Is this referring to Muhammad or to Moses who is actually mentioned later on in the context? Or is it referring to some other messenger or prophet?
In fact, how do we even know that the servant in question was actually a prophet or messenger? Perhaps he was devout believer who saw a vision or dream.
Where exactly are these mosques located? Where can we find Masjid al-Aqsa? Where is the exact location of the Sacred Mosque?

Can any Muslim answer these questions from the text of the Quran alone? If they are incapable of doing so wouldn’t this falsify the Quran’s assertion that all of its verses are fully detailed?

In light of this our challenge to Zaatari at this point is very simple. We want him to prove that the Quran is correct in claiming that its verses are fully detailed by using only the Islamic writ to answer all of the above questions. If he appeals to other sources then he will only be proving that the Quran is mistaken since it does not provide a thoroughly adequate explanation for all of its passages.

But these are the least of Zaatari’s problems.

Muhammad’s journey to the Temple of Jerusalem

The only way that Zaatari (or any other dawagandist) can even answer these questions is by turning to the sirah and/or hadith literature. However, these sources actually prove that the Quran is grossly mistaken and that Muhammad was a false prophet who deceived people by his false dreams and visions which he claimed were from God.

According to the Islamic literature the farthest Mosque is actually the Temple of Jerusalem, which is called Bayt ul-Muqaddas in Arabic:

Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar al-Aslami informed us; he said: Usamah Ibn Zayd al-Laythi related to me on the authority of ‘Amr Ibn Shu’ayb, he on the authority of his father, he on the authority of his (‘Amr’s) grand-father; (second chain) he (Ibn Sa’d) said: Musa Ibn Ya’qub al-Zam’i related to me on the authority of his father, he on the authority of his (Musa’s) grandfather, he on the authority of Umm Salamah; (third chain) Musa said: Abu al-Aswad related to me on the authority of ‘Urwah, he on the authority of ‘Ayishah; (fourth chain) Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar said: Ishaq Ibn Hazim related to me on the authority of Wahb Ibn Kaysan, he on the authority of Abu Murrah the mawla of ‘Aqil, he on the authority of Umm Hani daughter of Abu Talib (fifth chain) he (Ibn Sa’d) said: ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja’far related to me on the authority of Zakariya Ibn ‘Amr, he on the authority of Abu Mulaykah, he on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas and others; their consolidated narrations are: The Apostle of Allah, was taken by night on the seventeenth night of First Rabi’ before Hijrah, and one year before the blockade in the mountain pass of Abu Talib, to Bayt al-Muqaddas. The Apostle of Allah said: I was mounted on a beast whose size was between a donkey and a mule, with two wings in its thighs, which came up to its hoofs and were set in them. When I went near it to ride, it became restive. Thereupon Gabriel placed his hand on its head and said: O Buraq! are you not ashamed of what you are doing? By Allah no servant of Allah has ridden you before Muhammad, more honoured in the sight of Allah. It felt ashamed till it was covered with sweat, and became calm; then I mounted it. It moved its ears, and the earth shrank to such an extent that its hoofs (seemed to touch its surface) at the end of the range of our sight. It had a long back and long ears. Gabriel accompanied me and he never lost touch with me nor did I till we reached Bayt al-Muqaddas; and al-Buraq reached its halting place. It was tied there and it was the place where the beasts… of the Prophets were tied before the Apostle of Allah. He (the Prophet) said: I saw the Prophets who had assembled there for me. I saw Abraham, Moses and Jesus and, I thought there must be some one to lead them (in prayers); Gabriel made me go forward till I offered prayers in front of them and inquired from them (about their mission). They said: We were commissioned with Unity (of Allah).

Some of them (narrators) said: The Prophet had disappeared that night, so the members of family of ‘Abd al-Muttalib went out to search him. Al-‘Abbas went to Dhu Tuwa and began to shout: O Muhammad! O Muhammad! The Apostle of Allah said: I am here. He said: O my brother’s son! You have worried the people since the (beginning of the) night, where had you been? He said: I am coming from Bayt al-Muqaddas. He said: In one night? He said: Yes. He said: Did you experience anything which was not good? He said: I did not experience anything but good. Umm Hani said: He was taken on this journey from our house. He slept that night with us; he offered al-‘Isha prayers, and then he slept. When it was pre-dawn we awoke him (to offer) morning (prayers). He got up and when he offered morning prayers he said: O Umm Hani! I offered al’Isha prayers with you as you witnessed, then I reached Bayt Al-Muqaddas and offered prayers there; then I offered morning prayers before you. After this he got up to go out; I said to him: Do not relate this to the people because they will belie you and harm you. He said: By Allah I shall relate to them and inform them. They wondered at it and said: We have never heard a thing like this. The Apostle of Allah said to Gabriel; O Gabriel! my people will not confirm it. He said: Abu Bakr will testify to it; and he is al-Siddiq. The narrator added: Many people who had embraced Islam and offered prayers went astray. (The Prophet continued,) I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. Some of them said: HOW MANY DOORS ARE THERE IN THAT MOSQUE? I HAD NOT COUNTED THEM SO I BEGAN TO LOOK AT IT AND COUNTED THEM ONE BY ONE AND GAVE THEM INFORMATION CONCERNING THEM. I also gave information about their caravan which was on the way and its signs. They found them as I had related. Allah, the Almighty, the Great, revealed: “We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind”. He (Ibn Sa’d) said: It refers to the vision of the eye which he saw with the eye. (Ibn Sa’ad, Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110 002 India], Volume I, pp. 246-248; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And:

Ziyad b. ‘Abdullah al-Bakka’i from Muhammad b. Ishaq told me the following: Then the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa WHICH IS THE TEMPLE OF AELIA, when Islam had spread in Mecca among the Quraysh and all the tribes… His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, UNTIL HE CAME TO JERUSALEM’S TEMPLE… In his story al-Hasan said: “The apostle and Gabriel went their way until they arrived AT THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM”… (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 181, 182; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The renowned Muslim commentator Ibn Kathir writes:

means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibraham Al-Khalil. The Prophets all gathered there, and he (Muhammad) led them in prayer in their own homeland. This indicates that he is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 17:1; bold emphasis ours)

Ibn Kathir narrates some hadiths to confirm this point:

The Report of Jabir bin `Abdullah

Imam Ahmad recorded that Jabir bin `Abdullah said that he heard the Messenger of Allah say…

<> This was also reported in the Two Sahihs with different chains of narration. According to Al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Shihab said: Abu Salamah bin `Abdur-Rahman said: Some people from Quraish went to Abu Bakr and said, “Have you heard what your companion is saying He is claiming that he went to Bayt Al-Maqdis and came back to Makkah in one night!” Abu Bakr said, “Did he say that?” They said, “Yes.” Abu Bakr said, “Then I bear witness that if he said that, he is speaking the truth.” They said, “You believe that he went to Ash-Sham [Greater Syria] in one night and came back to Makkah before morning” He said, “Yes, I believe him with regard to something even more than that. I believe him with regard to the revelation that comes to him from heaven.” Abu Salamah said, from then on Abu Bakr was known as As-Siddiq (the true believer). (Source)

And:

I remember being in Al-Hijr, and the Quraysh were asking me about my Night Journey. They asked me things about Bayt Al-Maqdis that I was not sure of, and I felt more anxious and stressed then than I have ever felt. Then Allah raised up Bayt Al-Maqdis for me to see, and there was nothing they asked me about but I told them about it. And I remember being in a gathering of the Prophets. Musa was standing there praying, and he was a man with curly hair, as if he were one of the men of Shanu’ah. I saw ‘Isa ibn Maryam standing there praying, and the one who most resembles him is ‘Urwah bin Mas’ud Ath-Thaqafi. And I saw Ibrahim standing there praying, and for the one who most resembles him is your companion (meaning himself). Then the time for prayer came, and I led them in prayer. When I finished, a voice said, ‘O Muhammad, this is Malik, the keeper of Hell,’ so I turned to him, and he greeted me first. (Source; bold emphasis ours)

Finally,

“… The truth is that the Prophet was taken on the Night Journey when he was awake, not in a dream, and he went from Makkah to Bayt Al-Maqdis riding on Al-Buraq. When he reached THE DOOR OF THE SANCTUARY, he tied up his animal by THE DOOR AND ENTERED, where he prayed two Rakahs to ‘greet the Masjid’…

“Then he came back down to Bayt Al-Maqdis, and the Prophets came down with him and he led them in prayer there when the time for prayer came. Some claim that he led them in prayer in heaven, but the reports seem to say that it was in Bayt Al-Maqdis. In some reports it says that it happened when he first ENTERED…

