Understanding of the scriptures prophecying the death and the resurrection of Jesus on the third day was first given to the disciples after the resurrection of Jesus occured

Luke 24 v 44And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things. 49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.50 And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. 51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. 52 And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy: 53 And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.

We often see Islamic apologists claiming that the disciples should have rejoiced at the death of Jesus. They should have been happy because he was fulfilling all the Old Testament prophecies. The disciples should have understood what the purpose of the death of Jesus was because he explained to them beforehand why he had to die. Nevertheless we see that in the providence of God it was not given to the disciples to have understanding about the purpose of the death of Jesus before he was crucified and resurrected. This understanding was given to them after the resurrection.

Note that Jesus actually says in the above passage that the writings of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms all testify to his death and resurrection on the third day. If Islamic apologists deny this they are calling Jesus a liar. Do they want to bear this burden when they face Jesus on judgement day?

Please note also that this passage contains a clear statement that the disciples worshipped Jesus although they were strict monotheistic Jews!

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

195 Responses to Understanding of the scriptures prophecying the death and the resurrection of Jesus on the third day was first given to the disciples after the resurrection of Jesus occured

  1. Paul Williams says:

    “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures”

    So claims Paul. But nowhere in the Torah does it say the Christ will be raised on the third day; nor does it say that the Christ will be God incarnate; nor does it say that the Christ will die for anyone sins; nor that the Christ will be one of three persons who will collectively make up “god”.

    I could go on but you get the point…

  2. Paul Williams says:

    “Note that Jesus actually says in the above passage that the writings of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms all testify to his death and resurrection on the third day. If Islamic apologists deny this they are calling Jesus a liar.”

    No Jesus is not a liar – the gospel writers made these sayings up out of thin air. You will naturally think I am saying this because I am a ‘Muslim apologist’. But no. The ironic thing is that I learnt my trade at the feet of the best Christian New Testament scholars – your very own scholars Paul.

    For example:

    Christopher M Tuckett (Professor of New Testament Studies in the University of Oxford) in
    his critically acclaimed work Christology and the New Testament: Jesus and His Earliest
    Followers, (Edinburgh University Press 2001) comments:

    ‘The picture of Jesus in John is in many respects very different from the picture in the other
    three, so-called ‘synoptic’, Gospels. Furthermore, most would agree that, in general terms,
    the synoptic picture is more likely to reflect the realities of Jesus‘ own time, and the
    Johannine account represents an (at times) extensive rewriting of the Jesus tradition by a
    later Christian profoundly influenced by his own ideas and circumstances. However, it is
    now recognised that what applies to the Fourth Gospel applies equally to all the Gospel:
    the synoptic Gospels, quite as much as John, have been influenced by the ideas and the
    circumstances of their authors. Thus in reading all the Gospels, we have to be aware of
    the fact that we reading accounts of Jesus‘ life as mediated by later Christians and hence
    we may learn much, if not more, about the latter as about Jesus himself in studying the
    Gospel texts.’

  3. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here goes Williams with his stupidity and inconsistencies again. He confuses Paul with Muhammad, that antichrist who perverted the message of Jesus his Lord and Judge, as well as the message of God’s true prophets. Here is the thorough reply to Williams’ ignorance, as well as his lies:

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/raised3rdday1.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/raised3rdday2.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/raised3rdday3.html

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/raised3rdday4.html

  4. Paul Williams says:

    thanks for all the links Sam and yes I did read them. But I’m still not clear exactly where it says in the Torah that the Christ will be raised from the dead on the third day.

    Could you just refer me to the chapter and verse where it says this please. It should be a very easy thing to do…

  5. Sam Shamoun says:

    The reason why you are not clear is because you have no interest in being honest and consistent. If you did you wouldn’t follow an antichrist and false prophet who condoned such things as adultery and prostitution. Nor would you ignore the historical and cultural context in which the NT was written. So let me call your bluff and expose your ineptness and dishonesty further. Do you know of how the Jews during the time of Christ interpreted the OT and how they viewed prophecy? If so then can you prove that the NT method of interpreting the OT and their understanding of the nature of prophecy were incompatible with such methods?

  6. Sam Shamoun says:

    BTW, in case Williams objects to my saying that his prophet sanctioned adultery and prostitution, here is the evidence from his so-called authentic sources, taken from one of my articles.

    The Quran actually sanctions adultery and rape in certain situations:

    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

    This perverse verse is permitting Muslim men (including Muhammad himself) to rape married women which they have taken captive. Tragically, this did not remain a mere abstraction but was readily put into practice by Muhammad’s blood thirsty jihadists:

    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)

    1137. Jabir bin ‘Abdullah narrated: “We practiced ‘Azl while the Qur’an was being revealed.” (Sahih)

    (Abu ‘Eisa said:) The Hadith of Jabir is a Hasan Sahih Hadith. It has been reported from him through other routes.

    There are those among the people of knowledge, among the Companions of the Prophet and others, who permitted ‘Azl. Malik bin Anas said: “The permission of the free woman is to be requested for ‘Azl, while the slave woman’s permission need not be requested.” (Ibid., Chapter 39. What Has Been related About ‘Azl, p. 507)

    And:

    (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)

    Hence, Muhammad and his deity condoned and encouraged men to sleep with captive women, whether married or not. Now unless a Muslim wants us to believe that such women whose families had just been murdered and (in some cases) whose husbands were still alive would actually consent to having sex with their captors it should therefore be abundantly obvious that the Islamic god is permitting his followers to commit rape and adultery.

    How truly sad and tragic for these women that Muhammad and his god did not share the shame and concern of the jihadists regarding the highly unethical nature of raping captives whose husbands were still alive. Instead, Allah and his messenger rushed to justify such a perverted and heinous crime!

    More in the next post.

  7. Sam Shamoun says:

    Continuing from the previous post.

    But that’s not at all. According to some of the so-called sound ahadith, Muhammad reportedly taught that Allah has actually predetermined the amount of adultery a person must necessarily commit:

    Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
    I did not see anything so resembling minor sins as what Abu Huraira said from the Prophet, who said, “Allah has written for the son of Adam his INEVITABLE share of adultery whether he is aware of it or not: The adultery of the eye is the looking (at something which is sinful to look at), and the adultery of the tongue is to utter (what it is unlawful to utter), and the innerself wishes and longs for (adultery) and the private parts turn that into reality or refrain from submitting to the temptation.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 77, Number 609)

    Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he OF NECESSITY MUST COMMIT (or there would be no escape from it). (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6421; see also Number 6422)

    Thus, these Muslims were only carrying out the very sexual immorality which Allah had predetermined for them!

    More to come in the next part.

  8. Sam Shamoun says:

    Continued from where I left off previously.

    Allah sanctions prostitution

    As if Islam’s teachings couldn’t get any more reprehensible, Allah went so far as to permit his followers to pay women to marry them temporarily for the sole purpose of gratifying their sexual, lustful desires. This commonly referred to as “pleasure marriages” (zawaj al-mut’a).

    According to the Muslim expositors, the following passage:

    O you who believe! Make not unlawful the Taiyibat (all that is good as regards foods, things, deeds, beliefs, persons, etc.) which Allah has made lawful to you, and transgress not. Verily, Allah does not like the transgressors. S. 5:87 Hilali-Khan

    Was “revealed” to condone the practice of marrying women for a short period of time:

    Narrated Abdullah:
    We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). “Shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: “O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139)

    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)

    Do notice that instead of teaching his men abstinence and self-control Muhammad is the one who is actually telling his band of murdering thugs to find women to have sex with!

    Such a practice is nothing more than prostitution and it is an outright shame to label this as marriage.

    More to come.

  9. Sam Shamoun says:

    Sadly, there were instances in which women actually 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)

    Certain traditions claim that Muhammad abrogated this form of prostitution:

    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)

    However, there are other narrations which claim that Muslims continued to observe temporary marriages until the caliphate of Umar b. al-Khattab:

    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)

    Even sadder is the fact that the Shiite sect of Islam continues to condone this practice till this day and even claim that the Sunni sources themselves acknowledge that this morally reprehensible form of prostitution should still permitted since Muhammad and his followers never abrogated it! For the details and arguments we recommend the following online booklet.

  10. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is my final post for Williams.

    In order to help Williams see just how immoral this practice truly is we would like to ask him the following questions:

    How would Williams feel if a fellow believer came up to him and asked to marry one of his womenfolk, i.e. sister, daughter, cousin, aunt etc., for a short period of time?

    Would he not have a problem with this or would he be all too eager to hand over his women to such a person?

    How would he feel if this happened more than once, i.e. on more than one occasion his womenfolk married men for a sum of money and for a short period?

    Does Williams really want us to believe that he would have absolutely no problem with such marriages?

    Wouldn’t Williams therefore agree that it is a shame and insult to even call this marriage since deep down inside even he knows that this is nothing more than prostitution?

    So I expect Williams to respond to all my questions, and not tap dance around them. Does Williams really want us to follow such an immoral man and wicked deity who actually decrees and sanctions his followers to indulge their wicked, carnal desires such as adultery, rape and prostitution? If so then shame on you.

  11. Paul Williams says:

    Wow! Sam thanks for all that stuff – you really love to attack other religions don’t you?

    But it is completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread which is:

    ‘Understanding of the scriptures prophecying the death and resurrection of Jesus on the third day was first given to the disciples after the resurrection of Jesus occured’.

    Confusingly worded but I get the point.

    Sam it would be good to stay focused on the subject and not get carried away attacking Islam don’t you agree? Now back to the subject. The quote from the gospel of Luke says ‘Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day’.

    So it is written in the Torah, allegedly. But so far no one has actually been able to cite even one verse that says this! therefore I reiterate my request to all Christians reading this thread – Could you just refer me to the chapter and verse where it says this please. It should be a very easy thing to do – after all your faith depends on it…

  12. Sam Shamoun says:

    WOW! Why am I not surprised that Williams has no interest in defending the filth and immorality of his own religion? And why am I not shocked that Williams pretends to be an intellectual when the very fact that he is a Muslim proves he is nothing of the kind?

    Let’s try this again, since I know that it takes awhile for facts to sink in for you Muhammadans.

    Besides answering your question in the series of rebuttals which documented that you have absolutely no clue when it comes to Jewish methods of exegesis, could you be so kind and share with us how the Jews during the time of Christ interpreted the OT and how they viewed prophecy? Moreover, could you also grace us with your answer regarding whether the NT method of interpreting the OT and their understanding of the nature of prophecy were incompatible with such methods? Once you muster the courage to answer these questions then you will see that I THOROUGHLY ANSWERED YOUR OBJECTION IN THE SERIES OF REBUTTALS WHERE I PROVIDED PLENTY OF EXAMPLES WHICH POINTED TO THE MESSIAH BEING RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY.

    Now with that said, could you be so kind as to answer the following questions in order to explain to us why we should follow a wicked man who justified adultery, rape, and prostitution in the name of a wicked and immoral god:

    How would Williams feel if a fellow believer came up to him and asked to marry one of his womenfolk, i.e. sister, daughter, cousin, aunt etc., for a short period of time?

    Would he not have a problem with this or would he be all too eager to hand over his women to such a person?

    How would he feel if this happened more than once, i.e. on more than one occasion his womenfolk married men for a sum of money and for a short period?

    Does Williams really want us to believe that he would have absolutely no problem with such marriages?

    Wouldn’t Williams therefore agree that it is a shame and insult to even call this marriage since deep down inside even he knows that this is nothing more than prostitution?

    So I expect that Williams will actually respond to all my questions the second time around, instead of tap dancing around them like he just did. I expect him to tell us whether he really wants people to follow such an immoral man and wicked deity who actually decreed and sanctioned for his followers the right to indulge their wicked, carnal desires such as adultery, rape and prostitution? If so then shame on you.

  13. Paul Williams says:

    Dear Sam there is no need to shout:

    “I THOROUGHLY ANSWERED YOUR OBJECTION IN THE SERIES OF REBUTTALS WHERE I PROVIDED PLENTY OF EXAMPLES WHICH POINTED TO THE MESSIAH BEING RAISED ON THE THIRD DAY.”

    you see that’s precisely the problem – I just did not read anywhere any examples from the Torah where is says clearly that the Messiah will die and be raised on the third day as this thread claims. Shouting at me doesn’t make your case any the stronger Sam.

    “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures”

    Could you just refer me to the chapter and verse where it says this. It should be a very easy thing to do.

    So Sam, no links, no shouting, no changing the subject, no more insults, just chapter and verse, here and now on this blog so we can all marvel at the wondrous teaching.

    Thank you.

  14. madmanna says:

    Matthew 12 v 38Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. 39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: 40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

    The truth of the resurrection was prophesied by the sign of Jonas. A sign is not a detailed and explicit declaration of the prophesied event but something that symbolizes that event. What else can Jesus be referring to if not his death and resurrection? Do you believe that that Jesus said these words? If so what is your explanation of what he meant by them?

  15. Paul Williams says:

    Paul, I agree with the candid admission by Dr. William Lane Craig:

    ‘Early Christians were convinced that Jesus’ resurrection, like his crucifixion, was, in the words of the old tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. 3-5, “in accordance with the Scriptures.” In Luke’s story of Jesus’ appearance on the road to Emmaus, the risen Jesus chastises the two travelers: ” ‘Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24. 26-27). Similarly, in John’s account of Peter and the Beloved Disciple’s inspection of the empty tomb, John reflects that they did not believe in Jesus’ resurrection until finding the tomb empty, save for the abandoned grave clothes, because “as yet they did not know the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead” (John 20.9).

    The difficulty is that when we ask, “What Scriptures are they thinking of?”, we come up with sparse results. Hosea 6.2 ‘ “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him” – has been suggested because it mentions the “third day” motif found in the old formula cited by Paul. But Hosea 6.2 is never explicitly cited by any New Testament author, much less applied to Jesus’ resurrection. In the apostolic sermons in the Acts of the Apostles, we find Psalm 16.10 interpreted in terms of Jesus’ resurrection: “For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” But if we look at the principal Old Testament passage cited in the Gospels with respect to Jesus’ resurrection, we find the story of Jonah and the whale. “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12.40).

    Now the problem for the theory in question is that nobody, especially a first century Jew, reading the story of Jonah and the whale would think that this has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus’ burial and resurrection! Similarly for Psalm 16.10; this has to do with David’s confidence that God will not allow him to see defeat and death. And as for Hosea 6.2, this has nothing to do with resurrection of the dead but with the restoration of the national fortunes of Israel.

    The point is that no one who did not already have a belief in Jesus’ resurrection would find in these Scriptures any impetus to think that Jesus had been raised from the dead. To this we may add the fact that in Jewish belief the resurrection of the dead was always an event at the end of the world involving all the people, an event which obviously had not yet taken place. The problem many people, even some scholars, have is not being able to put themselves in the shoes of a first century Jew confronted with Jesus’ crucifixion – they tend to look at the disciples’ situation through the rearview mirror of 2,000 years of Christian theology, and so the idea of his rising from the dead seems natural to them, when in fact it is an anachronism.

    Once the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, then they could go to the Scriptures looking for verses to validate their belief and experience, and passages like Jonah and the whale and Psalm 16.10 could be re-interpreted in light of Jesus’ resurrection. But to think that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was derived from the Old Testament is to put the cart before the horse; it gets things exactly backwards.

    ********************

    Notice how Dr. Craig candidly admits that the prophecy of Jesus’ supposed dying and rising is not clearly taught in the Old Testament. This shows that Christians can only interpret (more like distort) the Old Testament so that it can show this.

  16. Sam Shamoun says:

    Paul, let me try this for a third time since once you answer my questions then your objections will be exposed for what they are. I will place them in bold for emphasis so you finally answer them. Once you do so I can then proceed to expose you for being the dishonest, inconsistent Christophobe that you are:

    BESIDES ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION IN THE SERIES OF REBUTTALS WHICH DOCUMENTED THAT YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE WHEN OT COMES TO JEWISH METHODS OF EXEGESIS, COULD YOU BE SO KIND AND SHARE WITH US HOW THE JEWS DURING THE TIME OF CHRIST INTERPRETED THE OT AND HOW THYE VIEWED PROPHECY? MOREOVER, COULD YOU ALSO GRACE US WITH WITH YOUR ANSWER REGARDING WHETHER THE NT METHOD OF INTERPRETING THE OT AND THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF PROPHECY WERE INCOMPATIBLE WITH SUCH METHODS?

    And it is not shouting. It is simply trying to help a Muhammadan see reality and learn to be honest for once. Hopefully, you will muster some integrity and courage and answer these simple questions.