“Then he came OUT OF BAYT AL-MAQDIS and rode on Al-Buraq back to Makkah in the darkness of the night. As for his being presented with the vessels containing milk and honey, or milk and wine, or milk and water, or all of these, some reports say that this happened in Bayt Al-Maqdis, and others say that it happened in the heavens. It is possible that it happened in BOTH places, because it is like offering food or drink to a guest when he arrives, and Allah knows best.” (Source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The problem with these fables is that the first Temple was built by Solomon and subsequently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian armies in 586 BC. Furthermore, general Titus and his Roman soldiers leveled the Second Temple in AD. 70, more than five centuries before this alleged night journey to Jerusalem took place. Moreover, the place that was eventually called Masjid al-Aqsa did not come into existence until AD. 690-691 when ‘Abd al-Malik bin Marwan built it (or, as some believe, reconstructed and expanded it). As the late Muslim translator and commentator Abdullah Yusuf Ali states in his footnote 2168,

The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock, called also the Mosque of Hadhrat ‘Umar. This and the Mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) were completed by the Amir ‘Abd-ul-Malik in A.H. 68. Farthest because it was the place of worship farthest west which was known to the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet: it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians, but the Christians then had the upper hand, as it was included the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, which maintained a Patriarch at Jerusalem. The chief dates in connection with the Temple are: it was finished by Solomon about BC. 1004; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C.; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 B.C.; turned into a heathen idol-temple by one of Alexander’s successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 B.C.; restored by Herod, B.C. 17 to A.D. 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. These ups and downs are among the greater Signs in religious history. (Ali, The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (English and Arabic Edition) [Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Elmhurst NY: Hardcover Edition, January, 1987] p. 693; bold emphasis ours)

In other words, THERE WAS NO TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM WHEN THIS ALLEGED JOURNEY TOOK PLACE!

Zaatari sees the problem and therefore asks:

There is a very easy way to reconcile this problem, if THE temple of Jerusalem was there no more, then obviously the prophet visited ANOTHER temple!

Who says that the temple he went to has to be the same exact Jewish holy temple which was revered by the Jews?

The very same sources which Zaatari appeals to say that the Temple that Muhammad went to is the same exact one which the Jews revered!

Zaatari then asks:

Secondly, what’s to say that God could not reconstruct the main Jewish temple for the prophet Muhammad on this specific event? The whole night journey is a miraculous event; hence it would not be a problem at all for God to reconstruct the temple for a short period so the prophet could go inside it and pray. Does Shamoun doubt God’s powerful abilities?

The reason why this ad hoc explanation doesn’t work is because the Islamic sources testify that Muhammad described the Temple in order to convince the disbelievers that he had actually visited there:

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:

The Prophet said, “When the Quraish disbelieved me (concerning my night journey), I stood up in Al-Hijr (the unroofed portion of the Ka’ba) and Allah displayed Bait-ul-Maqdis before me, and I started to inform them (Quraish) about its signs while looking at it.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 233)

And:

“… After this he got up to go out; I said to him: Do not relate this to the people because they will belie you and harm you. He said: By Allah I shall relate to them and inform them. They wondered at it and said: We have never heard a thing like this. The Apostle of Allah said to Gabriel; O Gabriel! my people will not confirm it. He said: Abu Bakr will testify to it; and he is al-Siddiq. The narrator added: Many people who had embraced Islam and offered prayers WENT ASTRAY. (The Prophet continued,) I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. SOME OF THEM SAID: How man doors are there in that mosque? I had not counted them so I began to look at it and counted them one by one and gave them information concerning them. I also gave information about their caravan which was on the way and its signs. They found them as I had related. Allah, the Almighty, the Great, revealed: ‘We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind’. He (Ibn Sa’d) said: It refers to the vision of the eye which he saw with the eye.” (Ibn Sa’ad, Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir Volume I, p. 248; bold and capital emphasis ours)

The only way to make sense out of these reports is if we assume that the disbelievers were suppose to know what the Temple looked like since they would have seen it in their alleged travels to Jerusalem. Otherwise, Muhammad’s description of the Temple would make no sense and would fail to establish his case if the people he was speaking to had no idea what it looked like.

Zaatari himself indirectly sees this point since he later writes:

Moving on, if anyone does continue with the story one will find that the people around the prophet Muhammad who knew Jerusalem ADMITTED that his description of Jerusalem was accurate as well.

The only way they could admit that what Muhammad had said concerning the Temple was accurate is if they supposedly had gone to it and seen it for themselves.

Thus, how can a Temple which only appeared in Muhammad’s imagination be verified by people who knew Jerusalem when this Temple no longer existed in real time and space? If Zaatari is correct that Allah only reconstructed the Temple simply in Muhammad’s fantasy-laden mind then how could such information be used to establish his prophethood or confirm that he actually traveled to Jerusalem?

The only way to make sense out of all of these stories is if we assume that their compilers actually thought that the Jerusalem Temple was still standing during Muhammad’s time. However, they were grossly mistaken since no such Temple existed.

This leaves Zaatari with the troubling fact that his false prophet never visited Jerusalem nor did he ever see the Temple, let alone enter there to pray with God’s true prophets and messengers.(1)

But there is more to the story and there are other problems which Muslims such as Zaatari are faced with because of what these reports and the Quran say.

Which Temple did Muhammad actually visit?

According to the Islamic scripture Allah told the Israelites that they would spread corruption in the land twice. As a result of their mischief Allah sent people to punish them:

And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Book: ‘You shall do corruption in the earth twice, and you shall ascend exceeding high.’ So, when the promise of the first of these came to pass, We sent against you servants of Ours, men of great might, and they went through the habitations, and it was a promise performed. Then We gave back to you the turn to prevail over them, and We succoured you with wealth and children, and We made you a greater host. ‘If you do good, it is your own souls you do good to, and if you do evil it is to them likewise.’ Then, when the promise of THE SECOND came to pass, We sent against you Our servants to discountenance you, and to enter the Temple, AS THEY ENTERED IT THE FIRST TIME, and to destroy utterly that which they ascended to. Perchance your Lord will have mercy upon you; but if you return, We shall return; and We have made Gehenna a prison for the unbelievers. S. 17:4-8

Needless to say, this particular surah raises a host of difficulties.

First off, the passage claims that when the Israelites committed mischief the second time Allah sent his servants to enter the Temple much like the people that Allah had sent previously entered it the first time the Israelites had acted corruptly. This assumes that the Temple wasn’t destroyed the first time around since if it was then the people who attacked the Israelites the second time could not have entered it, which raises a serious problem.

As we had previously noted, according to both Biblical and secular history the first time anyone came up against the Temple in Jerusalem was when the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar sent his armies to destroy it in 586 BC. The second time this happened was in 70 AD when the army of the Roman general Titus ransacked the second Temple. Moreover, the construction on this second Temple began only when the Jews returned to Jerusalem after their captivity in Babylon.

Thus, the people who attacked Jerusalem the second time around never saw the Temple which the first group that came up against the Israelites had seen! How, then, could the Quran claim that this second group of people entered the very same Temple which the first group that attacked the Israelites entered?

Or is the Islamic scripture actually referring to Antiochus Epiphanes IV or perhaps even Pompey, both of whom laid siege and entered the Temple without destroying it? If so then the same problem remains since neither ruler ever entered the first Temple since that had been destroyed by the Babylonians.

This also means that the Quran is mistaken on the number of times Israel’s enemies entered into their Temple since this happened at least four times by four different rulers.

Secondly, if the Muslim scripture is referring to either Pompey or Antiochus then does this imply that the author(s) of the Quran actually thought that Solomon’s Temple remained standing and was never destroyed? If so then would this not prove that the author(s) actually believed that the Temple which Allah took his servant to is none other than the very same Temple which Solomon built?

Yet this interpretation seems unlikely since the Quran seems to suggest that the Temple was destroyed by the second group that Allah had sent against the Israelites:

(And We said): “If you do good, you do good for your ownselves, and if you do evil (you do it) against yourselves.” Then, when the second promise came to pass, (We permitted your enemies) to make your faces sorrowful and to enter the mosque (of Jerusalem) as they had entered it before, and to destroy with utter destruction all that fell in their hands. S. 17:7 Hilali-Khan

If this is the meaning of the verse then this neither refers to Pompey nor Antiochus but must be speaking of Titus.

However, one cannot be too dogmatic since the verse doesn’t come out and say that Allah’s servants destroyed the Temple. It merely states that they destroyed whatever fell into their hands which may imply that they destroyed the land and the homes of the Israelites but left the Temple standing much like the first group did.

Or, is the Quran actually asserting that there weren’t two different groups that attacked the Temple but one and the same group did? Notice the text once again,

So when the time for the first of the two came, We roused against you slaves of Ours of great might who ravaged (your) country, and it was a threat performed. Then we gave you once again your turn against them, and We aided you with wealth and children and made you more in soldiery. (Saying): If ye do good, ye do good for your own souls, and if ye do evil, it is for them (in like manner). So, when the time for the second (of the judgments) came (We roused against you others of Our slaves) to ravage you, and to enter the Temple even AS THEY entered it the first time, and to lay waste all that they conquered with an utter wasting. S. 17:5-7 Pickthall

The statement, “even as they entered it the first time,” makes it sound as if the same servants or people came back again. At least there is no indication that the author of the Qur’an understood this to mean that DIFFERENT nations were sent to punish Israel.

This leads us to the other major difficulty with Muhammad’s supposed night journey.

Who actually built the Kabah?

Muhammad is reported to have believed that the first mosque that was built was the one in Mecca and that the “mosque” in Jerusalem was built forty years later:

Narrated Abu Dhar:

I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the earth?” He said, “Al-Masjid-ul-Haram (in Mecca).” I said, “Which was built next?” He replied “The mosque of Al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem).” I said, “What was the period of construction between the two?” He said, “Forty years.” He added, “Wherever (you may be, and) the prayer time becomes due, perform the prayer there, for the best thing is to do so (i.e. to offer the prayers in time).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 585)

And:

Chapter 6. The Virtue Of Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa And Praying Therein

  1. It was narrated from ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr that the Messenger of Allah said: “When Sulaiman bin Dawud finished building Bait Al-Maqdis, he asked Allah for three things: Judgment that was in harmony with His judgment, and he was given that. And he asked Allah for a dominion that no one after him would have, and he was given that. And when he finished building the Masjid, he asked Allah the Mighty and Sublime, that no one should come to it, intending only to pray there, but he would emerge free of sin as day his mother bore him.” (Sahih) (English Translation of Sunan An-Nasa’i – Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu Abdur Rahman Ahmad bin Shu‘aib bin ‘Ali An-Nasa’i, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: December 2007], Volume 1. From Hadith No. 01 to 876, 8. The Book of Masjids, p. 409)

The main difficulty with this assertion is that it places the erection of the Kabah at approximately 998 BC., since the construction of the first Temple was not completed by Solomon until BC. 951 (c.f. 1 Kings 6:1-7:51). However, the Quran implies that the Kabah was built by Abraham and Ishmael (we say imply because the Islamic scripture never identifies the place where Ishmael settled as Mecca):

Remember We made the House a place of assembly for men and a place of safety; and take ye the station of Abraham as a place of prayer; and We covenanted with Abraham and Isma’il, that they should sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or use it as a retreat, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer). And remember Abraham said: “My Lord, make this a City of Peace, and feed its people with fruits, – such of them as believe in God and the Last Day.” He said: “(Yea), and such as reject Faith, – for a while will I grant them their pleasure, but will soon drive them to the torment of Fire, – an evil destination (indeed)!” And remember Abraham and Isma’il raised the foundations of the House (With this prayer): “Our Lord! Accept (this service) from us: For Thou art the All-Hearing, the All-knowing. “Our Lord! make of us Muslims, bowing to Thy (Will), and of our progeny a people Muslim, bowing to Thy (will); and show us our place for the celebration of (due) rites; and turn unto us (in Mercy); for Thou art the Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. Our Lord! send amongst them an Apostle of their own, who shall rehearse Thy Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise.” S. 2:125-129

This means that Abraham, Ishmael, David and Solomon were all contemporaries who lived around the same time!

In order to get around this blatant mistake of Muhammad’s Muslims have come up with a rather disingenuous explanation that neither Abraham nor Solomon initially built these places of worship. Rather, these prophets simply rebuilt them!

Chapter 7. Which Mosque Was Built First?

  1. It was narrated that Abu Dharr Al-Ghifari said: “I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Which mosque was built first?’ He said: ‘Al-Masjid Al-Haram (in Makkah).’ I said: ‘Then which?’ He said: ‘Then Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa (in Jerusalem).’ I said: ‘How many years between them?’ He said: ‘Forty years, but the whole earth is a mosque for you, so pray wherever you are when the time for prayer comes.’” (Sahih)

Comments:

  1. The reference here is to the building of the first mosque ever built in history, which was accomplished at the hands of Adam. As for the prophets Ibrahim and Isma’il they rebuilt after old marks had been erased. Similarly, Sulaiman was also not the first to build Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa. (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah – Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 1. From Hadith No. 01 to 802, (4) The Chapters On The Mosques And The Congregations, pp. 492-493; underline emphasis ours)

There is not a single shred of historical or archaeological proof that Solomon wasn’t the first person to build the Temple in Jerusalem. In case Zaatari disagrees we challenge him (or any other dawagandist for that matter) to provide some evidence to the contrary.

There is also absolutely no evidence that the Kabah was built by Adam. In fact, the Quran itself expressly affirms that it was Abraham and Ishmael who built the original structure of the Kabah.

Behold! We gave the site, to Abraham, of the (Sacred) House, (saying): “Associate not anything (in worship) with Me; and sanctify My House for those who compass it round, or stand up, or bow, or prostrate themselves (therein in prayer).” S. 22:26

Here is what Ibn Kathir says concerning this text:

Building of the Ka’bah and the Proclamation of the Hajj

This is a rebuke to those among Quraysh who worshipped others than Allah and joined partners with Him in the place which from the outset had been established on the basis of Tawhid and the worship of Allah Alone, with no partner or associate. Allah tells us that He showed Ibrahim the site of the `Atiq House, i.e., He guided him to it, entrusted it to him and granted him permission to build it. Many scholars take this as evidence to support the view that Ibrahim WAS THE FIRST ONE to build the House and that IT WAS NOT BUILT BEFORE HIS TIME… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; capital emphasis ours)

But even this assertion is wrong since there is no proof whatsoever that Ishmael settled in Mecca or that Abraham ever visited there. As the following scholar explains:

“… Ishmael is considered the progenitor of the Arabs. Dagon (1981) has shown that this idea is an Islamic construction AND THAT NO CONNECTION BETWEEN ISHMAEL AND THE ARABS HAD EVER BEEN MADE IN THE PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD. Already in the first Islamic century, however, Ishmael came to symbolize the Islamic Umma, and biblical passages about Ishmael were taken to refer to Muhammad, the Arabs, or the Muslim community.” (Camilla Adang, Muslim Writers on Judaism and the Hebrew Bible from Ibn Rabban to Ibn Hazm [E.J. Brill Academic Publishers; August 1997 ISBN: 9004100342], p. 147, fn. 37; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Noted Islamicist Alfred Guillaume agrees,

“… there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost. The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources.” (Alfred Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books Inc., Baltimore, 1956], pp. 61-62)

Ibn Warraq, a former Muslim turned atheist, quotes specific authorities who also deny that Abraham or Ishmael were ever in Mecca,

We are told that [Abraham] was born in Chaldea, and that he was the son of a poor potter who earned his living by making little clay idols. It is scarcely credible that the son of this potter went to Mecca, 300 leagues away in the tropics, by way of impassable deserts. If he was a conqueror he no doubt aimed at the fine country of Assyria; and if he was only a poor man, as he is depicted, he founded no kingdoms in foreign parts. — Voltaire

For the historian, the Arabs are no more the descendents of Ishmael, son of Abraham, than the French are of Francus, son of Hector. — Maxime Rodinson

It is virtually certain that Abraham never reached Mecca. — Montgomery Watt

The essential point … is that, where objective fact has been established by sound historical methods, it must be accepted. — Montgomery Watt

According to Muslim tradition, Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba, the cube-like structure in the Sacred Mosque in Mecca. But outside these traditions there is absolutely no evidence for this claim – whether epigraphic, archaeological, or documentary. Indeed Snouck Hurgronje has shown that Muhammad invented the story to give his religion an Arabian origin and setting; with this brilliant improvisation Muhammad established the independence of his religion, at the same time incorporating into Islam the Kaaba with all its historical and religious associations for the Arabs. (Ibn Warraq, Why I Am Not A Muslim [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY 1995], p. 131; bold emphasis ours)

The story is far from over since it gets even worse.

Muhammad worships his god on top of refuse and garbage?

The readers may not be aware that at the time that Muhammad’s night journey allegedly took place the Temple site had been turned into a dump site, a fact which both Muslim scholars and apologists admit!

“… The site of the mosque in Jerusalem is where the Jewish Temple stood. At that time it was a rubbish heap. ‘Umar told the people to follow his example in clearing the rubbish away…” (The History of al-Tabari – The Battle of al-Qadsiyyah and the Conquest of Syria and Palestine, translated by Yohanan Friedmann [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, September 1991], Volume XII (12), pp. 195-196; bold emphasis ours)

And:

Let’s now deal with some side issues. The Christian missionaries tell us that when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount filled with garbage:

“When the Arabs conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount abandoned and filled with refuse. … `Umar ordered it cleaned and performed a prayer there. The sanctuary [the Dome of the Rock] … was built by Caliph `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan around 72/691.”