  17. Sam Shamoun says:

    Since you accuse the Bible writers of distorting the OT, thereby proving that you are not only an ignoramus but an inconsistent Christophobe, it is time for me to turn your own argument against your false prophet and antichrist. According to the Quran, the Torah and the Gospel which the Jews and Christians possessed at the time of Muhammad contained a prediction of an unlettered prophet who was to come:

    “those who shall follow the [last] Apostle, the unlettered Prophet whom they shall find described in the Torah that is with them, and [later on] in the Gospel:124 [the Prophet] who will enjoin upon them the doing of what is right and forbid them the doing of what is wrong, and make lawful to them the good things of life and forbid them the bad things, and lift from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them [aforetime].125 Those, therefore, who shall believe in him, and honour him, and succour him, and follow the light that has been bestowed from on high through him – it is they that shall attain to a happy state.” S. 7:157 Muhammad Asad

    Now since we know what the Torah the Gospel looked like at this time, since even your own scholars like Asad identify them as Deuteronomy and John respectively, could please be so kind as to give us the exact chapter and verse where the Torah and the Gospel say that God will send an Apostle, who is an unlettered Prophet, to guide them?

    Please prove me wrong, and show everyone that you are a man of integrity who consistently applies his own objections to his own sources. Now both you and I know better, that no one can ever accuse of being a man of integrity and consistency.

  18. Sam Shamoun says:

    And finally, let me repeat my series of questions concerning the gross wickedness and immorality of your god and messenger.

    Could you be so kind as to answer the following questions in order to explain to us why we should follow a wicked man who justified adultery, rape, and prostitution in the name of a wicked and immoral god:

    How would Williams feel if a fellow believer came up to him and asked to marry one of his womenfolk, i.e. sister, daughter, cousin, aunt etc., for a short period of time?

    Would he not have a problem with this or would he be all too eager to hand over his women to such a person?

    How would he feel if this happened more than once, i.e. on more than one occasion his womenfolk married men for a sum of money and for a short period?

    Does Williams really want us to believe that he would have absolutely no problem with such marriages?

    Wouldn’t Williams therefore agree that it is a shame and insult to even call this marriage since deep down inside even he knows that this is nothing more than prostitution?

    Once again, I expect that Williams will actually respond to all my questions the second time around, instead of tap dancing around them like he just did. I expect him to tell us whether he really wants people to follow such an immoral man and wicked deity who actually decreed and sanctioned for his followers the right to indulge their wicked, carnal desires such as adultery, rape and prostitution? If so then shame on you.

    So Williams, no more tap dancing, no more smoke and mirrors, no more evasionary tactics, no more deceptive and inconsistent arguments, no more whining, links, just chapter and verse for the unlettered prophet prediction, and answers to my questions HERE AND NOW ON THIS BLOG so we can all marvel at the wondrous teaching and your consistency and integrity.

    I won’t be holding my breath since we know that the last thing you are is consistent and honest. :-)

  19. Paul Williams says:

    Dear Sam, are you really unaware of the writing conventions in comments emails and the like? Writing in ALL CAPS is like shouting. Use lower case only!

    I refer you to the candid admission by Dr. William Lane Craig who is spot on: ‘Once the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, then they could go to the Scriptures looking for verses to validate their belief and experience, and passages like Jonah and the whale and Psalm 16.10 could be re-interpreted in light of Jesus’ resurrection. But to think that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was derived from the Old Testament is to put the cart before the horse; it gets things exactly backwards.’

    That’s what some of the early Christians evidently did: they had their beliefs about Jesus and went a-hunting for proof texts in the Torah. Unfortunately, very few Jews were impressed by their spin as it imposed fanciful and highly decontextualized meanings onto the text.

    But I note your persistent refusal to cite just one passage – here in this dialogue and on this blog – that clearly states ‘Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures’.

    Methinks all your bluster, fury and shouting is designed to cover over the complete absence of any such citation from the Torah. Therefore I can quite understand Sam why you wish to change the subject and attack Islam. In your shoes I would probably do the same thing!

  20. madmanna says:

    “But to think that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was derived from the Old Testament is to put the cart before the horse; it gets things exactly backwards.’”

    No it’s not. It is to take the words of Jesus at their face value. Which you refuse to do.

  21. Sam Shamoun says:

    Do excuse all of my typos here since I am actually writing these in a rush. Williams really doesn’t deserve the time it takes to insure that there are no typos in these posts.

  22. Sam Shamoun says:

    Oh brother, here we go again with the tap dancing. I know what Craig wrote and meant. If you were to bother answering my questions then I would be able to turn Craig’s own statements against you in order to further expose your ineptness and Christophobia.

    So let me try this one more time, by once again putting it in bold so that haply you may muster the courage to answer. WOULD YOU PLEASE BE SO KIND AS TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT PHASE OF MY REBUTTAL? PLEASE!!!!!!!

    I won’t be holding my breath.

  23. madmanna says:

    “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures”
    All the sacrifices are a type of the death of Jesus on the cross.
    Come to your senses Paul. Your man-made god can not help you.

  24. Sam Shamoun says:

    Madmanna, you are wasting your time on this coward. His only agenda is to smear Christ and his followers. As you can attest if you have read those articles, I have throughly addressed this point, which is why I keep asking him to answer the questions concerning how the Jews interpreted OT texts and how they defined prophecy. He knows better than to answer these questions since if does answer them honestly then he will have no choice but to admit that the NT writers were being thoroughly Jewish in the way they interpreted the OT and how they viewed prophecy. These very same methods of exegesis is what helps us see what they meant by the OT predicting that the Messiah would rise on the third day, and how correct they were.

  25. madmanna says:

    13And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. 14And they talked together of all these things which had happened. 15And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. 16But their eyes were holden that they should not know him. 17And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad? 18And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? 19And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: 20And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. 21But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done. 22Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; 23And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive. 24And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. 25Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

  26. Paul Williams says:

    No, Sam this thread has nothing to do with Islam or your Islamophobic agenda and I certainly will not be dancing to your tune.

    I know your rudeness is legendary Sam, but do you not feel any shame sometimes? You wrote:

    “Do excuse all of my typos here since I am actually writing these in a rush. Williams really doesn’t deserve the time it takes to insure that there are no typos in these posts.”

    I have exhausted all my attempts to get a *single* quote from the Bible to back up the claim ‘that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures’.

    I therefore conclude, along with all the Jews past and present, that this claim is in fact unsupported and entirely spurious. Thank you Sam for contributing so effectively to this realisation – I owe you one!

    peace

    Paul

  27. madmanna says:

    You’re right Sam. He is a reprobate. He can’t say that he hasn’t been warned.

  28. Paul Williams says:

    If I am a reprobate then I am in good company as I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. William Lane Craig’s assessment:

    ‘Once the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, then they could go to the Scriptures looking for verses to validate their belief and experience, and passages like Jonah and the whale and Psalm 16.10 could be re-interpreted in light of Jesus’ resurrection. But to think that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was derived from the Old Testament is to put the cart before the horse; it gets things exactly backwards.’

    So Sam and Paul you disagree with me and your own evangelical scholars!! lol

  29. Sam Shamoun says:

    You see what I said about what kind of Christophobic troll he truly is? The man’s hatred for Jesus and his followers is apparent to anyone who reads or interacts with him. Notice like the coward he is he refused to answer my simple questions concerning the Jewish method of interpreting the Hebrew Bible since he knew he would got buried in his lies. Further notice he does absolutely nothing to defend the immoral teachings of his wicked prophet who had women treated as prostitutes and sexual slaves. Notice how ran with his tail between his legs when I turned his same objection against him and asked him to show us a single verse where the Torah and Gospel predicted the coming of an apostle who would be an unlettered prophet since that his what his corrupt, immoral book said we would find contained therein.

    The man is a a Christophobic troll, plain and simple. However, the good thing is we now have all these posts containing the links to my articles and challenges which Williams didn’t even begin to address. Therefore, the readers will see what kind of dishonest, deceptive and inconsistent Christophobe he is, and will also see just how wicked and filthy his religion truly is.

    So thank you Williams for once again coming here and allowing me to further embarrass you and expose your false prophet who was nothing more than an antichrist.

  30. Paul Williams says:

    ‘Once the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, then they could go to the Scriptures looking for verses to validate their belief and experience, and passages like Jonah and the whale and Psalm 16.10 could be re-interpreted in light of Jesus’ resurrection. But to think that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was derived from the Old Testament is to put the cart before the horse; it gets things exactly backwards.’

    So Sam and Paul you disagree with me and your own evangelical scholars!! lol

  31. Sam Shamoun says:

    Madmanna, I think you need to tell Williams it is time for him and go play his silly games somewhere else. In fact, shouldn’t be planning a trip to the capitol of his pagan beliefs, namely Mecca, in order to perform his obligation of smooching a black stone like a good little pagan that he is, in imitation of his stone worshiping prophet?

  32. Paul Williams says:

    Btw Madmanna’s name is *Paul* as you well know Sam…

  33. icedoutplaya says:

    hello sam can i ask you a question please? using this ancient Jewish methodolgy that the new testament writers used, can a muslim than use Isaiah 29 as a prophecy of Muhammad “and the book is given to one who is unlearned saying read, and he says i cannot read?

  34. Sam Shamoun says:

    Iced, not by a long shot. You conveniently overlooked v. 11, in fact the entire context, since it is using the examples of a man who cannot read either because he is illiterate or is given a sealed book to describe God’s judgment upon the nation of Israel for their obstinate rebellion and refusal for accepting his revelation. So using the Jewish method of exegesis which I referred to in my articles does permit a person in using this same text for future generations of rebellious sinners, such as those whom Jesus confronted and condemned. See Matthew 15:1-9 for the details. So unless you are trying to use this to prove that Muhammad is also one of those whom God condemned for turning away from his truth (which I would agree that he did), then Isaiah 29:12 is the last text you want to use to prove that your prophet was predicted in the previous scriptures.

    Now if you are interested in discussing this further then please give me a time when you can come to Paltalk so we can discuss this in my room and have it recorded for the benefit of others. Until then, watch our program where we dissect this text in response Naik: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/12/refuting-zakir-naik-on-muhammad-in-bible.html

  35. icedoutplaya says:

    but i’m confused in the sense that you said i need to check the context but the methodology used by the new testament writers didnt really involve the context for example matthews use of hosea 11 by chopping the first part of the sentence mentioning “when Israel was a child”. so my question still stands using this “ancient midrashic” methodology cant i ignore the context like matthew does and chop off the first sentence so isaiah 29 is a prophecy of Muhammad “and the book is given to one who is not learned saying read and he says i cannot2 what i’m simply asking in a nutshell is if matthew can take stray sentences using this “jewish midrashic” methodology then using the same method a muslim can say isaiah 29 is a prophecy of Muhammad, as for debating you i vowed never to as last year i approached you for a debate and you replied with swears at me and my religion,so i’ll stick to this thread thanx

  36. madmanna says:

    In Isaiah 29 the book is given sealed to one who is learned who says he can not read it because it is sealed. The book is then given to someone who says he can not read it because he is unlearned. They both give their excuses. Neither of them is illiterate.

  37. icedoutplaya says:

    it clearly says “he cannot read” which means he is illiterate but i would like sam to answer my question that by using this ancient “jewish midrashic” methodology that matthew used, for which i can give more examples where matthew and christians have ignored context to find prophecies of Jesus, isnt isaiah 29 a prophecy of Muhammad EVEN if the entire context is overlooked as matthew employed the same methodology,this is my question,thanx

  38. icedoutplaya says:

    ps i can actually quote isaiah 29 in context to make a case but since i’m adopting the same ancient “jewish midrashic” method that matthew used,i want u to explain why this cant be a prophecy of Muhammad

  39. madmanna says:

    kjv says learned in verse 11 and “not learned” in verse 12. Illiterate is something else altogether.

  40. madmanna says:

    Matthew was inspired. He wasn’t using any “methodology”.

  41. Paul Williams says:

    madmanna have a look at this Yale University lecture about Matthew’s methodology:

  42. icedoutplaya says:

    i think the NIV is more clearer,Or if you give the scroll to someone who CANNOT READ, and say, “Read this, please,” he will answer, “I DONT KNOW HOW TO READ.”. now whether matthew was inspired or not the point is this, the methodology that the new testament applies to find prophecies of Jesus,if that same methodology is used by muslims than isaiah 29:12 is a prophecy of Muhammad,yes or no?

  43. madmanna says:

    Thanks Paul. I’m sure you wouldn’t let people post links to youtube videos at your blog.

  44. Paul Williams says:

    I hope you watch the video and learn about Matthew from a top scholar (and yes he is a Christian!)

  45. madmanna says:

    Matthew was doing what he was doing with the authority of God himself. It’s either inspiration or a human applying a methodology. It can’t be both at once.

  46. madmanna says:

    he is a Christian!) By whose definition?

  47. icedoutplaya says:

    i dont want to change the subject to whether the new testament is true, i just simply want you and sam to answer a simple question with a yes or no,if a muslim applies this ancient “jewish midrashic” methodology that matthew used,than isnt isaiah 29 a prophecy of Muhammad

  48. Paul Williams says:

    I think you are prejudging the issue. Watch the lecture and hear the arguments before you decide… you owe it to yourself to know the truth Paul…

  49. Sam Shamoun says:

    Iced, it is obvious that you are here to play games, so let me walk you through this one more time. I clearly said that the Jewish method of exegesis and understanding of prophecy does allow Isaiah 29 to be used typologically or analogically to point to future individuals. Was that part not clear? I also said that Jesus used it precisely this way when he cited Isaiah 29:13 to condemn the Jewish leaders for nullifying the Word of God in Matthew 15:1-9? Was that part not clear? Moreover, I also said that if you want to use this to prove that Muhammad was predicted then you end up proving that Muhammad is a rebel sinner whom God condemns to hell. I agree, so thank you for proving that Muhammad is a false prophet and antichrist.

    Moreover, your comments concerning Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 again exposes your ignorance since Israel serves as a typology for Christ whom Matthew and the rest of the NT depict as ideal or true Israel. Therefore, Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1 to point to events in the life of Jesus the Messiah is perfectly consistent with the Jewish method of OT exegesis and understanding of the nature of prophecy which I have been referring to.

    And I didn’t mention midrash, so stop twisting and perverting my words. Midrash wasn’t the only method of interpretation which the Jews used.

    Now do I really need to copy and paste my entire discussion of Matthew 2:15 in order to silence you? Really? Let me know since I will be more than happy to do so.

    And instead of playing games with me, tell me when you can come on Paltalk so we can record how far you will get with such games. In fact, when you give me the time and date you plan to show up on Paltalk I will be more than happy to prove that the only case you can make from the context of Isaiah 29:12 is that Muhammad was a fraud, a sinner whom God condemns to hell. Now why don’t you come on Paltalk and prove me wrong? I dare you to. :-)

  50. Sam Shamoun says:

    Yes Paul, a.k.a. madmanna, you owe it to yourself to study the narrations I provided where Muhammad treated women as prostitutes and sex slaves, permitting men to rape captive women whose husbands were still alive. Yes you owe it to yourself to see just how evil and filthy Williams’ religion truly is. :-)

  51. Sam Shamoun says:

    Yes madmanna, Dale is a top liberal scholar and openly gay professor whose views on God, Jesus, revelation, morality, afterlife etc. end up condemning Muhammad as a fraud, a false prophet and antichrist. Yes madmanna, you owe it to yourself to embrace this man’s presuppositions and theological views since if you do so then you will never accept Muhammad as a prophet of God.

    You see why I say that Williams is an inconsistent Christophobic troll who has no shame or integrity since he uses one standard to condemn Christianity but never bothers to employ that same standard to his own false prophet and religion since he knows that the conclusions would be disastrous for his religious views?

  52. icedoutplaya says:

    sam for god sakes your nearly 50 and your still offering people to debate you on paltalk,u had your opportunity to debate me last year but u insulted me,so lets stick to the convo and dont add your hype to this thread,so let me understand this your saying that matthew chopping a sentence in half serves as a typology for jesus, so Jesus came out of egypt just like Israel,but are u not aware that hosea 11 talks about nothing but how israel turned away from God,so according to this “typology” method did jesus also burn incense to Baal and turn away from God,hence he cried on the cross “my god my god why have you forsaken me”? so once again i’m asking you a simple question if i ignored the context like matthew and i chopped up sentences, will u admit by answering yes or no,thatl isaiah 29 serve as a prophecy of Muhammad,dont bother using this typology argument against me again because i PROMISE you it will work against you

  53. Sam Shamoun says:

    Irony of ironies, madmanna! Williams just posted the following link from Yasir Qadhi’s Islamic solution to controlling homosexual urges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvOKsfBo1Hs&list=PL17AAF4654F29FB36&index=24. And yet at the same time he post links to a homosexual professor who thinks that there is nothing wrong with such a lifestyle!!!!! Maybe Williams needs to send this link to Dale. Man, these Muhammadans really are a joke.