Two question now arise, who abandoned the Temple Mount and why was it filled it with rubbish? The facts become clearer when we actually fill in the blanks “…” in the Christian missionaries’ quotation:

When the Arabs conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount abandoned and filled with refuse. The abandonment of the Temple site was in accordance with Jesus’ prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another. `Umar ordered it cleaned and performed a prayer there.[20]

So, it was the Christians who abandoned the Temple some 600 years before the Muslims entered it. But who used the Holy place a rubbish dump?

Ever since the Persian occupation, when the Jews had resumed worship on the platform, the Christians had used the place as the city rubbish dump. When `Umar reached the old ruined gates of the Temple, says the Muslim historian Mujir al-Din, he was horrified to see the filth, “which was then all about the holy sanctuary, had settled on the steps of the gates so that it even came out into the streets in which the gate opened, and it had accumulated so greatly as almost to reach up the ceiling of the gateway.” The only way to get up to the platform was to crawl on hands and knees. Sophronius went first and the Muslims struggled up behind. When they arrived at the top, the Muslims must have gazed appalled at the vast and desolate expanse of Herod’s platform, still covered with piles of fallen masonry and garbage.[21]

It was the Christians! …

[20] “Dome Of The Rock” in C. Glassé, The Concise Encyclopaedia Of Islam, 1989, Stacey International: London, p. 102.

[21] K. Armstrong, Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, 1997, Ballantine Books: New York, p. 229. (Muhammad Ghoniem, Mansur Ahmed, Elias Karim, `Abd al-Rahman Robert Squires & M S M Saifullah, Prophet Muhammad’s Night Journey To Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa – The Farthest Mosque, Appendix: Who Turned The Temple Mount Into A Garbage Dump?; bold emphasis ours)

In light of this are we to seriously believe that Muhammad visited a dump site and led all of the true prophets of God in worship? Does Zaatari really want us to accept that God’s true prophets prayed on top of a rubbish heap? Even Umar had enough common sense to cleanse the site before offering prayers to his god!

Muhammad – Islam’s Soothsayer and Fortuneteller

As a last ditch effort to salvage Muhammad’s prophetic assertions and reputation Zaatari argues that I cannot simply pick only certain aspects of this story while disregarding the rest which supposedly refutes my point.

Thirdly, as I said in rebuttal number two, Shamoun cannot pick parts of the story he likes, and disregard other parts of the story which debunk his case! Why doesn’t Shamoun quote the entire story? For instance this part…

Zaatari then references the part where Muhammad claimed that a certain caravan was on its way and mentioned some of their camels’ circumstances which they encountered, all of which supposedly turned out to be true:

So notice the prophet gave proof of his journey, noting things on the way which no one could know! Hence why Does Shamoun leave this out? If he wants Muslims to carefully assess their prophet then with all due respect quote the entire story so we can assess the entire event and situation. It is mischievous to ask Muslims to carefully consider our prophet when you cannot even carefully quote the entire story, especially when it is on the same page as he is quoting from!

This is Islamic make-believe at its best. No serious historian would follow such reasoning. Why should propheto-fiction overcome the hard facts? Because Zaatari so badly wants to believe it?

The issue is that the statements about the visit to the Temple can be cross-checked against historical data and they are clearly proven false. And these obviously wrong claims mark the entire story as unreliable. On the other hand, who is able to check these claims about the camels today? (Or even at the time when Ibn Ishaq first wrote it?) What reason can Zaatari give us to believe it was so? After all, doesn’t the same story say that Muhammad’s claims about the Temple and the description of the number of doors were CONFIRMED by those Arabs around him who had been to Jerusalem? I.e. the story claims that Muhammad’s contemporaries confirmed his statements about the Temple which we know for sure to be wrong. Why should we therefore believe that their confirmation of Muhammad’s claims about the camels are any more trustworthy than their confirmation about his claims about the Temple? The only difference is that today we have no possibility to examine this part of the story.(2)

Bear in mind that the sirah by Ibn Ishaq was written more than a hundred years after Muhammad’s death. This gap in time means that there were no eyewitnesses from Muhammad’s time, especially hostile ones, who could confirm or contradict this story. Ibn Ishaq merely claimed that Muhammad’s contemporaries confirmed his description of the temple, and he also merely claimed that his descriptions of the camels of certain caravans turned out to be correct.

It is irrelevant whether Ibn Ishaq invented the whole story or he merely believed and reported the story which was fabricated by some earlier pious Muslim. The bottom line is that the historical facts expose the fictional nature of this story.

The main topic and reason for the story is Muhammad’s journey to the temple. The element of predicting the color of some camels is a minor detail woven into the fictional story. Can Zaatari provide any reason for considering this detail to be historical when the main part of the story is proven to be fictional?

And does Zaatari really believe that “an element of truth” would overcome the hard facts which declare the story to be fabricated?

However, just for argument’s sake, let us assume Muhammad correctly predicted the color of some camels in order to support his claimed journey to the temple. Would that confirm him as a true prophet? Not at all! Based on the Biblical as well as Islamic criteria, it would merely prove that Muhammad was a false prophet who was able to make some accurate predictions at times.

The Holy Bible says this about false prophets:

“If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.” Deuteronomy 13:1-5

“At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.” Matthew 24:23-24

However, these predictions do not explain away all of Muhammad’s false prophecies, mistakes, and lies such as his claim to have visited a Temple which did not exist in his day.

In fact, according to Muhammad’s own words this establishes that he was nothing more than a soothsayer and fortuneteller who mixed truth with lies and deception:

Narrated ‘Aisha:
Some people asked Allah’s Apostle about the fore-tellers. He said, “They are nothing.” They said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Sometimes they tell us of a thing which turns out to be true.” Allah’s Apostle said, “A Jinn snatches that true word and pours it into the ear of his friend (the fore-teller) (as one puts something into a bottle). The foreteller then mixes with that word one hundred lies.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 657)

Narrated ‘Aisha:
Some people asked the Prophet regarding the soothsayers. He said, “They are nothing.” They said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Some of their talks come true.” The Prophet said, “That word which happens to be true is what a Jinn snatches away by stealth (from the Heaven) and pours it in the ears of his friend (the foreteller) with a sound like the cackling of a hen. The soothsayers then mix with that word, one hundred lies.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 650)

Muhammad’s claim to have visited a Temple which no longer existed along with his supposedly describing things that he saw on his journey which turned out to be accurate only prove that he was no different than the soothsayers who mixed lies with truth. It confirms that Muhammad was being inspired by the demons which he called Jinn, much like the fortunetellers.

More importantly, Zaatari has to be consistent at this point by applying his own criterion to this fable and therefore cannot simply accept the parts of this story which suit his purpose. He must contend with the fact that these sources contain a gross historical mistake which severely damage Muhammad’s credibility and integrity. Muhammad’s supposed night journey to the Jerusalem Temple could not have taken place since no Temple existed at that time!

Therefore, the only conclusion that Zaatari can come to is that the Quran contains serious mistakes and that Muhammad is a false prophet!

So much for Zaatari’s defense of this gross historical error within the Islamic corpus.

SOURCE: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/mo-false1.html

OUCH!!!!

  1. Sam Shamounsays:

October 27, 2014 at 2:10 am

Promulgating rape and murder, here is another for you for now:

A Muslim Takes Aim At The Two Messenger But Misses Both Target

Anthony Rogers & Sam Shamoun

In a rather lazy reply that he obviously didn’t think all the way through, Bassam Zawadi has illustrated the truth of the proverb: “A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he will not even bring it back to his mouth!” (Proverbs 19:24)

Zawadi cites al-Qurtubi who asserts that the word rasool (messenger) can mean risalah (message), and uses this to show that the verse can be legitimately translated in the following manner: “We are the possessors of the message of the Lord of the worlds.”

There are two major problems with Zawadi’s “reply” at this point: first, if it is the case that the word rasool could mean risalah, i.e. message, then the verse would actually read: “We are the message of the Lord of the worlds,” which is just as bad as the original mistake we pointed out; and second, Zawadi doesn’t provide the Arabic poetry which al-Qurtubi quotes which would enable us to examine whether the word rasoolu is being used in a similar context to the Quran, e.g. a singular noun used in relation to either dual or plural subjects. To say that rasoolu can refer by implication to the message that is brought by the messengers is not the same as providing examples where the singular noun is used for more than one subject.