  54. icedoutplaya says:

    and its good that your talking about using the same standards as this is what i’ve been asking you to do from the start,so by using matthews methodology is isaiah 29: a prophecy of Muhammad? answer yes or no

  55. Sam Shamoun says:

    iced, for Allah’s sake, you are black stone smoocher and yet it is obvious that such smooching hasn’t helped you to think rationally! Why not ask your black stone god to give you some courage and give me the time and date you plan to come on Paltalk so we can record what I will end up doing to your arguments here concerning Hosea 11 and Isaiah 29:12? And I swear on Muhammad that if you do, then this method of exegesis that I have been referring to will make you run crying to your black stone god. Until then, find some other place to play your games since I won’t bother entertaining you any further.

  56. Paul Williams says:

    Sam personal attacks on a respected scholar are discreditable. I have invited Paul to consider the arguments put forward by this yale professor – he is fre to reject then if he chooses, but they are very widely shared by other knowledge scholars. Sam do you offer anything to the word other than abuse and rudeness? I just wonder how your wife puts up with it. I hear she gets very upset at your “neurosis”. Can’t say I blame her…

  57. Paul Williams says:

    Sam there is no irony. I cite the professor for his learning not foR what he does in bed. I’m flattered you read my blog so assiduously

  58. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, inconsistent use of this “respectable” scholar are discreditable. I have invited madmanna to consistently employ Dale’s arguments and presuppositions in order to see how such views condemn Muhammad as a false prophet, something you refuse to do. I wonder how the man that you live with tolerates your inconsistency and blatant lies. I have heard from your fellow Muhammadans that he is very fond of you. I can say that I do blame him for putting up with you. :-)

  59. icedoutplaya says:

    first off sam thanks for blasheming against yahweh, u swore on Muhammad lol,as far as black stones and calling it pagan,are you not aware that jacob in genesis 28 built an altar of God around a STONE,so did joshua in the last part of his book,and Jesus said to simon,your name is peter because you are the rock (an alluding to the stones in the old testament) that I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH UPON,whats going on sam,your crappy Quran confirms the Bible garbage aint gonna save you tonight,so ANSWER my point u coward, using matthews methodology isnt isaiah 29 a prophecy of Muhammad? and if hosea 11 is a typology of jesus than did jesus turn away from god hence he cried that god forsook him,dont run off u coward,i wanna school u tonight,so respond

  60. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, then prove that you are consistent and apply Dale’s learning to your own religious views and see where that leaves Muhammad and his god. And I always knew you are a secret admirer of mine which is why you are so flattered by me reading your blog, and why you always have to reply back to me even though you have stated in the past that you wouldn’t do so because of my mental illness. :-)

    Anyway, in order to make you happy I will let you get in the last word. Happy now?

  61. Paul Williams says:

    yes very thank you…

  62. Paul Williams says:

    Paul, here’s another video from the respected scholar. This Yale University lecture on the historical Jesus is the real thing – a scholarly assessment of the historical Jesus utilising the best in (western) historiographical techniques. This scholar makes some interesting theoretical points about the historical method, faith, and God which go a long way to clarifying the distinct demarcations between these different questions. I do not believe it is the last word on the subject as the ‘modern’ historical method is thoroughly secularist in its presuppositions, but it is really helpful to Muslims involved in dawah with Christians to be conversant with this approach and use it with discernment and wisdom in our discussions.

    Muslims have a pure & uncorrupted Revelation from God which provides mankind with epistemological certainty about those matters God has chosen to reveal about the ‘real’ Jesus. Sadly, as this lecture demonstrates, Christians today have lost much of the truth about Jesus…

  63. Sam Shamoun says:

    i can’t let iced get away with his lies, even though he is imitating his god. I will post this in bold for him to get since I see the effect that smooching the black stone has left on his mind:

    PLEASE QUOTE A VERSE FROM THE BIBLE WHERE JACOB, MOSES JOSHUA ETC. KISSED AND CARESSED A STONE AND MADE IT SUNNA FOR THEIR FOLLOWERS TO DO SO. SO INSTEAD OF ATTACKING STRAW MAN, SINCE I NEVER CONDEMNED YOUR MUHAMMAD FOR ERECTING A STONE, BUT FOR SMOOCHING IT, TRY BEING HONEST FOR ONCE, WHICH I KNOW IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DO SO SEEING THE KIND OF GOD YOU FOLLOW, AND DEAL WITH MY ACTUAL ARGUMENT.

    And thank you for your post since this perfectly illustrates my accusation that you can’t help but pervert what you read and hear. The sad thing is that you actually think you can get away with it.

  64. icedoutplaya says:

    why dont you make me happy sam by replying to my points,i dare u to bring up the typology argument again,come on bring it son,let me school you tonight and show how your old news sam,u went from some1 who had potential to the internets biggest clown

  65. icedoutplaya says:

    so how is a stone being kissed idolatrou?,dont you kiss all those doughnuts you been feeding off for the last decade,does that mean you worship doughnuts? so come back and answer my point,regarding isaiah 29

  66. icedoutplaya says:

    paul why u posting that,sam might get hungry,sam darling i’m still waiting for u to reply to my question

  67. Sam Shamoun says:

    Hey madmanna, as you can see that you have a black stone smooching troll who couldn’t help but expose his filth and hate. I would ban this pagan if I were you.

    BTW madmanna, did you know that one of Muhammad’s wives was fat and old and that Muhammad wanted to divorce her?

    Narrated Aisha:
    Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) went out to answer the call of nature after it was made obligatory (for all the Muslims ladies) to observe the veil. SHE WAS A FAT HUGE LADY, and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her and said, “O Sauda! By Allah, you cannot hide yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be recognized on going out. Sauda returned while Allah’s Apostle was in my house taking his supper and a bone covered with meat was in his hand. She entered and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! I went out to answer the call of nature and ‘Umar said to me so-and-so.” Then Allah inspired him (the Prophet) and when the state of inspiration was over and the bone was still in his hand as he had not put in down, he said (to Sauda), “You (women) have been allowed to go out for your needs.” (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 318)

    Making peace is better than separation. An example of such peace can be felt in the story of Sawdah bint Zam’ah who WHEN SHE BECAME AGED, THE PROPHET WANTED TO DIVORCE HER, but she made peace with him by offering the night he used to spend with her to A’isha so that he would keep her. The Prophet accepted such terms and kept her.

    Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi recorded that Ibn ‘Abbas said, “Sawdah feared that the Messenger of Allah might divorce her and she said, ‘O Messenger of Allah! Do not divorce me; give my day to ‘A’ishah.’ And he did …

    In the Two Sahihs, it is recorded that ‘A’ishah said that when Sawdah bint Zam’ah BECAME OLD, she forfeited her day to ‘A’ishah and the Prophet used to spend Sawdah’s night with ‘A’ishah …

    . IT REFERS TO THE WIFE RELINQUISHING SOME OF HER MARITAL RIGHTS and his acceptance of the offer. Such compromise is better than total divorce, as the Prophet did when retained Sawdah bint Zam’ah. By doing so, the Prophet set an example for his Ummah to follow as it is a lawful act … (the preceding citation taken and adapted from Tafsir Ibn Kathir – Abridged, Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5, Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147 [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; first edition March 2000], pp. 599-601, and Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 5, Sura An-Nisa, ayat 24-147, abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasib Ar-Rafa’i [Al-Firdous Ltd., London, 2000 first edition], pp. 193-194; bold and capital emphasis ours)

    Muhammad’s personal and family life were not always smooth. His wives sometimes bickered amongst themselves and even once engaged in a petty plot against him. A’ishah, for example, disliked her Jewish co-wife, Safiyah, and insulted her periodically. Muhammad had to defend her status and honor a number of times and scold the youthful A’ishah. Hafsah became jealous of her co-wife, Maria, when she found her and Muhammad resting[sic] in her apartment one day. Sawdah gave up her allotted day with the Prophet WHEN SHE REALIZED HE WAS NOT REALLY ATTRACTED TO HER. As for the conspiracy, A’ishah agreed with two other co-wives to convince the Prophet that eating honey made him unpleasant to be around. When Muhammad vowed to never eat honey again, she privately repented to her co-conspirators. Though these incidents were not the norm, they demonstrate that the women in Muhammad’s life were as human as the rest of us. (Yahiya Emerick, Critical Lives: Muhammad [Alpha Books, A Member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002], p. 263; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    They must have a Dunking Donuts back then which explains why Sawda was so fat. She must have spent her time kissing donuts instead of the black stone which Muhammad loved to smooch.

    This should also show you why this black stone smoocher has a problem with fat people and mocks them, since his own prophet couldn’t stand his very fat wife!

    Anyway, talk to you later brother. Gotta get back to exposing Muhammad for the vile antichrist that he truly was. :-)

  68. Sam Shamoun says:

    So Williams, plan on sending that photo of donuts to the grave of Sauda, since she must have loved donuts just as much as Muhammad loved kissing the black stone? :-)

  69. icedoutplaya says:

    sam u saddo,come back to this thread and answer my question regarding isaiah 29 and hosea 11,don’t waste your time with those so called “sheikhs” who u pay to call your pagan show,answer my question, just incase you forgot i will repeat it,if i use the same methodology that mathhew used in order to find ALLEGED prophecies of Jesus,than will u admit isaiah 29 is a prophecy of Muhammad, badmanna theirs no need to ban me,ofcourse u wanna see how sam “handles” muslims who aint on his pagan abn payroll lol

  70. icedoutplaya says:

    na we’ll send those doughnuts to paul’s grave,he can eat it along with timothies foreskin

  71. Paul Williams says:

    Dearest Sam I have a big love for donuts too!

  72. icedoutplaya says:

    badmanna if sam stops the insults so will i,i want him to answer my question without tap dancing,and badmanna u seem like a decent guy,if u wanna learn how to debate watch people like mike licona and bill craig,u dont wanna end up like sam,by becoming a 50year old who spends all his time on paltalk

  73. Paul Williams says:

    I didn’t know Sam was fifty. btw i have a special post coming up on my blog just for dear Sam…

  74. Sam Shamoun says:

    Madmanna, you see how this pagan just condemned Muhammad regarding the talk of foreskin? Here is a section of my reply where some of his fellow black stone worshipers tried to accuse Paul of being gay:

    Before we turn to the main question whether Wilson’s statements are even historically accurate, we want to make a couple of comments regarding the conclusions drawn by the Muslims authors. Would they similarly conclude that every mohel was a homosexual, trying to live out his fantasies through performing religiously mandated operations? Is every male gynecologist a voyeur, performing his duties because of some hidden fantasies? Is every female gynecologist really a lesbian wanting to touch as many female sexual organs as possible?

    The way the Muslim authors are arguing is ludicrous. Professionals oftentimes have to perform acts that are not proper for others. There is nothing reprehensible about it. Even if Wilson had been correct with the above description – but he is not – Paul would simply have acted as a religious leader performing a religiously prescribed operation. It is revealing that their conclusion includes the phrase “no matter what the reasons are”. Obviously, it DOES matter what the reasons are when evaluating an action. Why did Paul oppose the circumcision of his assistant Titus (and of other gentile converts to faith in Jesus) but circumcised his assistant Timothy? These questions are essential and are discussed in the links provided above. The authors, however, simply disregard the explicitly stated reasons and replace them with their unfounded speculation. They could not find any evidence that Paul ever practiced, endorsed or promoted homosexuality. The very fact that all they could do was to speculate about “HIDDEN desires” exposes how weak their case truly is.

    The presented Muslim polemic is a completely unnatural interpretation of the Biblical text. In contrast, my interpretation of the Islamic traditions regarding the nursing of adults was the natural understanding without any need to twist meanings of words or speculate about hidden motivations. Even if the speculations of the Muslim authors had contained any substance, their whole case crumbles when we examine the basis of their argument, i.e. Wilson’s claims about the Jewish method of circumcision at the time of Paul.

    Continued in the next post.

  75. Sam Shamoun says:

    Continued from the previous post.

    The first problem with the authors appeal to Wilson is that there is no evidence that sucking the blood from the penis was practiced during Paul’s time:

    After scrubbing and putting on rubber gloves, the mohel uses a probe to lift the priah, underlying membrane, into the orlah, foreskin. He determines the amount to be removed and fixes a clamp in the correct place. The priah and orlah are cut with one sweep along the flat edge of the clamp. A special knife called an izmail is used. Traditionally, the knife is sharp on both edges to eliminate the possibility of causing the child pain. Lastly, blood is drawn, metzitzah, a therapeutic prescription FROM THE TALMUDIC PERIOD. A sterile dressing with topical anesthetic is applied. When performed by a competent mohel the entire procedure, which flows as one continuous motion, takes less than a minute. The excised foreskin is buried in the earth. (http://www.cantork.com/ceremony.htm; bold and capital emphasis ours)

    CIRCUMCISION: THEN AND NOW

    By: James E. Peron, Ed.D.

    Milah: Symbolic Circumcision of Covenant

    The original Biblical circumcision of Abraham’s time was a relatively minor ritual circumcision procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed. This was called “Milah”. It is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its name.

    Following “Milah”, a penis so circumcised would still contain a considerable portion of the foreskin and the penis would have continued to go through its natural development since most of the foreskin would have remained intact. Protection of the glans would still have occurred. The foreskin would not be stripped back off the glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans, especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or intended protection.

    This type circumcision continued throughout the ages and during the time of Christ. The circumcision of Christ would have been this type circumcision as referred to in the bible. Indeed, biblical reference to circumcision is strictly this form of circumcision. It continued into the New Testament. It has been argued that Michelangelo’s David should show David as Circumcised. Interestingly, Michelangelo presented David precisely as he should have appeared following an infant “Milah” circumcision. His glans is essentially covered with only the tip of the glans showing.

    Changes to the Ritual Circumcision Procedure:

    No other feature was added to the religious ritual UNTIL ABOUT 140 AD when a second step to the ritual circumcision procedure was introduced.

    Periah: The laying of bare of the glans

    After performing “milah”, the cutting back of the end of the infant’s foreskin, a second step, periah was then performed. Periah consists of tearing and stripping back the remaining inner mucosal lining of the foreskin from the glans and then, by use of a sharp finger nail or implement, removing all of the inner mucosal tissue, including the excising and removal of the frenulum from the underside of the glans. The objective was to insure that no part of the remaining penile skin would rest against the glans corona. If any shreds of the mucosal foreskin tissue remained, or rejoined to the underside of the glans, the child was to be re-circumcised.

    This is a much more radical form of circumcision. It was dictated by man, and is not the biblical commanded circumcision rite. [Italics mine] Its introduction has a bizarre history. The rabbinate sought to put an end to the practice of youths desiring to appear uncircumcised by stretching the remainding foreskin for social economic benefits and for sports competitions. By introducing the painful and debilitating “Periah” they would obliterate the foreskin completely such that proper circumcised Jew could not disguise “the seal of the covenant”. From this point in Jewish history, the male’s glans is directly affected by the circumcision procedure, and the denuded glans and traumatized infant will heal with considerable nerve damage and loss of sensitivity. Again, it is important to note that this is not the Covenant circumcision of Abraham defined in the Bible. [Italics mine]

    Metzitzeh: (Mezzizza/Mizizah) The sucking of blood from the wound

    DURING THE TALMUDIC PERIOD (500-625 A.D.), A THIRD STEP WAS ADDED TO THE ORTHODOX CIRCUMCISION RITUAL. It was not universally adopted by all Jewish groups, but became a practice of the more Orthodox groups. This third step was called “Metzitzah”. During “Metzitzah”, the mohel takes the now badly bleeding penis into his mouth and sucks the blood from the wounded pant. This was most probably adopted to collapse the major blood vessels to stem bleeding and to extract any induced bacteria from the wound and blood system. In effect, it often introduced infection, such as tuberculosis and venereal diseases, with very serious and tragic consequence, as reported throughout history. More modern day mohels use a glass tube placed over the infant’s penis for suction of the blood when performing metzitzah. In many Jewish ritual circumcisions this step of Metzitzah has been eliminated. (http://www.cirp.org/library/history/peron2/; capital and underlined emphasis ours)

    And:

    The third stage of ritual circumcision, the Messisa or Metzitzah, was not introduced until the Talmudic period (500-625 C.E).6,15,21 In Metzitzah, the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucks blood from the penis of the circumcised infant with his mouth.29 This procedure has been responsible for the death of many Jewish babies due to infection.11 In modern times, a glass tube is sometimes used instead. (http://www.cirp.org/library/history/; bold emphasis ours)

    This in itself is sufficient to cast doubt on the authors’ ability to research the issues carefully in order to avoid such gross anachronistic mistakes.

    More to come.

  76. Sam Shamoun says:

    Continued from the previous post.

    Furthermore, if we were to stoop to the level of the authors, we could attack them for being dishonest as they attacked me for being ‘perverted.’ After all, why is it that they claim that Paul practiced something that wasn’t instituted until the 6th century A.D.!? Of course, we will not make such accusations since it is possible that the authors were just misinformed by using a source that is unreliable on this topic. However, notice that they did not extend to me this same benefit of the doubt by their conclusions that I was ‘perverted.’

    Secondly, even if the practice was being observed during Paul’s day, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was being observed on adult converts. Nor does it mean that Paul personally circumcised Timothy, as the authors erroneously assume. Now the authors may object here and argue that the text says Paul circumcised Timothy, cf. Acts 16:3.

    If so, the authors would be supplying more evidence for their inability to understand context since Luke uses similar wording elsewhere:

    “Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. And on the eighth day THEY CAME TO CIRCUMCISE THE CHILD. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father, but his mother answered, ‘No; he shall be called John.’ Luke 1:57-60 ESV

    Accordingly, we would be forced to conclude that Elizabeth’s neighbors and relatives were the ones who actually performed the circumcision on John. Messianic believer Dr. David H. Stern writes in regards to Acts 16:3:

    Sha’ul … took him and did a b’rit-milah, which can imply that he had an expert mohel (“circumciser”) perform the operation. While Sha’ul had both Jewish ritual knowledge (22:3) and at least some manual dexterity (18:3), circumcising an adult is not a simple operation and normally requires a specialist. (Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary [Clarksville, Maryland; Jewish New Testament Publications, 1996], p. 283)

    Hence, Luke’s wording no more proves that Paul actually did the circumcising than Luke 1:57-60 imply that John was circumcised by his neighbors and relatives!

    Third, in their zeal to discredit both the Apostle Paul and myself the authors failed to take into consideration how Wilson’s quote affects their beliefs as Muslims. If Wilson is correct, then this means that Zechariah, his son John the Baptist, and the Lord Jesus all had a mohel place their penises in his mouth in order to suck their blood! This would mean that the Apostles, whom the Quran calls Muslims, also had their penises placed in the mouth of a mohel during their circumcision.

    Still one more left.

    Man it must be eating you inside at how I am exposing you black stone smoochers! :-)

  77. icedoutplaya says:

    actually sam i wasnt aware of any charge that paul was gay,i was alluding to him being hypocritical regarding circumcision,i’m not like u to make up lies regarding other religions,i wud never call paul a gay whether i believe in him or not,and if their are muslims making such a claim than i would tell them not to be like you,even if u spread crap to pay for your gas bills and groceries i wudnt condone my fellow muslims to spread lies,so answer my question for the 100th time

  78. Sam Shamoun says:

    My final post.

    Since the authors believe that all these men were devout God-fearing Muslims, with some of them being commissioned as prophets and messengers of God, we would like them to resolve the following problems:

    Seeing that you quoted A. N. Wilson who claims that sucking blood from a circumcised penis was practiced by the Jews during the time of Paul, can you please explain to us how this affects your belief in the moral uprightness of Zechariah, John, Jesus and the apostles.

    Does this mean that these men whom the Quran calls Muslims were homosexuals? Since you used this to prove that Paul was a homosexual, then you are forced to be consistent and claim the same for these men also.

    If you claim that this was the practice of the Jews back then and doesn’t reflect negatively on these true men of God, then why should it reflect negatively on Paul?

    You may try to claim that Jesus’ and John’s case were quite different since they were babes and could not prevent the mohel from performing his duty. This still doesn’t help you in the least since Zechariah and Mary would have been present at the ceremony and could have stopped the mohel from performing the sucking. In light of this, can you produce the data that shows that these righteous men and women of God objected to this practice? (This assumes, of course, that Wilson is correct that the practice of sucking blood was observed at this time, which we have shown isn’t the case at all.)

    Doesn’t this prove that you will say and do anything to defend your perverted religion, even use arguments that attack and undermine the integrity and purity of God’s messengers?

    Finally, Paul was one of the leading spokespersons condemning homosexuality and lesbianism as abominable practices in the eyes of God:

    “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” Romans 1:26-27 ESV

    “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NASB

    Interestingly, the next section comes from Paul’s letter TO HIS YOUNG PROTÉGÉ TIMOTHY:

    “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, THE SEXUALLY IMMORAL, MEN WHO PRACTICE HOMOSEXUALITY, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. 1 Timothy 1:10-11 ESV

    In light of the foregoing how could one even accuse Paul of practicing homosexuality when he was one of the leading voices that spoke against it, condemning it in his epistles, and taught that those indulging in such practices would not inherit the kingdom of God? It is quite obvious that the authors’ aim was to smear the holy image of the risen Lord Jesus’ beloved Apostle. Yet their smear campaign is about to backfire against them.

    So I want to again thank this pagan for condemning his stone worshiping prophet by exposing his love for foreskins and hatred of fat woman!

    Iced, keep up your efforts of helping me embarrass you and your prophet!

    Ta ta!

  79. Paul Williams says:

    what on earth is Sam ranting on about?

  80. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, I am not 40. And make sure you post all those verses and hadiths, along with me series of questions asking you to defend what your prophet did to women. Otherwise, I am going to have to write another article exposing your cowardice for all to see.

    Until we meet again, enjoy your time smooching a stone!

  81. Sam Shamoun says:

    Oops, meant to say I am not 50.

  82. Paul Williams says:

    so how old are you? and did you like my post on my blog – just for you x

  83. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, read iced’s comments concerning Paul and Timothy’s foreskin then you see that I am silencing that blasphemous stone worshiper for his lies.

  84. Paul Williams says:

    you seem very interested in men’s foreskins Sam

  85. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, I just commented on your post. I am highly flattered. Thank you so much, my good friend!

  86. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, you got me confused with iced since he seems to be in love with foreskins. :-)

  87. Paul Williams says:

    my pleasure :)

  88. icedoutplaya says:

    lol you wrote all that for me sam? i’ve never even heard of wilson and all this crap u posted,i’ve never heard of all this paul sucking timothies penis crap,hence u wrote all that for nothing,now i’m asking u AGAIN,answer my question,and also tell us regarding these PAGAN stones that jacob,joshua and even jesus are connected with,i’m just getting warmed up,

  89. Paul Williams says:

    “i’m just getting warmed up|” ooooh – watch out Sam you’ve met your match!

  90. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, I am really flattered. It blesses my heart that you consider me your good friend, my buddy ole pal!

  91. icedoutplaya says:

    paul sam doesnt know anything about warming up,since he has never exercised in his life,

  92. Paul Williams says:

    LOL! bitch!

  93. icedoutplaya says:

    watch it paul sam has switched to his “nice” side but dont worry the jeckyll and hyde act will return,sam stop playing about,lets get back to this thread,u stop the insults and so will i,so ANSWER my questions

  94. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, iced will know plenty about getting warmed up, since his prophet has been very warm in the flames of hell for these past 15 centuries. He has a nice spot for iced right next to him. And I guess that didn’t have a Meccan fitness center back then so that poor ole Sauda could have went to in order to lose some weight so that Muhammad wouldn’t turn on her and decide to dump her. :-)

  95. Sam Shamoun says:

    WOW Williams! I really see that you have no problem using vulgarity! I am impressed.

  96. Sam Shamoun says:

    Anyway, since it must be him alive with all the pwnage that he has been experiencing, I will let iced get in the last word. In that way he can then go back and smooch his little black stone some more.

  97. icedoutplaya says:

    now let me see who might be in hell? a man who claimed he was god, and died NAKED YES NAKED ON A CROSS which is a curse according to deut 21 and he also screamed MY GOD MY GOD WHY HAVE THOU FORSAKEN ME,and he claimed he is coming back while his disciples are still alive yet 2000years later he is still missing, sam dont use your childish tactics of changing the subjest,ANSWER MY QUESTIONS

  98. Sam Shamoun says:

    Typo. “it must be him” should have been “it must be eating him alive.”

  99. icedoutplaya says:

    AND U CAN GO SMOOCH TIMOTHIES FORESKIN WITH PAUL

  100. icedoutplaya says:

    thanx for letting me get the last word sam

  101. madmanna says:

    What do you think of Abdullah Kunde Paul?
    He said he can be a good Australian citizen living under secular Australian law and he doesn’t need a Caliphate. Salafism is unorthodox according to him. How’s about that Paul? Now if only all Muslims were like him there would be no “Islamophobia”.

  102. madmanna says:

    What did your Islamic Messiah do icedout? Fled like a rabbit when the going got tough. Why did you call him Messiah? What did he save apart from his own skin?

  103. madmanna says:

    And let someone else take the rap.

  104. icedoutplaya says:

    badmanna i dont wanna argue with you,i just came to teach sam a lesson,i’m sorry if you were offended by some of my posts,i sincerely apologise but they were in RESPONSE to sam,if he had not insulted my faith and just answered my questions than this would’ve been a nice comments,but u see sam when he gets hammered he dances around the issues and tries to fool people with his rants,i think he developed this skill when he apostated and joined nation of islam,but dont worry sam wont reply to this as he said he would give me the last word lol

  105. Paul Williams says:

    madmanna says:
    January 12, 2013 at 12:12 am
    What do you think of Abdullah Kunde Paul?
    He said he can be a good Australian citizen living under secular Australian law and he doesn’t need a Caliphate. Salafism is unorthodox according to him. How’s about that Paul? Now if only all Muslims were like him there would be no “Islamophobia”.

    Actually Paul, Abdullah Kunde like any good orthodox Muslim DOES support the caliphate, but maybe you heard him say that its not for Australia…

  106. Sam Shamoun says:

    Madmanna, don’t fall for the lies of iced. He has no respect for you, just like his false prophet had no respect for those who opposed him and exposed him for the antichrist he was. The reason why the kid got upset is because I saw through his charade and pwned him for it. I wouldn’t fall for his rabbit trails. Yet if he really thinks he can refute me on Isaiah 29:12 then all the stone worshiper has to do is muster up some courage and show up on Paltalk. Yet he knows better which is why he doesn’t have the courage to come to his false prophet’s defense and take me up on my offer to come to Paltalk. He knows what I would end up doing to his prophet, proving that books like Isaiah expose Muhammad as a false prophet who is under the judgment of the true God. And I will use his inept attempt to employ the Jewish method of exegesis and understanding of prophecy to do so with pleasure..

    Now this little coward can be prove me wrong and show up to my room on Paltalk. The name of my room is Biblical monotheism versus Tauhid.

    I do hope this black stone worshiping pagan shows up so he can give me a further opportunity to expose his false god and immoral prophet for what they truly are. Yet, I won’t be holding my breath since he doesn’t have enough courage to come to his prophet’s aid.

    Until then badmanna, let him keep ranting and raving since he is only imitating the sunna when he does so. :-)

  107. Paul Sepultus says:

    I must applaud Sam’s response on Yeshayahu 29:12, I wonder why he does not utilize more of Judaic exegesis as opposed to Christian eisegesis of a borrowed/ stolen scripture. Double standards? Yes.

  108. Sam Shamoun says:

    Another Muhammadan clown chimes in. It was the rabbis who perverted the Scriptures to their destruction, much like Muhammad did. At least they have this in common, they are all under the feet of Jesus Christ, their Lord and Judge, and will suffer his wrath on the day of judgment. Jesus came to to give his followers the true understanding of the Hebrew Bible. So the only eisegesis is that of the Talmud and the Quran, which perverts God’s Word. Read Matthew 15:1-9 and weep. :-)

  109. icedoutplaya says:

    are u sure sam that the biblical jesus didnt make up stuff regarding the tanakh,if your claim is no than i want you to answer a simple question without your rants

  110. Paul Sepultus says:

    Hi Sam, do you always assume that Muslims are the only ones who disagree with Christianity, especially your brand? We know the Rabbis perverted their scriptures, your mistake is in assuming that they perverted it after your version was preserved. Who is to say that your Septuagint is not a descendant text of Rabbinic mischief? Seems very presumptuous to me.

    Tell me Sam, is there some particular canon or codex, or canon of a codex you believe to be God’s only true word?

  111. madmanna says:

    I’m going with the masoretic text for the OT and the textus receptus for the NT.

  112. madmanna says:

    “Who is to say that your Septuagint is not a descendant text of Rabbinic mischief? Seems very presumptuous to me.”

    Who needs the Septuagint?

    What do you believe Paul Sepultus?

  113. madmanna says:

    Is it your scripture that has been borrowed or stolen Mr. Sepultus?

  114. Icedoutplaya says:

    Madmanna may i ask why you prefer the king james when other bibles are based on more ancient manuscripts why dont you ask sam the coward shamoun to tell you what he thinks of the king james. Sam where you hiding come back to the thread so i can show you how the biblical jesus distorted the old testament. Forget your stupid pagan room on paltalk. I wont debate you cos your a vile creature who had the opportunity to debate me last year but you got emotional as people who see this thread will see. So come back so i can school you again

  115. madmanna says:

    kjv is based on manuscripts that have been preserved by God.
    Have you debated Sam Shamoun before?
    I have a feeling that I know you from somewhere.

  116. madmanna says:

    How comes if Allah is supposed to be so merciful he’s not merciful enough to give you any assurance that he won’t throw you in the flames after you have breathed your last? You call that mercy? I don’t.

  117. Paul Williams says:

    ‘kjv is based on manuscripts that have been preserved by God.’

    How do you know that? There are so many manuscripts to choose from and some are much earlier and closer to the originals than the TR

  118. Paul Williams says:

    All Muslims are promised\ guaranteed paradise in the Quran

  119. madmanna says:

    “How do you know that?”

    That’s what he promised to do Paul.

  120. Paul Williams says:

    God promised to specifically preserve the king james version? lol

  121. madmanna says:

    The Prophet said, “The good deeds of any person will not make him enter Paradise.” (the Prophet’s companions) said, “Not even you, O Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “Not even myself, unless Allah bestows His favor and mercy on me.” So be moderate in your religious deeds and do the deeds that are within your ability: and none of you should wish for death, for if he is a good doer, he may increase his good deeds, and if he is an evil doer, he may repent to Allah.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 70, Number 577)

    That doesn’t look like a guarantee or a promise to me.

  122. madmanna says:

    You’ve got nothing to compel God to rule in your favour you guys.
    We Christians have promises like “whosoever believeth will not perish but have everlasting life”.
    If you don’t do any real Jihad like Mohammed did it you’ve got no chance anyway to get to paradise.
    Where are your guarantees and promises Paul? Please show me some from the Quran.

  123. madmanna says:

    I might go to pal talk and see what calling christians can conjure up.

  124. Paul Williams says:

    Muhammad had promises from God about his place in paradise in other hadith – but you dont quote them for some reason. Paul where do you get your info about islam? Its really wacky and not at all accurate!

  125. Icedoutplaya says:

    Badmanna though you christians claim you got a guarantee to enter paradise when in fact you havent. What did jesus say regarding his second coming that certain people will come saying we did miracles and prophecies and many good works in your name and jesus will say depart from ye men of sin i never knew you, notice that these people think they are saved and that they did good and miracles etc yet jesus is gonna tell them to go to hell. What makes you think that you know me?

  126. Paul Williams says:

    Christians often say:

    “You Muslims aren’t even sure whether you have attained salvation. For crying out loud, Muhammad himself wasn’t sure if he would go to heaven according to an authentic hadeeth, so how could you be!?”

    It is not correct that Muslims aren’t sure whether they have attained salvation or not. Muslims have a guarantee of salvation and Promise from God to that matter.

    Allah states:

    Surah 9:72

    Allah has promised to the believers -men and women, – Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of ‘Adn (Eden Paradise). But the greatest bliss is the Good Pleasure of Allah. That is the supreme success.

    Allah also states:

    Surah 3:9

    Verily, Allah never breaks His Promise

    Now if you ask the Muslim “are you going to paradise?” he is going to say to you “if Allah wills” (insha’allah). The well informed Muslim is not going to tell you “Yes I am going paradise for sure.” No, the Muslim hopes and prays that he will end up in paradise. It’s not because the Muslim is worried whether Allah will keep His promise, for as we have seen Allah does not break His promise. Rather, it is because the Muslim cannot be sure whether he would continue remaining on the straight path and die as a Muslim and the guarantee or promise of salvation is conditional in remaining and dying as a Muslim.