However, Zawadi does mention the claim of Abu Ubayd who stated that the Arabs would use the singular rasool when referring to more than one individual. Abu Ubayd even provides another example from the Quran, specifically Q. 26:77, to show how Allah uses the singular in reference to more than one individual: “They are an enemy to me.”

But this explanation also raises problems for Zawadi’s “defense.” First, citing examples from Arabic sources that contain the same error which is found in the Quran doesn’t help Zawadi’s case. All this establishes is that the Muslim scripture contains grammatical mistakes that are also found in uninspired Arabic literature, and therefore proves that the Quran is no better than the works of fallible, imperfect human authors!

And to quote another Quranic verse where Allah again mistakenly uses the singular in the place of the plural simply further proves that the Muslim scripture contains multiple grammatical mistakes. What the example of Q. 26:77 shows is that the Quran’s eloquence and linguistic structure is anything but perfect or miraculous.

Second, Zawadi doesn’t realize that these different explanations are basically contradicting each other. After all, al-Qurtubi’s assertion that rasool (messenger) in Q. 26:16 has essentially the same meaning as risalah (message), i.e. Moses and Aaron are commanded to say that they both possess the message, refutes his claim that rasool is being treated as a plural, even though it is singular in form.

In other words, either the Quran is treating rasool here as an actual plural, or it is using it in the same sense as risalah. If the latter, then this means that it is actually singular in Q. 26:16, not plural!

Third, in his haste to explain the Quran’s gross error, Zawadi also overlooked the parallel verse which we cited, and which even his quote from Ibn Kathir mentions.

Here is what Zawadi’s citation from Ibn Kathir says:

(And go both of you to Fir`awn, and say: `We are the Messengers of the Lord of the all that exists.’) This is like the Ayah,

(Verily, we are both Messengers of your Lord) (20:47). which means, `both of us have been sent to you,’ (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

Zawadi conveniently ignored the problems that Q. 20:47 poses for his “reply.” This verse is supposed to be referring to the same event of Allah instructing Moses what Aaron and he are to say when they go before Pharaoh. However, instead of using the same phrasing as in Q. 26:16, Q. 20:47 actually employs conflicting terminology and even avoids the mistake found in the other verse!

Compare the two texts carefully:

  1. 20:47

“So go you both to him, and say: ‘Verily, we are Messengers of your Lord, so let the Children of Israel go with us…”

Fatiyahu fa-qoola inna rasoola rabikka fa-arsil maAAana banee isra-eela…

  1. 26:16-17

And when you both come to Pharaoh, say: ‘We are the Messenger of the Lord of all beings, So allow the Children of Israel to go with us.’

Fatiya firAAawna fa-qoola inna rasoolu rabbi alAAalameena An arsil maAAana banee isra-eela

As was already noted in our article, the word rasoola which is used in Q. 20:47 is in the dual form. This is in contrast to Q. 26:16 which uses the singular rasoolu.

The differences in the wording between these two passages introduce a whole of host of additional problems.

First, doesn’t the use of the dual in Q. 20:47 actually disprove Zawadi’s assertion that rasool (messenger) functions as a synonym for risalah (message)? I.e., the author(s) was/were not speaking of the message that Moses and Aaron brought, but was/were emphasizing their roles as Allah’s messengers.

Second, why did the author(s) use the dual form in Q. 20:47 when s/he/they used the singular form in Q. 26:16? After all, if rasoolu can be used in reference to more than one subject then why didn’t the author(s) simply stick with the singular in Q. 20:47? Why did s/he/they decide to go with the dual?

This leads us to the third problem which Zawadi needs to address. Wouldn’t the dual in Q. 20:47 prove that the author(s) did in fact make a mistake in Q. 26:16 by employing the singular when the author(s) really wanted to go with the dual?

Fourth, these verses also differ in respect to the exact words spoken by Allah to Moses, e.g. did Allah say to Moses, “Both of you go to Pharaoh” as in Q. 26:16? Or did he really say, “Both of you go to him” as we find in Q. 26:16? And did Allah really tell them to say, “We are the messenger of the Lord of al-Alamin”? Or did he actually command them to exclaim, “We are the messengers of YOUR Lord”? Moreover, did Allah say fa-arsil (“so let… go”), as in Q. 20:47, or An arsil (“so allow… to go”) as in Q. 26:17?

Now these variations in wording are serious and quite damaging to Zawadi’s position. Zawadi has bought into the lie that the Quran is the revelation of Allah which he dictated to Muhammad word for word. Zawadi does not believe that the Muslim scripture is a patchwork of different sources which were haphazardly combined and badly edited. Nor does he believe that the Quran reflects the views of multiple authors, much like we find in the case of the Canonical Gospels. Zawadi further believes that Allah is omniscient and therefore perfectly capable of recalling everything that has ever happened.

However, if Allah did in fact dictate the Quran to Muhammad why then do we find major verbal variations and contradictions within these parallel accounts? Wasn’t the Islamic deity able to record the same conversations that he and others had with the same exact phrasing? Doesn’t Allah remember the exact words he revealed to Moses and Aaron? Apparently not, since the Islamic scripture repeats the same conversations with major and often contradictory variations in both the wording and details.

Hence, the grammatical mistake found in Q. 26:16 and the contradictory wording which exists between it and Q. 20:47 provide further reason to seriously question whether the author of the Quran is actually the true God, and whether Muhammad is a prophet of the one true God, when the message “revealed to him” is filled with so many errors and inconsistencies, as well as lies and deception.

It is time for Zawadi to throw in the towel and find another religion as well as another line of work. Islamic apologetics is simply not cutting it for him.

SOURCE: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/two_messenger.html

Like I told the other pagan stone worshiper. Anytime you guys open your wicked blasphemous mouths to defend this trash or to assault the Holy Bible I will punish your prophet for it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

A Nigerian Mohammedan displays and exemplifies the mindset of Mohammed

  • sam shamoun is a fool, ignorant and liar. according to his profile he is of arab descent born in an arab speaking country, but he could not properly understand islamic souces written in arabic .he twists facts.mr sam you are not helping your filthy christianity with lies and deceptions.this is an age of free flow of information. you cannot expect even your christian follower to accept lie as truth. that was old evangelical strategy. it cannot work in this era.

  • Ibrahim itace muhammed, you perfectly exemplify the filthy, vile, murdering, wicked spirit which inspired your prophet. So I am proud of you for not being ashamed of being a vile street thug who seeks to imitate the wicked sunna of your prophet. Keep up the great job of exposing how wicked your religion is. BTW, ISIS is calling for murdering thugs like you since the lies of Muhammad do not work in this era which is why his followers have resorted to the same evil he was forced to resort to, namely, murdering those who refuse to embrace his lies, as well as raping and prostituting women, all in the name of Allah and his messenger.

  • i want know if it is an article of christian faith to invent lies to insult our noble prophet muhammad and islam. may be it is that filthy man-god worship that makes christians to behave irresponsibly as mr sam does. christians have no gut to accuse muslims of violence or islam of promoting violence. history has accurately recorded series of genocides and other crimes against humanity committed by christians in the name of the cross. did you forget those brutal crusade wars where more than 20 million muslims(including women, children and olds)killed upto a point that fighters for christ swimed in human blood?what about religious decree issued by church in spain to the effect that all muslims must convert to filthy christianity or be killed? more than 2/3 of muslims in spain then were put on sword accoding to evil bible and the rest fled or converted to filthy christianity by force. in nigerian christians killed 2m muslims in plateau state, got dead bodies roasted and eastened. all these atrocities were committed pursuant to evil biblical command to kill all(including women and childrem) with exception of small girls to be kept as sex slaves. your evil new testament also told you that jesus said he did not come for peace. you reference to isis is unfortunate because it was christian west that invented alqaed which yielded isis and boko haram in nigeria. it was not long ago that the nigerian christian leader’s jet was caught with dollars to buy arms to supply to boko haram to killed muslims

  • Here goes the vile wicked black stone worshiping assaulting the Bible in order to justify the filth of his wicked prophet. Time for me to silence this blasphemous stone worshiper. Enjoy!

    More of Muhammad’s Inconsistencies –

    Doing to others what he didn’t want to be done to him

    Sam Shamoun

    It comes as no surprise to those who have studied the life of Muhammad with any depth that he was someone that was grossly inconsistent since he failed to practice what he preached, and gave himself certain privileges and favors which he withheld from others. Muhammad was also guilty of doing to others what he did not anyone to do to either himself or his followers.