    As for Christians, well there is no consensus regarding this matter.

    If you are a Calvinist you would adhere to the doctrine of the preservation of saints, which basically states that once you’re saved, you’re always saved. Once the Holy Spirit dwells in you it will never leave you. But if you happen to be following the Arminian school of thought you would take a different stance and take a position similar to what Muslims take, which is the doctrine of conditional preservation of the saints, which states that there must be a condition for one to be saved and it is possible for one to lose that status.

    One verse that Christians who adhere to the conditional preservation of saints often appeal to is the following:

    Hebrews 6:4-8

    “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.”

    The above verse according to Arminians clearly shows that the Holy Spirit could possibly leave even after it has dwelt in you.

    They also appeal to the various verses in the Bible that warn believers about apostasy (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:1 and several other verses in the book Hebrews) and then ask why the New Testament would warn against something that isn’t even possible?

    Also, Paul is reported to have said:

    1 Corinthians 15:2

    “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”

    Paul is putting on a condition for one to be saved by the Gospel. That condition is that one holds firmly onto it. Clearly there is no point for saying such a thing if it is not possible for a true believer to let go of it. If the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints were true then it would have been enough for Paul to say (or something similar):

    “By this gospel you are saved, once you have firmly embraced the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”

    According to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints once one has become truly regenerate, he will never apostatize. Once he has embraced the gospel he will never let go of it. There is no “ifs” about the matter. However, Paul’s statement fits perfectly well with the doctrine of conditional preservation of the saints, which states that there must be a condition for one to be saved and that is the condition that Paul put:

    if you hold firmly to the word.

    These verses point to the apostasy and since apostasy is at least possible, then how could one be 100% sure that he wouldn’t apostatize in the future? Obviously, Calvinists would try to engage with these verses so we will allow the Christians to have their own “in house” debates on the side and they could try to settle the issue amongst themselves.

    Uncertainty is a motivational factor to make you word harder in being a better person. Imagine you join a university and you are absolutely guaranteed that you would pass all your subjects no matter what you do. It would make no difference whatsoever if you study or not, you are still guaranteed your degree. If that is the case, would any students study just for the sake of studying? Not too many we suppose.

    If someone claims certainty that he will go to heaven then this could lead to some problems. For example if you are absolutely certain that you are going to paradise why should you fear God? The New Testament states:

    1 Peter 2:17

    Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

    Why should we fear God if we know for a fact that we are going to paradise? Why should we fear God anyways? Well the Bible states:

    Exodus 20:20

    Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”

    So here we see that the reason why we should fear God is so that it could be a motivation for us to stop sinning. Well why should we stop sinning? Well it’s to avoid God’s wrath. But if the Christian already avoids God’s wrath by believing in and accepting what Jesus supposedly did on the cross then the Christian doesn’t have to worry about God’s wrath anymore. And if he doesn’t have to worry about God’s wrath anymore because he is certain that he is going to paradise then why fear God as the New Testament instructs him to do?

    As for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) supposedly not being assured of his salvation, this has already been addressed over here

  127. Paul Williams says:

    Was Prophet Muhammad Uncertain of His Own Salvation?

    By

    Bassam Zawadi

    Christian missionaries argue that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not certain about his own salvation according to Islamic sources. They put forth one Qur’anic verse and one hadith as proof for this. They are:

    Surah 46:9

    Say: “I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, nor do i know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear.” S. 46:9

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volume 5, Book 58, Number 266:

    Narrated ‘Um al-’Ala:

    An Ansari woman who gave the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet that the Ansar drew lots concerning the dwelling of the Emigrants. ‘Uthman bin Maz’un was decided to dwell with them (i.e. Um al-’Ala’s family), ‘Uthman fell ill and I nursed him till he died, and we covered him with his clothes. Then the Prophet came to us and I (addressing the dead body) said, “O Abu As-Sa’ib, may Allah’s Mercy be on you! I bear witness that Allah has honored you.” On that the Prophet said, “How do you know that Allah has honored him?” I replied, “I do not know. May my father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Allah’s Apostle! But who else is worthy of it (if not ‘Uthman)?” He said, “As to him, by Allah, death has overtaken him, and I hope the best for him. By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me,” By Allah, I will never assert the piety of anyone after him. That made me sad, and when I slept I saw in a dream a flowing stream for ‘Uthman bin Maz’un. I went to Allah’s Apostle and told him of it. He remarked, “That symbolizes his (good) deeds.”

    There are two solutions to this allegedly apparent problem.

    The first possible solution is that the Qur’anic verse and statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him) came before the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew that he was going to paradise.

    Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani states:

    ولفظه ” فوالله ما أدري وأنا رسول الله ما يفعل بي ولا بكم ” وإنما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ذلك موافقة
    لقوله تعالى في سورة الأحقاف ( قل ما كنت بدعا من الرسل , وما أدري ما يفعل بي ولا بكم ) وكان ذلك قبل نزول قوله تعالى ( ليغفر لك الله ما تقدم من ذنبك وما تأخر ) لأن الأحقاف مكية , وسورة الفتح مدنية بلا خلاف فيهما , وقد ثبت أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ” أنا أول من يدخل الجنة ” وغير ذلك من الأخبار الصريحة في معناه , فيحتمل أن يحمل الإثبات في ذلك على العلم المجمل , والنفي على الإحاطة من حيث التفصيل .

    As for his expression “By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me”, the Prophet (peace be upon him) uttered this in accordance with Allah’s statement in Surah Al Ahqaaf “Say: “I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, nor do i know what will be done with me or with you”. This was before the revealing of the verse by Allah All Mighty “That Allah may forgive you your sins of the past and the future” (Surah 48:2) because Al Ahqaaf is a Makkan Surah, while Surah Al Fatah is a Madinan Surah and there is no contradiction between the two of them. And it has been established that he (peace be upon him) said “I am the first who will enter paradise” and there other reports which convey this meaning as well. So it is possible to sustain this (i.e. the fact that the Prophet doesn’t know) on knowledge in a general sense, but negating the inclusiveness of the particulars. (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Janaaiz, Bab: Al Dukhool ‘Ala Al Mayyit Ba’d Al Mawt izhaa Adraja fi Akfaanihi, Commentary on Hadith no. 1166, Source)

    Imam Tabari in his commentary quotes Qatadah saying:

    وَمَا أَدْرِي مَا يُفْعَل بِي وَلَا بِكُمْ } ثُمَّ دَرَى أَوْ عَلِمَ مِنْ اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَعْد ذَلِكَ مَا يُفْعَل بِهِ , يَقُول { إِنَّا فَتَحْنَا لَك فَتْحًا مُبِينًا لِيَغْفِر لَك اللَّه مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبك وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ }

    “Nor do I know what will be done with me or with you”, then he (peace be upon him) knew from Allah after that what he would do with him, for Allah said “Verily, We have given you (O Muhammad SAW) a manifest victory. That Allah may forgive you your sins of the past and the future” (Surah 48:1-2) (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-bayan fi ta’wil al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 46:9, Source)

    So we see that the first possible solution is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) expressed his ignorance of what will happen to him in the next life before he received revelation from Allah that stated that he would be going to paradise.

    The second possible solution is that the Qur’anic verse and hadith are not even speaking about the next life, but this life.

    Tafsir Al Jalalayn states:

    Say: ‘I am not a novelty, unprecedented, among the messengers, that is to say, [I am not] the first to be sent [by God as His Messenger]. Already many of them have come before me, so how can you deny me? Nor do I know what will be done with me or with you, in this world: will I be made to leave my [native] land, or will I be slain as was done with [some] prophets before me, or will you stone me to death, or will the earth be made to swallow you as [it did] deniers before you? I only follow what is revealed to me, that is, the Qur’ān, and I do not invent anything myself. And I am only a plain warner’, one whose warning is plain. (Tafsir Al Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 46:9, Source)

    Imam Qurtubi quotes Abu Ja’far saying:

    لَا يَدْرِي صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَا يَلْحَقهُ وَإِيَّاهُمْ مِنْ مَرَض وَصِحَّة وَرُخْص وَغَلَاء وَغِنًى وَفَقْر

    He (peace be upon him) doesn’t know what would follow for him and them from sickness, health, authority, cheap prices, high prices, wealth and poverty. (Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tasfir al Jami’ li-ahkam al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 46:9, Source)

    Ibn Kathir quotes Al Hassan Al Basri explaining the statement “Nor do I know what will be done with me or with you”:

    أَمَّا فِي الْآخِرَة فَمَعَاذَ اللَّه وَقَدْ عَلِمَ أَنَّهُ فِي الْجَنَّة وَلَكِنْ قَالَ لَا أَدْرِي مَا يُفْعَل بِي وَلَا بِكُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا أُخْرَجُ كَمَا أُخْرِجَتْ الْأَنْبِيَاءُ عَلَيْهِمْ الصَّلَاة وَالسَّلَام مِنْ قَبْلِي ؟ أَمْ أُقْتَلُ كَمَا قُتِلَتْ الْأَنْبِيَاء مِنْ قَبْلِي ؟

    وَهَذَا الْقَوْل هُوَ الَّذِي عَوَّلَ عَلَيْهِ اِبْن جَرِير وَأَنَّهُ لَا يَجُوز غَيْره وَلَا شَكَّ أَنَّ هَذَا هُوَ اللَّائِق بِهِ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَإِنَّهُ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إِلَى الْآخِرَة جَازِم أَنَّهُ يَصِير إِلَى الْجَنَّة هُوَ وَمَنْ اِتَّبَعَهُ . وَأَمَّا فِي الدُّنْيَا فَلَمْ يَدْرِ مَا كَانَ يَئُول إِلَيْهِ أَمْره وَأَمْر مُشْرِكِي قُرَيْش إِلَى مَاذَا ؟ أَيُؤْمِنُونَ أَمْ يَكْفُرُونَ فَيُعَذَّبُونَ فَيُسْتَأْصَلُونَ بِكُفْرِهِمْ

    As for the Hereafter, I seek refuge in Allah and he (i.e. the Prophet) knew that he was going to paradise, but he said “I don’t know what He (i.e. Allah) will do to me and to you in this life. Will I be kicked out just as the Prophets (may Allah bestow His peace and blessings upon them) before me were kicked out? Or would I be killed just as the Prophets before me were killed?”

    And this is the opinion that Ibn Jareer (i.e. Tabari) took and insisted that there should not be another opinion in this matter; for there is no doubt that this is the suitable explanation that suits the Prophet (peace be upon him). This is because in regards to the Hereafter it is certain that he (i.e. the Prophet) will go to paradise along with those who followed him. And in regards to this life, he didn’t know what was going to happen to him or the polytheists of Quraysh. Were they going to believe, or disbelieve and be punished and extirpated for their disbelief? (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 46:9, Source)

    So we see that the second possible solution is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not speaking about how he is ignorant of what is going to happen to him in the Hereafter, but in this life.

    I personally favor the first solution. This is because it appears to me that the context of the hadeeth in Saheeh Bukhari makes it appear that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is speaking about how he doesn’t know what will happen to him in the Hereafter. This of course is not necessarily true, but in my opinion it seems more likely. Thus, even though I believe that the second solution is still plausible, I will nevertheless personally opt for the first solution.

    Either way we look at it, there is a solution and that is all that matters.

  128. Sam Shamoun says:

    Seeing just how much into scholarship Williams claims to be, I would have expected him to do better than cite an internet dawagandist who has been caught in lies and distortions of facts. Here are the answers to Zawadi’s feeble attempt of proving that Muhammad was saved:

    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/muhammad_salvation.html
    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/praying_for_mo.html
    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/abu_bakr_fear.html
    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/mo_saved.html
    http://answering-islam.org/authors/katz/rebuttals/zawadi/may_certainly.html
    http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/compromise_doubt.htm
    http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_s10_94.htm
    http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_q10_94.htm
    http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_mhd_doubter.htm

    These articles and rebuttals prove what a truly sad religion Islam happens to be since the very founder didn’t know if he was going to go to heaven or hell, and is the only figure whose followers are constantly praying for his peace and salvation even though the man has been dead for 15 centuries!

    What makes the all the more laughable is that Williams appealed to the hadiths to prove Muhammad is saved, but conveniently failed to quote a single Quranic text which conclusively proves that Muhammad was saved!

    In fact, the evidence shows that Allah actually damned him to hell for being a forger and liar! Read and view the following for the proof:

    http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/10/who-killed-muhammad.html
    http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/killed.html

    So much for Williams pathetic attempt of trying to prove that the very founder of his own religion was granted salvation!

    What a truly sad and pathetic religion indeed.

  129. Icedoutplaya says:

    Whats wrong with muslims going to the hadith sam the happy meal muncher? Since you want a Quranic text surah 108 promises Muhammad pbuh a river in paradise called Al kauthar but now i want you to tell us whether jesus knew he was going to heaven. According to isaiah 11 the messiah shall FEAR The LORD, this is mentioned twice in the same text so god is emphasising this point. Now my question is simple you fat boy if jesus knew he was going to heaven why does he need to fear god. It just doesnt make sense if you know that your going to heaven 100% than why would you fear god. So come here and give us the answer. Ps zawadi trashed your silly garbage articles.

  130. Paul Williams says:

    Sam its just not cricket to give eleven (!!) links to articles on otHer sites. This is characteristic of your methodology to spam answers like tHis. I invite you to actually deal with this issues HERE on this thread!

  131. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, stop whining about links when you are infamous for linking to garbage like Zawadi’s trash. The reason why I posted all those links is because men of honest and integrity won’t whine but actually take the time to read our thorough refutations to the garbage which Muslim taqiyyists are infamous for. However, I will post the article where Muhammad died the death of an accursed wretched reprobate according to your own false book AND CHALLENGE YOU TO REFUTE IT. Let’s see if you must up some courage this time and actually come to the defense of your accursed prophet.

  132. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams’, here goes:

    How Allah killed his prophet: From Inspiration to Expiration

    Abstract

    Muhammad fails the prophetic criteria of the Holy Bible (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) showing that, from a biblical perspective, the Allah of the Quran is not God, the Quran is not God’s Word, and Muhammad is not God’s prophet. Moreover, as astonishing as this may sound, Muhammad fails his own test, his own criteria of prophethood, and actually came under the very condemnation he warned of in the case of anyone who would want to tamper with God’s Word and/or concoct words in the name of God. This means that not only was Muhammad not a legitimate messenger of the true God according to the Holy Bible but that by his own standard which he set up in the Quran he was a person whom his own god rejected and condemned.

    The aim of this present article is to document in what way Muhammad violated his own criteria and how he suffered the consequences as a result of it.

    The Evidence

    The Quran warned Muhammad not to change the so-called revelation or invent sayings since Allah would punish him:

    And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us say, ‘Bring a Koran other than this, or alter it.’ Say: ‘It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.’ S. 10:15 Arberry

    it is the speech of a noble Messenger. It is not the speech of a poet (little do you believe) nor the speech of a soothsayer (little do you remember). A sending down from the Lord of all Being. Had he invented against Us any sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would surely have cut his life-vein. S. 69:40-46 Arberry

    Consider how harsh these warnings are… Allah threatens to kill Muhammad if he dared to concoct statements in his deity’s name or change the inspiration which supposedly came to him.