    For example, when a man came to Muhammad to ask him permission to fornicate, or have sex with women, the latter asked him a series of questions in order to highlight just how perverted and selfish his request truly was:

    “… Imam Ahmad recorded Abu Umamah saying that a young man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Give me permission to commit Zina (unlawful sex).’ The people surrounded him and rebuked him, saying, ‘Stop! Stop!’ But the Prophet said…

    <> The young man came to him, and he said…

    <> so he sat down. The Prophet said…

    <> He said, ‘No, by Allah, may I be ransomed for you.’ The Prophet said…

    <> The Prophet said…

    <> He said, ‘No, by Allah, may I be ransomed for you.’ The Prophet said…

    <> The Prophet said…

    <> He said, ‘No, by Allah, may I be ransomed for you.’ The Prophet said…

    <> The Prophet said…

    <> He said, ‘No, by Allah, O Allah’s Messenger! may I be ransomed for you.’ The Prophet said…

    <> The Prophet said…

    <> He said, ‘No, by Allah, O Allah’s Messenger! may I be ransomed for you.’ The Prophet said…

    <> Then the Prophet put his hand on him and said…

    <> After that the young man never paid attention to anything of that nature.” (Tafsir, Q. 17:32)

    What makes this advice rather troubling is that Muhammad did not practice it himself, nor did his followers, since he permitted them to take women captive and have sex with them, even married ones whose husbands were still alive!

    Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, – desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Y. Ali

    As shocking as it may sound, this passage is basically stating that the only time a Muslim man (which includes Muhammad) can sleep with a married woman is when she happens to be one of the female slaves that he has taken captive!

    Unfortunately, this verse was tragically and shamefully put into practice by the jihadists:

    Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri: O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)

    Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)

    How unfortunate that Muhammad and his deity did not share the shame and concern of their followers regarding the morality of raping captives whose husbands were still alive, but actually rushed in to compose a text to justify such a wicked and perverted act!

    This same narration is found in all of the major hadith collections:

    Chapter 36. What Has Been Related (About A Man) Who Captures A Slave Woman That Has A Husband, Is It Lawful For Him To Have Relations With Her?

    1132. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri narrated: We got some captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands among their people. They mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah, so the following was revealed: And women who are already married, except those whom your right hands possess. (Hasan) (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, From Hadith No. 544 to 1204, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 2, p. 502; underline emphasis ours)

    (3) 3016. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri said: “On the Day of Awtas, we captured some women who had husbands among the idolaters. SO SOME OF THE MEN DISLIKED THAT, so Allah, Most High, revealed: ‘And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess….’” (Sahih)

    [Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.

    (4) 3017. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri said: “we captured some women on the Day of Awtas and they had husbands among their people. That was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah so Allah revealed: ‘…And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess….” (Sahih)

    [Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.

    This is how it was reported by Ath-Thawri, from ‘Uthman Al-Batti, from Abu Al-Khalil, from Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri from the Prophet and it is similar. “From Abu ‘Alqamah” is not in this Hadith and I do not know of anyone who mentioned Abu ‘Alqamah in this Hadith except in what Hammam mentioned from Qatadah. Abu Al-Khalil’s name is Salih bin Abi Mariam. (Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Volume 5, From Hadith No. 2606 to 3290, Chapter 4. Regarding Surat An-Nisa’, pp. 331-332; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    To make matters worse, Muhammad granted his men permission to marry women for a short period of time for the sole purpose of gratifying their sexual cravings:

    Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa': While we were in an army, Allah’s Apostle came to us and said, “You have been allowed to do the Mut’a (marriage), so do it.” Salama bin Al-Akwa’ said: Allah’s Apostle’s said, “If a man and a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights, and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do so.” I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general. Abu Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: ‘Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, “The Mut’a marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 52)

    Narrated Abdullah:
    We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, “Shall we get ourselves castrated?” He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract and recited to us: — ‘O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o)

    This practice continued to be observed until the time of Umar’s caliphate:

    Ibn Uraij reported: ‘Ati’ reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform ‘Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3248)

    Tragically, there were some instances in which women got pregnant through such unions:

    Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, “Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she is pregnant by him.” Umar ibn al-Khattab went out in dismay dragging his cloak, saying, “This temporary marriage, had I come across it, I would have ordered stoning and done away with it!” (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.18.42)

    Today such a practice would be called prostitution, plain and simple.

    With the foregoing in view, it is obvious that Muhammad and his followers did to other people’s mothers, wives, daughters, nieces, aunts etc., the very thing that he did not want to be done to the mothers, wives, daughters, nieces, aunts etc. of Muslims.

    In light of this, we would like to ask the followers of Muhammad the very same questions that their prophet asked the young man.

    Would the Muslims like it if someone contracted temporary marriage with their mothers? What about with their daughters, sisters, paternal or maternal aunts? How about their grandmothers, granddaughters, female cousins, nieces etc.?

    Moreover, would the Muslims be okay with a group of invaders coming to their lands and taking their women captive in order to have sex with them? And would they be perfectly all right with such men taking their wives and having sex with them before selling them off to someone else (or even keeping them as their own personal property)?

    If the Muslims would have a problem with all of this then why do they follow a man who permitted his hordes to basically rape captive women, including married ones whose husbands were still alive? And why would they want to believe in a man who virtually allowed women to be treated like prostitutes by permitting his followers to contract temporary marriages whose only objective was to satisfy the carnal, lustful desires of men who didn’t have the will power to control their sexual urges?

    The fact is that Muhammad stands condemned by his own teachings and Muslims should therefore abandon such a man and turn to the risen Lord Jesus who is their only hope of salvation and eternal bliss.

    SOURCE: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/doing_to_others.html

  • you fool the grandchild of abu jahl(the father of ignorance), i have been reading all these lies and distorted informations against islam you have been posting copied from evil jews on the authority of evil talmud which says one fingernail of a jew worths one million arabs like you.it is only because you are lost and embrace filthy christianity calling for total submission to evil jews accoding to evil bible that you take these garbages being disseminated by evil jews as serious. myself as a black nigerian muslim with arab blood will never accept that a jew is superior to me because islam set me free and quran debunked all the lies inserted in the bible by evil jews. nigerian christians lead too primitive, barbaric and savage way of life because of filthy christianity. christian ladies are badly smelly because the evil bible never teaches them how to use pure water to clean private parts. the christian parents used to disvirgin their daughters before maturity accoding to evil bible to prepare them for export to europe and america for prostitution to earn money for the church.mr shamoun like any other catholic with record of sexual perversity may be having sex with these nigerian christian prostitutes exported to the united states. knowing that their ladies are too smelly christians in nigeria used to raid arab and fulani muslims killing all men and take away muslim ladies to enjoy sex. the same thing happened during gulf/iraq and afghanistan wars where american christian soldiers enter houses killing men to rape their wives and daughters, because christian ladies left behind in america are too smelly and unatractive. i could remember that the hopeless la mubarak(the lost like sam) offered to supply american soldiers with egyptian prostitutes .thus christianity is fit for beasts only

  • you fool the grandchild of abu jahl(the father of ignorance), i have been reading all these lies and distorted informations against islam you have been posting copied from evil jews on the authority of evil talmud which says one fingernail of a jew worths one million arabs like you.it is only because you are lost and embrace filthy christianity calling for total submission to evil jews accoding to evil bible that you take these garbages being disseminated by evil jews as serious. myself as a black nigerian muslim with arab blood will never accept that a jew is superior to me because islam set me free and quran debunked all the lies inserted in the bible by evil jews. i told you mr sam people, your fellow christians, have now gone behind the veil and discovered that all those concocted ilies disseminated by jews and christian evangelists for long are false and are now embracing islam. you think that christians in the west could not read and understand islamic authories written in arabic and as such mus swallow lies you pass to them without checking. i know that you have been engaging in debate with competent muslim scholars like saami zaatari and have been losing the debat.you then resorted to insult because you are shameless .if you try me in debate i will filthy christianity . can you try mr confused?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Law of the Upper Hand and the Golden Rule in Islam

The Golden Rule, do as you would be done by, applies in Islam only between Muslims themselves. They keep this rule between themselves. They make sure that they do to other Muslims only what they would like other Muslims to do to them. The public manifestation of the superiority of Islam demands that the Law of the Upper Hand or the law of Sharia is applied to non-Muslims.

The Law of the Upper Hand applies between Muslims and non-Muslims because the unbeliever has forgone his right to be treated as an equal under the law because of his unbelief and stubborn refusal to repent. He deserves only punishment in this life and the next. Allah’s wrath is upon him and this must be reflected in the way that non-Muslims are treated under Sharia Law. Anything that the Muslim does to the unbeliever that demonstrates and displays the fact that he is a despicable and inferior being is morally good and proper in the eyes of Allah. Sharia thus demands the humiliation and persecution of religious minorities. This glorifies and magnifies Islam as being the only true religion. For example if a Muslim accuses a non-Muslim of blasphemy this is the Law of the Upper Hand in action. Construing any confession of faith on the part of a non-Muslim as a blasphemous insult to Islam and Mohammed is the Law of the Upper Hand. Punishing this crime accordingly with violence, imprisonment or death is the Law of the Upper Hand in action. Stealing, killing, robbing, beating, raping and destroying non-Muslims and their property is obedience of the Ummah to the Law of the Upper Hand. This is what happens when Islam has the power to make it happen in any society where the relation of numbers between Muslims and non-Muslims makes it possible, such as in Pakistan and Saudia Arabia.