    These threats become all the more intriguing in light of the fact that, according to Muslim sources, Muhammad did change the message of the Quran due to the suggestions of one of his scribes who then apostatized as a result of it! In fact, according to Muslim sources, the following text:

    Who is more wicked than the man who invents a falsehood about God, or says: “This was revealed to me”, when nothing was revealed to him? Or the man who says, “I can reveal the like of what God has revealed”? S. 6:93 N.J. Dawood

    Was “revealed” in reference to this event:

    (Who is guilty) who is more tyrannical and more daring (of more wrong than he who forgeth a lie against Allah, or saith) Allah did not reveal anything, this is Malik Ibn al-Sayf, or him who says: (I am inspired) with a Scripture, (when he is not inspired in aught) with any Scripture, this is Musaylimah, the liar; (and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed) I will say the like of what Muhammad (pbuh) is saying: this is ‘Abdullah Ibn Sa’d Ibn Abi Sarh. (If thou couldst see) O Muhammad, (when the wrong-doers) the idolaters and the hypocrites, on the Day of Badr (reach the pangs of death and the angels stretch their hands out) to take out their souls, (saying: Deliver up your souls) your spirits. (This day) the Day of Badr, as it is said it is the Day of Judgement (ye are awarded doom of degradation) a severe doom (for that ye spake concerning Allah other than the Truth, and scorned) you thought yourselves too great to believe in Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qur’an, (His portents) Muhammad (pbuh) and the Qur’an. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; bold, italic and underline emphasis ours)

    This same commentary asserts that Q. 16:106:

    Whoever disbelieved in Allah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a great torment. Hilali-Khan

    Also refers to Ibn Abi Sarh’s apostasy:

    (Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief) in Him, deserves Allah’s wrath (save him who is forced thereto) except the person who is coerced into disbelief (and whose heart is still content with Faith). This verse was revealed about ‘Ammar Ibn Yasir (but whoso findeth ease in disbelief) whosoever utters words of disbelief willingly: (On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom) the most awful torment in this worldly life. This verse was revealed about ‘Abdullah Ibn Sa’d Ibn Abi Sarh. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; bold emphasis ours)

    Other exegetes who concur with the foregoing tafsir regarding Abi Sarh being the one spoken of in Q. 6:93 include the following:

    (Who is guilty of more wrong than he who forgeth a lie against Allah, or saith: I am inspired…) [6:93]. This was revealed about the liar, Musaylimah al-Hanafi. This man was a soothsayer who composed rhymed speech and claimed prophethood. He claimed that he was inspired by Allah. (… and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed?) [6:93]. This verse was revealed about ‘Abd Allah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. This man had declared his faith in Islam and so the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, called him one day to write something for him. When the verses regarding the believers were revealed (Verily, We created man from a product of wet earth…) [23:12-14], the Prophet dictated them to him. When he reached up to (and then produced it as another creation), ‘Abd Allah expressed his amazement at the precision of man’s creation by saying (So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!). The Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: “This [‘Abd Allah’s last expression] is how it was revealed to me”. At that point, doubt crept into ‘Abd Allah. He said: “If Muhammad is truthful, then I was inspired just as he was; and if he is lying, I have uttered exactly what he did utter”. Hence Allah’s words (and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed). The man renounced Islam. This is also the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas according to the report of al-Kalbi. ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Abdan informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Nu‘aym> Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub al-Umawi> Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Jabbar> Yunus ibn Bukayr> Muhammad ibn Ishaq> Shurahbil ibn Sa‘d who said: “This verse was revealed about ‘Abd Allah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. The latter said: ‘I will reveal the like of that which Allah has revealed’, and renounced Islam. When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, entered Mecca, this man fled to ‘Uthman [ibn ‘Affan] who was his milk brother. ‘Uthman hid him until the people of Mecca felt safe. He then took him to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, and secured an amnesty for him”. (‘Ali ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul)

    The commentator Al-Qurtubi said,

    The pronoun “man” is grammatically in the jarr case. The meaning is who is more wicked than he who said I can reveal; the person addressed here is ‘Abdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh who used to write the revelation for the Prophet of God, later on he apostatized and joined the pagans. The reason given by the commentators is that when the verse 23:12 {We created man of an extraction of clay} was revealed, the Prophet called him and dictated it to him and when the Prophet reached the end of 23:14 {… thereafter We produced him as another creature} ‘Abdullâh said in amazement {So blessed be God the fairest of creators!}. The Prophet said: (and thus it was revealed to me) which made ‘Abdullâh doubt and say: “If Muhammad is truthful then I received the revelation and if he lied I say of the like of his speech.” So he apostatized and joined the pagans and this is concerning the segment {Or the man who says, “I can reveal the like of what God has revealed”}, narrated by Al-Kolaby from Ibn ‘Abbâs. It was also narrated by Muhammad Ibn Ishâq who said Sharahbîl said: {Or the man who says, “I can reveal the like of what God has revealed”} was revealed concerning ‘Abdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh who apostatized. When the Prophet entered Mecca he ordered him and ‘Abdullâh Ibn Khatal and Miqyas Ibn Sabaabah to be executed even if they were under the curtains of the Ka’bah. So, ‘Abdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh fled to ‘Uthmân, his foster brother – his mother suckled ‘Uthmân. The latter hid him until he brought him to the Prophet after the inhabitants of Mecca became secure and he sought immunity for ‘Abdullâh. The Prophet remained silent for a long time and then said: (Yes). When ‘Uthmân left, the Prophet said (I said nothing so that one of you executed him). A man among the Ansâr said: “Then why didn’t you give me a sign, O Prophet of God?” He answered: (the treachery of the eyes does not befit a Prophet.) Abu Omar said: “And ‘Abdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh converted back to Islam during the conquest of Mecca and his Islam was fine, and later, his behavior was beyond reproach. He was among the wise and the noble from Quraysh, and was the knight of Bani ‘Aamir Ibn Lu’ayy and was respected among them. Later, ‘Uthmân named him to govern Egypt in the year 25 H. He conquered Africa in the year 27 H and conquered Nuba in the year 31 H and he was the one who signed with the Nubians the armistice that is still valid today. He defeated the Romans in the battle of as-Sawâry in the year 34 H. When he returned from his advent, he was prevented from entering al-Fustât [the capital of Egypt], so he went to ‘Asqalân where he lived until the murder of ‘Uthmân. It was also said: He lived in Ramlah until he died away from the turmoil. And he prayed Allah saying: “O Allah! make the prayer of Subh the last of my deeds. So he performed Wudu’ and prayed; he read Surat al-Fâtihah and al-’Aadiyaat in the first rak’ah and read al-Fâtihah and another surah in the second rak’ah and made salâm on his right and died before he made salâm on the left side. All this report was conveyed by Yazîd Ibn Abî Habîb and others. He didn’t pledge allegiance to ‘Alî nor to Mu’âwiyah. His death was before the people agreed on Mu’âwiyah. It was also said that he died in Africa, but the correct is that he died in ‘Asqalân in the year 36 H or 37 H and it was rather said 36 H…

    Another famous Tafsir states:

    “‘To me it has been revealed, when naught has been revealed to him’ refers to ‘Abdallah Ibn Sa’d Ibn Abi Sarh, who used to write for God’s messenger. The verse (23:12) that says, ‘We created man of an extraction of clay’ was revealed, and when Muhammad reached the part that says, ‘… thereafter We produced him as another creature’ (23:14), ‘Abdallah said, ‘So blessed be God the fairest of creators!’ in amazement at the details of man’s creation. The prophet said, ‘Write it down; for thus it has been revealed.’ ‘Abdallah doubted and said, ‘If Muhammad is truthful then I receive the revelation as much as he does, and if he is a liar, what I said is a good as what he said.’” (Anwar al-Tanzil wa Asrar al-Ta‘wil by ‘Abdallah Ibn ‘Umar al-Baidawi; bold emphasis ours)

    Ibn al-Athîr said regarding Ibn Abi Sarh that:

    He converted to Islam before the conquest of Mecca and immigrated to the Prophet [i.e. in Medina]. He used to record the revelation for the Prophet before he apostatized and went back to Mecca. Then he told Quraysh: ‘I used to orient Muhammad wherever I willed, he dictated to me “All-Powerful All-Wise” and I suggest “All Knowing All-Wise” so he would say: “Yes, it is all the same.” (Usûd Ulghâbah fî Ma’rifat Is-Sahâbah, [Dâr al-Fikr, Beirut (Lebanon), 1995], Volume 3, p. 154; bold emphasis ours)

    We read in Alfiyyat us-Sîrat in-Nabawiyyah by al-Hâfidh al-‘Iraqî that:

    The scribes of Muhammad were 42 in number. `Abdallah Ibn Sarh al-`Amiri was one of them, and he was the first Quraishite among those who wrote in Mecca before he turned away from Islam. He started saying, “I used to direct Muhammad wherever I willed. He would dictate to me ‘Most High, All-Wise’, and I would write down ‘All-Wise’ only. Then he would say, ‘Yes it is all the same’. On a certain occasion he said, ‘Write such and such’, but I wrote ‘Write’ only, and he said, ‘Write whatever you like.’” So when this scribe exposed Muhammad, he wrote in the Qur’an, “And who does greater evil than he who forges against God a lie, or says, ‘To me it has been revealed’, when naught has been revealed to him.” So on the day Muhammad conquered Mecca, he commanded his scribe to be killed. But the scribe fled to `Uthman Ibn `Affan, because `Uthman was his foster brother (his mother suckled `Uthman). `Uthman, therefore, kept him away from Muhammad. After the people calmed down, `Uthman brought the scribe to Muhammad and sought protection for him. Muhammad kept silent for a long time, after which he said yes. When `Uthman had left, Muhammad said “I only kept silent so that you (the people) should kill him.”

    The biography of Ibn Abi Sarh, titled Al-Isaabah fi Tamyeez Al-Sahabah (Volume 4, p. 109, kaf = 0, ba’ = 0, ha’ = 4714) states:

    Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh bin Al-Harith Abu Yahya Al-Qurashi Al-Amiri

    4714 —- Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Al-Sarh bin Al-Harith bin Habeeb Bilmuhmlah Musghira bin Huthafah bin Malik bin Hasl bin Amir bin Lu’ai Al-Qurashi Al-Amiri, and some inserted [into his genealogy] Huthafa and Malik Nasra. The first one is more famous and his Kunyah is Aba Yahya. He [Abdullah] was Othman’s [the fourth Caliph] brother by nursing (rida’ah), and his mother was Ash’ariyyah (Al-Zubayr bin Bikar said that). Ibn Sa’d said that her mother is Muhabah bint Jaber. Ibn Habban said that his father was one of Quraysh’s hypocrite infidels – that’s what he said and I haven’t seen any other [view]. Al-Hakim narrated from al-Suday, by Mus’ab bin Sa’d by his father, “When it was the day of the conquering (fath) of Mecca, the Prophet gave safety to all its people except for four men and two women; Ikrimah, Ibn Khatl, Maqees bin Subabah, and Ibn Abi Al-Sarh.” He went on with the Hadeeth and said, “As for Abdullah, he hid with Othman, so he [Othman] came to the Prophet with him, while he [Mohammad] was making vows of allegiance (bay’ah) with the people. So Othman said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, make a vow of allegiance (bay’ah) with Abdullah.’ And so he did after three attempts. Then he [Mohammad] went to his companions and said, ‘Isn’t there any honorable man among you who would stand and kill him [Abdullah] when he saw me refusing to make the vow with him?’” And from Yazeed Al-Nahwi by Ikrimah by Ibn Abbas who said, “Abdullah bin Sa’d used to write for the Prophet, so Satan made him err and he followed the infidels. The Prophet ordered his death (meaning of the day of Conquering Mecca), but Othman intervened and asked for his safety, so the Prophet kept him safe [didn't kill him].” (Taken from the Encyclopedia of the Prophet’s Hadeeth Mawsoo’at Al-Hadeeth Al-Nabawi – Al-Areesh Company for Computers “Sharikat Al-Areesh lil-computer” – Beirut – 1998; bold and underline emphasis ours)

    One modern Shia commentary admits:

    This verse was revealed to condemn the half brother of Uthman, Abdullah bin abi Sarah (and men like him). He was a Jew but joined the group of pagans after renouncing his faith. After becoming Muslim he was sometimes asked to write down the revealed verses but he used to change the words of the revealed verses while writing them, and then claimed that whatever he had composed should have also been accepted as revelation. (Pooya/Commentary; bold emphasis ours)

    The late Iranian Islamic scholar Ali Dashti, in his masterful examination of Muhammad’s prophetic career, wrote:

    When Mecca was conquered, a general amnesty was proclaimed, but certain exceptions were made. The Prophet gave orders for the killing of six persons wherever they might be found, even in the sanctuary of the Ka‘ba. They were Safwan b. Omayya, ‘Abdollah b. ol-Khatal, Meqyas b. Sobaba, ‘Ekrema b. Abi Jahl, ol-Howayreth b. Noqaydh b. Wahb, and ‘Abdollah b. Sa‘d b. Abi Sarh.

    The last named had for some time been one of the scribes employed at Madina to write down the revelations. On a number of occasions he had, with the Prophet’s consent, changed the closing words of verses. For example, when the Prophet had said “And God is mighty and wise” (‘aziz, hakim), ‘Abdollah b. Abi Sarh suggested writing down “knowing and wise” (‘alim, hakim), and the Prophet answered that there was no objection. Having observed a succession of changes of this type, ‘Abdollah renounced Islam on the ground that the revelations, if from God, could not be changed at the prompting of a scribe such as himself. After his apostasy he went to Mecca and joined the Qorayshites…

    ‘Abdollah b. Abi Sarh was a foster-brother of ‘Othman. He took refuge with ‘Othman, who kept him hidden for several days until the commotion subsided, and then brought him to the Prophet and requested pardon for him. After a long silence, the Prophet said, “Yes”, meaning that he reluctantly accepted ‘Othman’s intercession. Thereupon ‘Abdollah b. Abi Sarh professed Islam again and ‘Othman and he departed. The Prophet, when asked the reason for the long silence, replied, “His Islam was not voluntary but from fear, so I was reluctant to accept it. I was expecting one of you to stand up and behead him.” (This was because it had been proclaimed that his blood might be lawfully shed in any place where he might be found, “even if clinging to the covering of the K‘aba”). One of the Ansar asked the Prophet why he had not winked, and received the answer that “God’s Apostle cannot have false eyes”, meaning that he could not falsely pretend silence while giving a sign with the eyes to kill… (Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad, translated from the Persian by F.R.C. Bagley [Mazda Publishers, Costa Mesa, CA 1994], pp. 98-99; bold emphasis ours)

    Finally, the hadith compiler Abi Dawud provides implicit corroboration for this story’s veracity since he narrates the following:

    Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
    Abdullah ibn AbuSarh used to write (the revelation) for the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). Satan made him slip, and he joined the infidels. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) commanded to kill him on the day of Conquest (of Mecca). Uthman ibn Affan sought protection for him. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) gave him protection. Book 38, Number 4345)

    More in the next part.

  133. Sam Shamoun says:

    2nd part of my reply:

    Ibn Abi Sarh wasn’t the only scribe who defected as a result of influencing Muhammad to change the Quran; a Christian did as well:

    Narrated Anas:
    There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: “Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him.” Then Allah caused him to die, and the people buried him, but in the morning they saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, “This is the act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and took his body out of it because he had run away from them.” They again dug the grave deeply for him, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, “This is an act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and threw his body outside it, for he had run away from them.” They dug the grave for him as deep as they could, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. So they believed that what had befallen him was not done by human beings and had to leave him thrown (on the ground). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814)

    Putting aside the obvious legendary embellishments, it is rather evident from the above narration that there was a growing problem of people claiming to have influenced Muhammad in composing the Quran which the Muslims had to address and explain away. The Quran itself refers to this problem:

    And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: “It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad SAW).” The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur’an) is a clear Arabic tongue. S. 16:103 Hilali-Khan

    Those who disbelieve say: “This (the Qur’an) is nothing but a lie that he (Muhammad SAW) has invented, and others have helped him at it, so that they have produced an unjust wrong (thing) and a lie.” And they say: “Tales of the ancients, which he has written down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.” Say: “It (this Qur’an) has been sent down by Him (Allah) (the Real Lord of the heavens and earth) Who knows the secret of the heavens and the earth. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” S. 25:4-6

    In light of the foregoing, we must ask the following questions: If these were in fact God’s words how could Muhammad even allow an uninspired scribe to change them? How could Muhammad replace divinely revealed statements with the words of a fallible human being?

    At the beginning of this paper we referred to a warning of the Quran against changing any of its contents:

    And when Our clear revelations are recited unto them, they who look not for the meeting with Us say: Bring a Lecture other than this, or change it. Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it of my accord. I only follow that which is inspired in me. Lo! if I disobey my Lord I fear the retribution of an awful Day. S. 10:15 Pickthall

    That it is indeed the speech of an illustrious messenger. It is not poet’s speech – little is it that ye believe! Nor diviner’s speech – little is it that ye remember! It is a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds. And if he had invented false sayings concerning Us, We assuredly had taken him by the right hand And then severed his life-artery, S. 69:40-46 Pickthall

    Then we reviewed the reports about Abdullah ibn Sa’d Abi Sarh suggesting changes to certain formulations in the Quran and Muhammad approving his suggestions.

    The punishment announced in these verses is quite specific. Having seen that Muhammad clearly violated the command against meddling with the alleged divine revelation, it is even more amazing to see the manner in which Muhammad expired. According to Muslim tradition Muhammad died a very painful death due to the effects of poison, effects that he claimed cut at his jugular vein:

    The messenger of God said during the illness from which he died – the mother of Bishr had come in to visit him – “Umm Bishr, at this very moment I feel my aorta being severed because of the food I ate with your son at Khaybar.” (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York (SUNY), Albany 1997] Volume VIII, p. 124)

    In a footnote the translator of al-Tabari writes that the expression, “it severed his aorta” need not be taken literally since it can be an expression denoting extreme pain. Other sources corroborate that Muhammad ‘s painful death was due to the poison he had ingested years before his demise:

    Anas reported that a Jewess came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) with poisoned mutton and he took of that what had been brought to him (Allah’s Messenger). (When the effect of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it. He (the narrator) said that they (the Companion’s of the Holy Prophet) said: Should we not kill her? Thereupon he said: No. He (Anas) said: I felt (the affects of this poison) on the uvula of Allah’s Messenger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 026, Number 5430)

    … The apostle of Allah lived after this three years till in consequence of his pain he passed away. During his illness he used to say, “I did not cease to find the effect of the (poisoned) morsel, I took at Khaibar and I suffered several times (from its effect) but now I feel the hour has come of the cutting of my jugular vein.” (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab Al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Volume II, pp. 251-252)

    Narrated Ibn Abbas:

    ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so ‘AbdurRahman bin ‘Auf said to ‘Umar, “We have sons similar to him.” ‘Umar replied, “(I respect him) because of his status that you know.” ‘Umar then asked Ibn ‘Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse:– “When comes the help of Allah and the conquest of Mecca…” (110.1)

    Ibn ‘Abbas replied, “That indicated the death of Allah’s Apostle which Allah informed him of.” ‘Umar said, “I do not understand of it except what you understand.” Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713)

    Compare the foregoing statements with the following Quranic citation:

    We indeed created man; and We know what his soul whispers within him, and We are nearer to him than the jugular vein. When the two angels meet together, sitting one on the right, and one on the left, not a word he utters, but by him is an observer ready. And death’s agony comes in truth; that is what thou wast shunning! S. 50:16-19 Arberry

    Allah warns those who disbelieve that he is nearer to them than their jugular vein, an obvious threat that he has the power to kill them, and further threatens that they would experience an agonizing death.

    The fact that Islamic narrations state that Muhammad died a severe death, describing his death in language that is reminiscent of Q. 69:45-46 and 50:16-19, supports the position that he was being punished for some heinous sin.

    Moreover, when we tie this in with the story of Ibn Abi Sarh it makes it difficult not to conclude that Allah was punishing his prophet for changing the Quran at the suggestions of an uninspired scribe.

    For more details on the death of Muhammad, see Silas’ article, The Death of Muhammad.

    More in the next part.

  134. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is the 3rd part of my reply.

    Is This Story Based on Fact?

    Some Muslims have taken to deny the veracity of this story (obviously due to its rather embarrassing nature and the damage it does to Muhammad’s credibility) on the grounds that it is based on questionable chains of transmission and/or sources.

    This oft-repeated Muslim rebuttal fails to explain why Muslim historians, scholars, expositors etc., would include this report when it does great damage to Muhammad’s credibility. In fact, 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 adapt them from non-Muslims. After all, if the enemies of Islam created these reports to discredit Muhammad why would respectable Muslims such as al-Tabari and al-Qurtubi include them? Why didn’t they simply omit such details especially when they make Muhammad look so bad?

    Moreover, one argument that Muslims often use to demonstrate the veracity of the Quran is to single out passages rebuking Muhammad for some mistakes or sins he committed (cf. Q. 9:43; 40:55; 47:19; 8:1-2; 80:1-10). Muslims see in these texts evidence that Muhammad couldn’t have authored the Quran since he wouldn’t rebuke himself if he did.

    Yet this same logic would equally apply to the story of Ibn Abi Sarh changing the revelations with Muhammad’s approval, since it is highly unlikely that god-fearing Muslims would concoct such a story. Thus, the embarrassing nature of this narration provides strong corroboration for its historical veracity, especially when we recall that Muslim historians and scholars had the tendency to omit such negative portrayals of their prophet.

    Another Islamic site offers an answer as to why Muslims would circulate and retain such a story, even if it were deemed fraudulent:

    Many of the early writers were concerned by the compilation only. Fearing that the material available could be lost, they collected whatever reports they could find without authenticating them. They left the authentication process to the following generations… (Source)

    This response fails to take into consideration that the Muslim expositors and exegetes didn’t merely narrate the story of Ibn Abi Sarh as part of a body of material which needed to be carefully examined for authenticity; rather some of them expressly stated that the report of Ibn Abi Sarh changing the texts of the Quran is actually a sound report, and believed that Q. 6:93 does in fact refer to this specific event. For instance, here is what the renowned Sunni exegete and historian al-Tabari said was the position of the scholars regarding Ibn Abi Sarh tampering with the Quran:

    The One whose name is Exalted (Allah) means in his saying “Who doth more wrong than such as invent a falsehood against Allah” and “Who doth more wrong and who is more ignorant than such as invent a falsehood against Allah” referring to those who invent falsehood against Allah and claim to be a Prophet and a Warner, and he [the person who claims] is false in his claims, and lying in his sayings. In this, God is ridiculing the Pagan Arabs, and (ridiculing) the opposing of Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Al-Sarh and the Hanafite Musaylamah to the Prophet of Allah. For one of them claimed prophethood and the other claimed that he came up with something similar to what the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came with [the Quran], and at the same time denying the lying and false claims against his Prophet Mohammad.

    The people of the interpretations (scholars) had different opinions about that; some of them said what we said [agreed with us]. Among those are:

    Al-Qasim told us: Al-Hussein narrated: Al-Hajjaj narrated: by Ibn Jurayh, by Ikrimah:

    His saying [Allah's saying in the Quran], “Who doth more wrong than such as invent a falsehood against Allah, or said: ‘I have received inspiration,’ when he hath received none”. He [Ikrimah] said: This verse was revealed about Musaylamah the brother of Bani (children of) Uday bin Haneefah, for he [Musaylamah] was reciting poetry and prophesying. And “I can reveal like what Allah hath revealed” was revealed about Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Al-Sarh, the brother of Bani (children of) Amir bin Lu’ai. He [Abdullah] used to write for the Prophet (SAW), and while he [Mohammad] was dictating “Exalted in power, full of Wisdom”, he [Abdullah] would write it “Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful”, thus changing it. Then he [Abdullah] would read the changed verses to him [Mohammad], and he [Mohammad] would say, “Yes [in approval], it’s the same [meaning].” So he [Abdullah] reverted from Islam and followed Quraysh telling them, “He [Mohammad] used to recite to me ‘Exalted in power, full of Wisdom’, and I would change it when I write it down, and he would tell me, ‘Yes [in approval], it’s the same [meaning].” But then he [Abdullah] came back to Islam before the conquering (fath) of Mecca, while the Prophet was at Mur [a place in Arabia - on his way to Mecca].

    And some said: This verse was indeed revealed about Abdullah bin Sa’d in particular. Among those are:

    Mohammad bin Al-Hussein spoke to me, he said: Ahmad bin Al-Mufdil narrated: Asbat narrated from Al-Sudy: “Who doth more wrong than such as invent a falsehood against Allah, or said: “I have received inspiration,’ when he hath received none…” until his [Allah] saying, “ye receive your reward, a penalty of shame”. He [Al-Sudy] said: This verse was revealed about Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Al-Sarh, he embraced Islam, and used to write [Quran revelations] for the Prophet (SAW). So when the Prophet dictated him: “Who heareth and knoweth all things”, he’d write it: “All-Knowing, All-Wise”. So he doubted and reverted. Then he said, “If Mohammad gets inspiration, then I get inspiration too, and if Allah sent him his revelation then I was sent the same thing. For when Mohammad said, ‘Who heareth and knoweth all things,’ I’d say, ‘All-Knowing, All-Wise.’” So he followed the Pagans, and he blew the cover of Ammar and Jubar [secret Muslims] to Ibn Al-Hudrumi or to Bani Abd Al-Dar, so they took them and tortured them until they reverted. Ammar’s ear was cut off that day, so he [Ammar] went to the Prophet (SAW) and told him what had happened to him, but the Prophet (SAW) refused to handle his issue. So Allah revealed about [Abdullah] Ibn Abi Al-Sarh and his companions, “Anyone who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, – except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith – but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” Who was “under compulsion” is Ammar and his companions, and who “open their breast to Unbelief” is [Abdullah] Ibn Abi Al-Sarh… The opinion I believe which has more credibility than the others is to say: Allah said, “Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah, or said: ‘I have received inspiration,’ when he hath received none.” THERE IS NO DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SCHOLARS OF THE UMMAH (nation) THAT IBN ABI SARH WAS ONE OF THOSE WHO SAID, “I had said like [what] Mohammad [said]”, and that he reverted from Islam and followed the Pagans. There is no doubt that what he said was lies. And there is also no disagreement between all [the Scholars] that Musaylamah and Al-Ansi the Liars claimed falsehood against Allah by saying that he sent them as Prophets; for each of them had said that Allah inspired them, and they are lying in their claims. (Bold and capital emphasis ours)

    Al-Tabari emphatically claims that all the scholars of Islam concurred that Q. 6:93 refers to Ibn Abi Sarh’s assertion that he changed the words of the Quran with Muhammad’s approval. What al-Tabari’s statements presuppose is that Muslim scholars had already carefully examined the story of Ibn Abi Sarh and concluded that it was sound. Thus, Muslims themselves, not Orientalists or Christians, have affirmed the historical veracity of this event.

    The same authors propose another argument which, on the surface of it, seems to carry weight:

    According to the critic, the revelation of verse 23:12 and the amazed anticipation of cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh on the end of verse 23:14 triggered his apostasy. Many books about the cUlûm al-Qur’ân have made an accurate classification of the Chapters and verses that were revealed in Mecca (those are called Meccan verses or Chapters), and the ones revealed in Medina (those are called Medinite). According to Al-Itqân, we learn that the full Chapter 23 (i.e., Sûrat al-Mu’minûn) is Meccan. Refer to pages 17-21 where many reports confirm the revelation of Chapter 23 in Mecca with no exception of any single verse.[5] Obviously, this report quoted from al-Baidawi is a gross fabrication since cAbdullâh Ibn Sâd Ibn Abî Sarh embraced Islam after the revelation of Chapter 23. When we add to the above the fact that the full quotation from al-Baidawî was not put forward by the critic even when we asked for it, and given the fact that the reports are stated without the chains of transmission, the authentication of such a report is impossible. Moreover, a comparison to other commentaries of the Qur’ân (such as the commentaries of al-Qurtubî[6] and at-Tabarî[7]) mentioning the same report provide disrupted chains of transmission. That is why the claim of the critic based on the report of al-Baidawî looses conclusively all its value.

    The authors are basically insinuating that the story of Ibn Abi Sarh cannot be true on the grounds that he became a Muslim during the time Muhammad was at Medina, whereas the text that Ibn Abi Sarh changed, i.e. Q. 23:12-14, was composed in Mecca, long before his conversion.

    There are two fundamental problems with the above reasoning. First, citing sources which place the date of Q. 23 at a time before Ibn Abi Sarh’s conversion doesn’t resolve the issue, but merely proves that the primary source materials of Islam cannot be trusted since they are full of contradictions and mistakes.

    Secondly, and more importantly, the narrators do not say that Abdullah made changes to Q. 23:12-14 when they were first “revealed” to Muhammad. Rather, a careful reading of the sources suggests that these changes were made during the time that Ibn Abi Sarh had first heard them for himself, long after they were composed, an even more damaging position to Muhammad’s prophethood! To put it rather simply, the narratives may actually be implying that Muhammad allowed changes to be made to a text that had been recited and composed many years prior to Ibn Abi Sarh’s conversion!

    Thus, the preceding factors give us good grounds for assuming that this story of Muhammad permitting Ibn Abi Sarh to change the so-called revelations is based on actual history. The report cannot simply be explained away in terms of the (alleged) unreliability of the source documents.

    Yet if it is a genuine historical event then Muhammad turns out to be a false prophet who was punished for inventing revelations and changing the Quran. No wonder Muslims try to find any excuse to dismiss this story!

    Note: Apart from the quotes from Sunan Abu Dawud, Ali Dashti, Pooya-Ali, and the commentaries from http://www.altafsir.com, the preceding Islamic references regarding Abdullah ibn Sa’d Abi Sarh were adapted from the following articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

    With the exception of the last two, the above links provide more details regarding this subject and address the Muslim responses which call into question the veracity of this story.

    Now comes the next part of my reply.

  135. Sam Shamoun says:

    The final part of my reply:

    So was he a Prophet or Not?

    We have shown that the manner in which Muhammad died is a rather strong indication that he had come under the wrath and judgment of his own god. As we examined the Muslim sources we discovered that Muhammad permitted changes to be made to the Quran at the suggestion of his scribe, and how such changes violated the Quran’s express warning to Muhammad that if he tampered with the “revelations” he would be severely punished.

    When all of these factors are kept in mind it seems hard to escape the conclusion that Muhammad’s extremely painful death was a sign that he was being punished for making changes to the Quran.

    The reader at this point may be wondering whether the foregoing implies that Muhammad was indeed a true prophet of God, or at least started out as one, due to the fact that his punishment was in direct fulfillment of the Quran’s warnings to him. In other words, wouldn’t the fulfillment of these warnings provide attestation that the Quran is indeed God’s Word, or at least parts of it are, since they came to pass as announced?

    There are several reasons why this doesn’t follow. In the first place, as we have already mentioned Muhammad fails the biblical criteria of being God’s true prophet, criteria presupposed and accepted by the Quran itself. See above for the links.

    This by itself is sufficient to show that Muhammad wasn’t God’s prophet and that the Quran is not his word.

    Secondly, the Bible itself speaks of false prophets and messengers making accurate predictions as a means of testing God’s elect:

    “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

    Hence, just because what Muhammad may have said about the consequences of tampering with the Quran came to pass this doesn’t mean that the true God inspired him. It merely shows that God was testing true believers to see whether they would be misled by the teachings of the Quran.

    The above demonstrates that according to the Biblical standard, he is a false prophet because his message contradicts the established Word of God, and even one or two accurate predictions do not change that verdict.

    However, Muhammad is not only exposed based on the Bible, but he is judged also based on the Quran. According to Quranic criteria, the manner of Muhammad’s death is a clear sign of his deity punishing him for tampering with the Quran. This implies that, at the very least, Allah later rejected him from being his spokesperson. After all, note once again what the passages say:

    But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say: “Bring us a reading other than this, or change this,” Say: “It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day (to come).” S. 10:15 Y. Ali

    That this is verily the word of an honoured apostle; It is not the word of a poet: little it is ye believe! Nor is it the word of a soothsayer: little admonition it is ye receive. (This is) a Message sent down from the Lord of the Worlds. And if the apostle were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: S. 69:40-46 Y. Ali

    The first text warns Muhammad to fear the penalty of that great day, an obvious reference to the Day of Judgment, showing that he would be condemned not just in this life but for all eternity as well. Thus, even if a Muslim wants to use these verses as proof of the Quran’s inspiration s/he must contend with the fact that their fulfillment means that Muhammad’s death was a sign that Allah was displeased and abandoned him, and that Muhammad was no longer functioning as Allah’s messenger. It further shows that Muhammad actually ended up in hell for changing the Quran!

    This leads us to our final point. The fulfillment of the Quran’s warnings may have been God’s way of showing even to Muslims that Muhammad wasn’t his prophet. The true God may have punished Muhammad in a manner prescribed by the Quran in order to get the people’s attention that Muhammad wasn’t being punished merely for tampering with the Quran, but for claiming that the Quran itself is revelation from the God of Abraham. God’s true Word, the Holy Bible, does warn those who would dare attribute to God words not uttered by him and/or tamper with those words which were inspired by him:

    “Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.” Deuteronomy 4:2

    “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.” Deuteronomy 12:32

    “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.” Proverbs 30:5-6

    “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19

    Hence, God causing Muhammad to die in the manner prescribed by the Quran wouldn’t imply the Quran’s divine origin and veracity, but would be a supernatural sign that even by the Quranic standard Muhammad died the death of one accursed and condemned by God; yet not for changing the Quran but for perverting the teachings of the true prophets and messengers as recorded in God’s true Word, the Holy Bible.

    Lest the reader think that we are stretching things a bit, note that God even caused a false prophet named Balaam to utter true oracles and prophecies (cf. Numbers 22-24). Now this doesn’t mean that God inspired these particular Suras but that God could have permitted an evil spirit to utter these warnings which God caused to be fulfilled in order to expose Muhammad. After all, even evil spirits are used by God to accomplish his purposes! (Cf. Job 1:6-12, 2:1-6; 1 Kings 22:19-24; 1 Chronicles 21:1- cf. 2 Samuel 24:1)

    The foregoing shows that, no matter from what angle one looks at this, the conclusion comes out to be the same: Muhammad died the death of one who was displeasing to God and condemned by him.