The Family of Imran

  1. [3.139] And be not infirm, and be not grieving, and you shall have the upper hand if you are believers.

Muhammad

  1. [47.35] And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sam Shamoun replies to someone who claims that Mohammed is pure and noble

Here goes the vile wicked black stone worshiping assaulting the Bible in order to justify the filth of his wicked prophet. Time for me to silence this blasphemous stone worshiper. Enjoy!

More of Muhammad’s Inconsistencies –

Doing to others what he didn’t want to be done to him

Sam Shamoun

It comes as no surprise to those who have studied the life of Muhammad with any depth that he was someone that was grossly inconsistent since he failed to practice what he preached, and gave himself certain privileges and favors which he withheld from others. Muhammad was also guilty of doing to others what he did not want anyone to do to either himself or his followers.

For example, when a man came to Muhammad to ask him permission to fornicate, or have sex with women, the latter asked him a series of questions in order to highlight just how perverted and selfish his request truly was:

“… Imam Ahmad recorded Abu Umamah saying that a young man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Give me permission to commit Zina (unlawful sex).’ The people surrounded him and rebuked him, saying, ‘Stop! Stop!’ But the Prophet said…

<> The young man came to him, and he said…

<> so he sat down. The Prophet said…

<> He said, ‘No, by Allah, may I be ransomed for you.’ The Prophet said…

<> The Prophet said…

<> He said, ‘No, by Allah, may I be ransomed for you.’ The Prophet said…

<> The Prophet said…

<> He said, ‘No, by Allah, may I be ransomed for you.’ The Prophet said…

<> The Prophet said…

<> He said, ‘No, by Allah, O Allah’s Messenger! may I be ransomed for you.’ The Prophet said…

<> The Prophet said…

<> He said, ‘No, by Allah, O Allah’s Messenger! may I be ransomed for you.’ The Prophet said…

<> Then the Prophet put his hand on him and said…

<> After that the young man never paid attention to anything of that nature.” (Tafsir, Q. 17:32)

What makes this advice rather troubling is that Muhammad did not practice it himself, nor did his followers, since he permitted them to take women captive and have sex with them, even married ones whose husbands were still alive!

Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, – desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Y. Ali

As shocking as it may sound, this passage is basically stating that the only time a Muslim man (which includes Muhammad) can sleep with a married woman is when she happens to be one of the female slaves that he has taken captive!

Unfortunately, this verse was tragically and shamefully put into practice by the jihadists:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri: O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)

Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess’. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)

How unfortunate that Muhammad and his deity did not share the shame and concern of their followers regarding the morality of raping captives whose husbands were still alive, but actually rushed in to compose a text to justify such a wicked and perverted act!

This same narration is found in all of the major hadith collections:

Chapter 36. What Has Been Related (About A Man) Who Captures A Slave Woman That Has A Husband, Is It Lawful For Him To Have Relations With Her?

1132. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri narrated: We got some captives on the day of Awtas, and they had husbands among their people. They mentioned that to the Messenger of Allah, so the following was revealed: And women who are already married, except those whom your right hands possess. (Hasan) (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, From Hadith No. 544 to 1204, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 2, p. 502; underline emphasis ours)

(3) 3016. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri said: “On the Day of Awtas, we captured some women who had husbands among the idolaters. SO SOME OF THE MEN DISLIKED THAT, so Allah, Most High, revealed: ‘And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess….’” (Sahih)

[Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.

(4) 3017. Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri said: “we captured some women on the Day of Awtas and they had husbands among their people. That was mentioned to the Messenger of Allah so Allah revealed: ‘…And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess….” (Sahih)

[Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.

This is how it was reported by Ath-Thawri, from ‘Uthman Al-Batti, from Abu Al-Khalil, from Abu Sa‘eed Al-Khudri from the Prophet and it is similar. “From Abu ‘Alqamah” is not in this Hadith and I do not know of anyone who mentioned Abu ‘Alqamah in this Hadith except in what Hammam mentioned from Qatadah. Abu Al-Khalil’s name is Salih bin Abi Mariam. (Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Volume 5, From Hadith No. 2606 to 3290, Chapter 4. Regarding Surat An-Nisa’, pp. 331-332; capital and underline emphasis ours)

To make matters worse, Muhammad granted his men permission to marry women for a short period of time for the sole purpose of gratifying their sexual cravings:

Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah and Salama bin Al-Akwa': While we were in an army, Allah’s Apostle came to us and said, “You have been allowed to do the Mut’a (marriage), so do it.” Salama bin Al-Akwa’ said: Allah’s Apostle’s said, “If a man and a woman agree (to marry temporarily), their marriage should last for three nights, and if they like to continue, they can do so; and if they want to separate, they can do so.” I do not know whether that was only for us or for all the people in general. Abu Abdullah (Al-Bukhari) said: ‘Ali made it clear that the Prophet said, “The Mut’a marriage has been cancelled (made unlawful).” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 52)

Narrated Abdullah:
We used to participate in the holy battles led by Allah’s Apostle and we had nothing (no wives) with us. So we said, “Shall we get ourselves castrated?” He forbade us that and then allowed us to marry women with a temporary contract and recited to us: — ‘O you who believe! Make not unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, but commit no transgression.’ (5.87) (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 13o)

This practice continued to be observed until the time of Umar’s caliphate:

Ibn Uraij reported: ‘Ati’ reported that Jabir b. Abdullah came to perform ‘Umra, and we came to his abode, and the people asked him about different things, and then they made a mention of temporary marriage, whereupon he said: Yes, we had been benefiting ourselves by this temporary marriage during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet and during the time of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3248)

Tragically, there were some instances in which women got pregnant through such unions:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Urwa ibn az-Zubayr that Khawla ibn Hakim came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, “Rabia ibn Umayya made a temporary marriage with a woman and she is pregnant by him.” Umar ibn al-Khattab went out in dismay dragging his cloak, saying, “This temporary marriage, had I come across it, I would have ordered stoning and done away with it!” (Malik’s Muwatta, Book 28, Number 28.18.42)

Today such a practice would be called prostitution, plain and simple.

With the foregoing in view, it is obvious that Muhammad and his followers did to other people’s mothers, wives, daughters, nieces, aunts etc., the very thing that he did not want to be done to the mothers, wives, daughters, nieces, aunts etc. of Muslims.

In light of this, we would like to ask the followers of Muhammad the very same questions that their prophet asked the young man.

Would the Muslims like it if someone contracted temporary marriage with their mothers? What about with their daughters, sisters, paternal or maternal aunts? How about their grandmothers, granddaughters, female cousins, nieces etc.?

Moreover, would the Muslims be okay with a group of invaders coming to their lands and taking their women captive in order to have sex with them? And would they be perfectly all right with such men taking their wives and having sex with them before selling them off to someone else (or even keeping them as their own personal property)?

If the Muslims would have a problem with all of this then why do they follow a man who permitted his hordes to basically rape captive women, including married ones whose husbands were still alive? And why would they want to believe in a man who virtually allowed women to be treated like prostitutes by permitting his followers to contract temporary marriages whose only objective was to satisfy the carnal, lustful desires of men who didn’t have the will power to control their sexual urges?

The fact is that Muhammad stands condemned by his own teachings and Muslims should therefore abandon such a man and turn to the risen Lord Jesus who is their only hope of salvation and eternal bliss.

SOURCE: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/doing_to_others.html

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

A Series of Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses Pt. 13b, a post by Sam Shamoun

A Series of Questions for Jehovah’s Witnesses Pt. 13b

 

We proceed from where we left off previously.

 

Jesus – What kind of God is he?

 

The NWT agrees that Jesus is identified as Theos (“God”), since the translators were aware that the NT applies this Greek word to Christ in at least three places:

 

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god (kai Theos seen ho logos). This one was in the beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light is shining in the darkness, but the darkness has not overpowered it… The TRUE light that gives light to every sort of man was about to come into the world. He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the world did not know him… So the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth… No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god (monogenes Theos) who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.” John 1:1-5, 9-10, 14, 18

 

Jesus as the preexistent Word is not only identified as Theos, but he is also described in the same way the Hebrew Bible describes Jehovah.