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

  136. Sam Shamoun says:

    So Williams, now that I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt from your own religious sources that Muhammad died the death of an accursed wretch, I expect you to provide a thorough refutation to all of this since this proves that even according to your own so-called authentic sources, Muhammad is in hell and therefore is not saved. Now you do face an insurmountable problem. The only way to refute me is to throw both the Quran, the hadiths, and your renowned scholars under the bus since all the evidence I provided comes from them.

    Now good luck in trying to defend the indefensible.

    What a sad and pathetic religion indeed. ;-)

  137. Paul Williams says:

    firstly let us consider a few facts:

    Sam Shamoun: A Disgrace To Christians

    By

    Bassam Zawadi

    I am writing this brief note to simply let Muslims know that not all Christians have filthy manners like Sam Shamoun. Sam Shamoun does not exhibit the character of a true Christian believer. I have to be honest and admit this, for it won’t be fair to portray a wrong image of Christians based on this ill mannered man.

    Visit the links below and see for your self the evidence for Shamoun’s lowly character…

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/pussy_cat_threats.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_pornographic_manners.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/examining_sam_shamouns_character_5.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/why_we_expose_shamoun.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_foul_insults_exposed.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_ludicrous_response.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamoun_foul_mouth_2.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/examining_sam_shamoun_4.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/bassam_zawadi/Shamouns_bad_character.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/bassam_zawadi/shamoun_s_character_2.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/more_shamoun_foul_language.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sam_shamoun_is_despised.htm

    This shameless missionary gets too emotional when he defends his religion. When I used to use Paltalk and I released some new articles Shamoun always used to private message me and tell me that my articles are stupid and that he would destroy them. How narrow minded and childish can one be? Even one time, I spoke to him via audio on Paltalk and I asked him why he had such bad manners. He apologised to me for being rude and then told me that he was from the Middle East and that people from the Middle East have bad tempers, thus they can break down at times! What a foolish response. I am from the Middle East as well and I don’t have that lowly character. (wasn’t Jesus from the Middle East as well?) Perhaps Shamoun is using his false God (Biblical Jesus) as a role model and thinks that its okay to insult non Christians since the Biblical Jesus did the same thing (see Matthew 23:33 & Luke 11:40). Well, if that is the case then Shamoun should not be allowed to practice this certain aspect of his religion (assuming Christianity does make it permissible) with others since its offensive to others.

    Even after the conversation in which Shamoun apologised to me, he continued to be rude and started his insulting spree all over again.

    There are also many other Christian missionaries who have filthy manners such as Sam Shamoun, however I urge all Muslims to not commit the same fallacy that people these days commit against Muslims and start stereotyping. For if we do we won’t ever be encouraged to have reasonable interfaith dialogues with any Christians then. So judge these Christians individually, not collectively.

    The verdict that is passed on Sam Shamoun is that he is ill mannered and hates Islam with all his heart and soul and is too narrow minded to have a proper discussion with. Nevertheless, we will continue to refute Shamoun’ articles here from time to time so that we won’t allow him to brainwash the innocent public.

  138. Sam Shamoun says:

    Anyway badmmana, I am off again to write more refutations to the lies and distortions of these Muslim taqiyyists, as well to do more Jesus or Muhammad shows this week. So keep me in your prayers to always magnify our risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Muhammad’s Judge and Executioner. And if Williams musters the courage to provide a meaningful response then do let me know via email.

  139. Paul Williams says:

    And here is another devastating expose of Sam Shamoun: The Hypocrite

    By

    Bassam Zawadi

    I have demonstrated several times in my articles how Shamoun employs double standards when he attempts to critique Islam. However, Shamoun has recently shown his hypocrisy in an extremely glaring fashion.

    Shamoun criticizes Muslim apologists and me in specific for appealing to liberal Christian scholars:

    Christians aren’t the only ones familiar with Lewis’ Trilemma. Muslim polemicists are also aware of this and realize the ramification that Lewis’ apologetic has on the truth claims of Islam which denies the Deity of Christ. Not surprisingly these same Muslim dawagandists quickly run to critical liberal scholarship to undermine Lewis’ defense of Christ’s Divinity. They appeal to disbelieving scholars in order to attack the reliability of the NT so as to convince their constituents that the Divine claims attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are fabricated and were never uttered by the historical Jesus. However, these same Muslim “apologists” do not realize (or simply do not care) the kind of impact that such unbelieving scholarship has on their own Islamic beliefs. The Muslims are inconsistently applying the criticisms and arguments of liberal scholars against the Holy Bible and yet never bother to apply these same arguments against their own views; nor do they stop to think for a moment of how these assaults against the NT affect their Islamic beliefs concerning Jesus.
    One such Muslim propagandist who inconsistently appeals to liberal scholarship is Bassam Zawadi. Zawadi has written a short “reply” whereby he seeks to show the fallacy inherent in Lewis’ reasoning. (Sam Shamoun, Examining the Muslim criticism of C. S. Lewis’ Trilemma, Source)

    First of all, inconsistency does not follow that an argument is “flawed.” It could be that someone is inconsistent, yet correct in the argument he/she makes, say, for example, pertaining to the New Testament. So then, one of the two arguments of an inconsistent person could still be accurate.

    Secondly, Muslim apologists also heavily utilize the works of conservative scholars and do not only restrict themselves to citing liberals.

    Thirdly, just because someone is a disbeliever that does not mean that his argument is incorrect. A disbeliever could still be right in the argument/claim he/she makes/presents. In scholarship it does not matter if someone is liberal or conservative. Only the arguments matter. A liberal person could make a correct argument and a conservative person could make a flawed argument (and vice versa). The veracity of an argument is not questioned by the beliefs, or the lack thereof, of the one making the argument.

    Fourthly, Shamoun makes a vague and problematic comment. How does any “assault” upon the NT affect any Islamic beliefs pertaining to Jesus? Shamoun has not demonstrated this. Shamoun erroneously assumes that a liberal scholar’s argument against the New Testament could be successful against Islam if consistently applied. He also erroneously assumes that Muslims appeal to every single argument that liberal scholars throw at the New Testament and agree with all the presuppositions that liberal scholars have.

    Shamoun has criticized us for appealing to liberal and “disbelieving” scholars, yet what does he do? Look at what he said in one his articles (bold emphasis mine):

    This is a point which even Muslims agree with. For instance, in his comments on Q. 5:44 the late Rashad Khalifa wrote:
    *5:44 The Torah is a collection OF ALL THE SCRIPTURES revealed through all the prophets of Israel prior to Jesus Christ, i.e., TODAY’S OLD TESTAMENT. NOWHERE in the Quran do we find THAT THE TORAH WAS GIVEN TO MOSES. (Source; capital emphasis ours) (Sam Shamoun, The Arrogance and Ignorance of Bassam Zawadi, Source)

    Oh dear God, did Sam Shamoun just appeal to Rashad Khalifa as a Muslim whose say means anything? For those of you who don’t know who Rashad Khalifah is, he was someone who claimed to be a messenger of God! Shamoun is appealing to someone who falsely claimed to be a messenger of God and has been declared a disbeliever unanimously by all Muslim scholars as a Muslim authority! Furthermore, he is specifically citing Rashad Khalifah to support a certain argument, which could only be argued for by supporting Qur’an only beliefs. This is obviously rejected in orthodox Islam. If Shamoun wants us Muslims to accept a false messenger as a Muslim whose opinion matters then that means Muslims could cite Joseph Smith as a Christian against Shamoun! That would definitely discredit many of Shamoun’s beliefs. Surely Shamoun would never accept such a thing from Muslim apologists, yet why does he expect us to accept this from him? The answer: Shamoun is a hypocrite who applies double standards.

    As usual, Shamoun employs double standards and is a hypocrite for all to see.

  140. Sam Shamoun says:

    WOW Williams! I am impressed by you quoting once again the lies and trash of Zawadi. Is that the best you can do? Really? Seriously? If you even had an ounce of integrity and bothered to actually read what I justed posted I DIDN’T EVEN CITE A SINGLE SO-CALLED HERETICAL SECT OF ISLAM, NOR DID I QUOTE LIBERALS OR HADITH DENYING MUSLIMS! I quoted the very sources which even liars and snakes like Zawadi accept as authentic and authoritative.

    So much for you coming to the aid of your accursed prophet.

    Williams, face reality and accept the fact that you are a joke just like your religion.

  141. Paul Williams says:

    Does the Prophet’s Death from Poison Disprove His Prophethood Or Was It An Honorable Death For Our Beloved Prophet?

    By

    Bassam Zawadi

    Note

    I want to stress on the fact that the hadiths do not clearly indicate that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did die from poison. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was aging and he was getting sick and the Prophet (peace be upon him) just simply stated that he still tastes the poison in his mouth. That does not necessarily imply that the poison killed him. Personally, I do not think that the Prophet (peace be upon him) died from the poison. However, I only wrote this article in response to show that this argument actually reaffirms the Prophethood of Muhammad (peace be upon him) (assuming that he really did die from the poison) and so that Islamophobes won’t think that we are running away from this issue.

    Apparently there are some Christians who have a problem with Prophet Muhammad’s (peace be upon him) death. Let’s see if this truly is a problem.

    Jews have tried to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him) a number of times and they failed…

    The Jews wanted to kill the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on several occasions, including the following:

    1 – When he was a child. Ibn Sa’d narrated in al-Tabaqaat, with an isnaad going back to Ishaaq ibn ‘Abd-Allaah that when the mother of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gave him to the Sa’di woman who breastfed him, she said to her, “Keep him safe,” and she told her what she had seen. Haleemah al-Sa’diyyah passed by some Jews and said, “Will you not tell me about this son of mine? I conceived him in such and such a manner, and I gave birth to him in such and such a manner, and I saw such and such,” and she repeated what his mother had told her. They said to one another, “Kill him!” They asked her, “Is he an orphan?” She said, “No, this is his father and I am his mother.” They said, “If he had been an orphan we would have killed him.” Haleemah (his wet nurse) took him and said, “I nearly lost that which had been entrusted to me.”

    This report is mursal, but the men of its isnaad are thiqaat (trustworthy).

    2 – They tried to kill him (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) after Badr. Banu al-Nadeer sent for him to come out to them with thirty of his companions, and said “We will send out thirty of our rabbis, to meet in such and such a place, halfway between us and you, so that they can listen to you. If they believe in you then we will all believe in you.” Then they said: “How can we reach an understanding when there are sixty of us? Send out three of your companions and we will send out three of our scholars to listen to you. They were carrying concealed daggers and they wanted to kill the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). A sincere woman from among Banu al-Nadeer sent word to her nephew (her brother’s son) who was a Muslim man from among the Ansaar, and told him about that, and he told the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went back, and the following day he brought his troops and besieged them, and the Jews of Banu al-Nadeer were expelled. This story was narrated by ‘Abd al-Razzaaq in his Musannaf, and by Abu Dawood in his Sunan (3004), via ‘Abd al-Razzaaq, but he does not mention the details of the story, rather he says, “. ‘They will listen to you and if they believe in you, we shall believe in you.’ The narrator then narrated the whole story. When the next day came, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out in the morning with an army, and besieged them.” This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood.

    3 – Ibn Ishaaq mentions another reason for the expulsion of Banu al-Nadeer, which is that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went to Banu al-Nadeer to ask them for help in paying the diyah of two men of ahl al-dhimmah who had been killed by mistake by ‘Amr ibn Umayyah al-Dumari. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sat by a wall belonging to Banu al-Nadeer, and they plotted to throw a rock on him and kill him. The Revelation informed him of that and he rushed back to Madeenah, then he issued orders that they should be besieged. (Source)

    However, there are some people that try to argue that the Jews were successful in assassinating the Prophet (peace be upon him) by saying that he died by being poisoned by a Jewish lady and therefore he could not have been a true Prophet. Here are the narrations, which allegedly indicate that the Prophet died from poison…

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volume 003, Book 047, Hadith Number 786.

    Narated By Anas bin Malik : A Jewess brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, “Shall we kill her?” He said, “No.” I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of Allah’s Apostle.

    Volume 004, Book 053, Hadith Number 394.

    Narated By Abu Huraira : When Khaibar was conquered, a roasted poisoned sheep was presented to the Prophets as a gift (by the Jews). The Prophet ordered, “Let all the Jews who have been here, be assembled before me.” The Jews were collected and the Prophet said (to them), “I am going to ask you a question. Will you tell the truth?” They said, “Yes.’ The Prophet asked, “Who is your father?” They replied, “So-and-so.” He said, “You have told a ie; your father is so-and-so.” They said, “You are right.” He siad, “Will you now tell me the truth, if I ask you about something?” They replied, “Yes, O AbuAl-Qasim; and if we should tell a lie, you can realize our lie as you have done regarding our father.” On that he asked, “Who are the people of the (Hell) Fire?” They said, “We shall remain in the (Hell) Fire for a short period, and after that you will replace us.” The Prophet said, “You may be cursed and humiliated in it! By Allah, we shall never replace you in it.” Then he asked, “Will you now tell me the truth if I ask you a question?” They said, “Yes, O Ab Li-AI-Qasim.” He asked, “Have you poisoned this sheep?” They said, “Yes.” He asked, “What made you do so?” They said, “We wanted to know if you were a liar in which case we would get rid of you, and if you are a prophet then the poison would not harm you.”

    Volume 005, Book 059, Hadith Number 713.

    Narated By Ibn Abbas : ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so ‘AbdurRahman bin ‘Auf said to ‘Umar, “We have sons similar to him.” ‘Umar replied, “(I respect him) because of his status that you know.” ‘Umar then asked Ibn ‘Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse: “When comes the help of Allah and the conquest of Mecca…” (110.1)

    Ibn ‘Abbas replied, “That indicated the death of Allah’s Apostle which Allah informed him of.” ‘Umar said, “I do not understand of it except what you understand.”

    Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

    First thing to note is that even if the Prophet (peace be upon him did die from the poison right away then that does not disprove his Prophethood since the Jews had a history of killing Prophets…

    Matthew 23:37

    37″O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.

    Mark 12: 1-12

    The Parable of the Tenants

    1He then began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a pit for the winepress and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. 2At harvest time he sent a servant to the tenants to collect from them some of the fruit of the vineyard. 3But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4Then he sent another servant to them; they struck this man on the head and treated him shamefully. 5He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.6″He had one left to send, a son, whom he loved. He sent him last of all, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’7″But the tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ 8So they took him and killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard.9″What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10Haven’t you read this scripture: ” ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; 11the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes?” 12Then they looked for a way to arrest him because they knew he had spoken the parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd; so they left him and went away.

    1 Thessalonians 2:14-15

    14For you, brothers, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men

    In this parable, the wicked tenants represent the Jews, the servants represent the prophets whom God sent one after another; and the owner of the vineyard represents God. The son obviously represents Jesus whom God sent last of all. This parable shows that the Jews used to kill the Prophets previously.

    Second thing to notice is that THE PROPHET ALLEGEDLY DIED FROM THE POISON FOUR YEARS LATER!…

    That had an impact in causing his death, so he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died as a martyr (shaheed), as Ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:

    “If I were to swear by Allaah nine times that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was killed, that is more beloved to me than swearing once, because Allaah made him a Prophet and made him a martyr.” Narrated by Ahmad, 3617. The editors said, its isnaad is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim.

    Al-Sindi said: The words “he was killed” mean by the poison in the meat of the sheep’s foreleg that he ate, when the effects of that appeared when he was dying.

    Quoted from Haashiyat al-Musnad, 6/116.

    The conquest of Khaybar took place in Muharram or Rabee’ al-Awwal of the year 7 AH. So this event took place four years before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died. (Source)

    This is the whole miracle of it all. The fact that Allah protected the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) from dying from the poison right away and then had him live long enough in order to finish his duty of spreading the message of Islam and then Allah had the Prophet (peace be upon him) die from the poison four years later so that the Prophet could die as a martyr, which is the most honorable death that a Muslim could have proves that he was a Prophet! Truly such an amazing person as our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) could only deserve such an honorable death. The fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) survived that poison for four years and then died a martyr could mean nothing else except that he was truly a Prophet of God. Such a thing is scientifically impossible and is therefore a miracle. Surely the most honorable of men should deserve a most honorable death.
    Subhannallah.

    Appendix

    Sam Shamoun also gives an argument as to why the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not eat the dates at the time of his influence of magic or being poisoned. Well a simple answer could be that it was possible that those hadith came after the whole incident of the Prophet’s bewitchment. The Prophet’s bewitchment had no effect on him spreading the message of God, read about it here and here.

    As for the poison incident