 

For instance, it is Jehovah who is the source of life and the light which provides illumination for mankind:

 

Jehovah is my light and my salvation. Whom should I fear? Jehovah is the stronghold of my life. Whom should I dread?” Psalm 27:1

 

“With you is the source of life; By your light we can see light.” Psalm 36:9

 

Jehovah is also the One who created all things by himself, since he didn’t need or have anyone to assist him:

 

“He spreads out the heavens by himself, And he treads upon the high waves of the sea.” Job 9:8

 

“This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, Who formed you since you were in the womb: “I am Jehovah, who made everything. I stretched out the heavens BY MYSELF, And I spread out the earth. WHO WAS WITH ME?” Isaiah 44:24

 

In fact, all throughout this Gospel Jesus refers to himself as the Light of the world and the Life who grants everlasting life and raises the dead just by the power of his glorious and sovereign voice:

 

“For just as the Father raises the dead up and makes them alive, so the Son also makes alive whomever he wants to… Most truly I say to you, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who have paid attention will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself… Do not be amazed at this, for the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his [the Son’s] voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” John 5:21, 25-26, 28-29

 

“This is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose none out of all those whom he has given me, but that I should resurrect them on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who recognizes the Son and exercises faith in him should have everlasting life, and I will resurrect him on the last day.” John 6:39-40

 

“Then Jesus spoke again to them, saying: ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will by no means walk in darkness, but will possess the light of life.’” John 8:12

 

“Jesus said to her: ‘Your brother will rise.’ Martha said to him: ‘I know he will rise in the resurrection on the last day.’ Jesus said to her: ‘I am the resurrection and THE LIFE. The one who exercises faith in me, even though he dies, will come to life; and everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all. Do you believe this?’ She said to him: ‘Yes, Lord, I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.’” John 11:23-27

 

“However, Jesus called out and said: ‘Whoever puts faith in me puts faith not only in me but also in him who sent me; and whoever sees me sees also the One who sent me. I have come as a light into the world, so that everyone putting faith in me may not remain in the darkness.’” John 12:44-46

 

“Jesus said to him: ‘I am the way and the truth and THE LIFE. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 14:6

 

These verses amply testify that Jesus is the same kind of God that the Father is, a point which is brought out more clearly in this next example:

 

“‘My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them everlasting life, and they will by no means ever be destroyed, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. What my Father has given me is something greater than all other things, and no one can snatch them out of the hand of the Father. I and the Father are one.’ Once again the Jews picked up stones to stone him. Jesus replied to them: ‘I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?’ The Jews answered him: ‘We are stoning you, not for a fine work, but for blasphemy; for you, although being a man, make yourself a god (Theon).’” John 10:27-33

 

The reason why the Jews correctly assumed that Jesus was making himself out to be Theos (“God”) is because he ascribed to himself the very functions and characteristics which the OT writings attribute to Jehovah alone.

 

For instance, Jehovah’s people are said to be the sheep of his hand who are expected to hear his voice:

 

“O come in, let us worship and bow down; Let us kneel before Jehovah our Maker. For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasturage and the sheep of his hand. Today if YOU people listen to his own voice, Do not harden YOUR heart as at Mer′i·bah, As in the day of Mas′sah in the wilderness,” Psalm 95:6-8 1984 Edition http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/bi12/books/psalms/95/

 

Jehovah is also the One who gives life with no one being able to rescue or snatch anything out/from his hand:

 

“See now that I—I am he, And there are no gods apart from me. I put to death, and I make alive. I wound, and I will heal, And no one can rescue from my hand.” Deuteronomy 32:39

 

“‘I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior. I am the One who declared and saved and made known When there was no foreign god among you. So you are my witnesses,’ declares Jehovah, ‘and I am God. Also, I am always the same One; And no one can snatch anything out of my hand. When I act, who can prevent it?’” Isaiah 43:11-13

 

And yet these are the exact same functions which Jesus applies to himself!

 

Even the Hebrew Scriptures call Jesus God since the book of Isaiah identifies the Messiah as a Child that is born who happens to be the Mighty God:

 

“For a child has been born to us, A son has been given to us; And the rulership will rest on his shoulder. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God (El Gibbor), Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. To the increase of his rulership And to peace, there will be no end, On the throne of David and on his kingdom In order to establish it firmly and to sustain it Through justice and righteousness, From now on and forever. The zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.” Isaiah 9:6-7

 

Amazingly, the prophet Isaiah applies this very same title to Jehovah in the very next chapter!

 

“In that day those remaining of Israel And the survivors of the house of Jacob Will no longer support themselves on the one who struck them; But they will support themselves on Jehovah, The Holy One of Israel, with faithfulness. Only a remnant will return, The remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God (El Gibbor).” Isaiah 10:20-21 – cf. Deuteronomy 10:17- Psalm 24:8; Jeremiah 32:18

 

On top of all this, Jesus receives the same exact honor that the Father himself receives,

 

“For the Father judges no one at all, but he has entrusted all the judging to the Son, so that all may honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.”

 

Including fear/reverence:

 

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Christ, so that each one may be repaid according to the things he has practiced while in the body, whether good or bad. Therefore, since we know the fear of the Lord, we keep persuading men, but we are well-known to God. However, I hope that we are well-known also to your consciences.” 2 Corinthians 5:10-11

 

In fact, every created thing that exists is depicted as giving Christ the exact same honor that the Father receives!

 

“When he took the scroll, the four living creatures and the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb, and each one had a harp and golden bowls that were full of incense. (The incense means the prayers of the holy ones.) And they sing a new song, saying: ‘You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, for you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought people for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth.’ And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, and they were saying with a loud voice: “The Lamb who was slaughtered is worthy to receive the power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing.’ And I heard EVERY CREATURE in heaven and on earth and underneath the earth and on the sea, and all the things in them, saying: ‘To the One sitting on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the might forever and ever.’ The four living creatures were saying: ‘Amen!’ and the elders fell down and worshipped.” Revelation 5:8-14

 

To top it all off, one of Jesus’ own disciples went as far as to worship the risen Christ as his very Lord and God:

 

“In answer Thomas said to him: ‘My Lord and my God (ho Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou)!’ Jesus said to him: ‘Because you have seen me, have you believed? Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe.’” John 20:28-29

 

To say that Thomas’ confession is astonishing would be putting it mildly, since the Watchtower itself acknowledges that when a Jew or an Israelite says “my God,” s/he could only be referring to Jehovah!

 

In its articles on Jehovah, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary nicely illustrates the difference between ʼElo·him (God) and Jehovah. Of the name Jehovah, it says: “It is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 856. (Insight to the Scriptures, Volume 2: http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002391; bold emphasis mine)

 

In light of this candid admission, this means that Thomas was worshiping Jesus as Jehovah his God who had become a flesh and blood human being!

 

Here is a quick breakdown of what we have seen thus far:

 

  1. The NWT of the Christian Scriptures identifies Jesus as Theos in several places.
  2. In one passage it even refers to him as the “Mighty God” (El Gibbor), a title that is used elsewhere for Jehovah himself.
  3. The Scriptures attest that there is only one true God that exists in the heavens above and on the earth beneath.
  4. Jesus must therefore be the only true God since this is the only kind of Theos and “Mighty God” he could possibly be.
  5. Yet for Jesus to be the only true God he must be Jehovah Incarnate, since there is no other god besides Jehovah.
  6. At the same time, however, Jesus is personally distinguished from God the Father, since he is referred to as the beloved Son of God.

 

“No, it was not by following artfully contrived false stories that we made known to you the power and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather, we were eyewitnesses of his magnificence. For he received from God the Father honor and glory when words such as these were conveyed to him by the magnificent glory: ‘This is my Son, my beloved, whom I myself have approved.’ Yes, these words we heard coming from heaven while we were with him in the holy mountain.” 2 Peter 1:16-18

 

“There will be with us undeserved kindness, mercy, and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, with truth and love.” 2 John 1:3

 

  1. This means that both the Father and the Son together exist as the one true God Jehovah.

 

In light of the foregoing, how can the JWs continue to deny that Jesus is Jehovah when their own version of the Holy Bible identifies him as Theos (“God”) and El Gibbor (“Mighty God”), despite the fact that their translation seeks to make him into a lesser, secondary god from Jehovah? After all, since the God-breathed Scriptures proclaim that there is only one true God in heaven above and on the earth below, and since Jehovah is said to be that one true God, the only way that Jesus could be God in any sense of the term is if he was/is Jehovah Incarnate. Otherwise, Jesus would be a false god like the rest of the so-called gods that are wrongly worshiped by others. However, such a position would be utterly blasphemous, as even the JWs would agree.

 

Therefore, the JWs have no other choice but to acknowledge and confess that Jesus is the one and only true God, and therefore Jehovah in the flesh, without this making him the Father or the Holy Spirit.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment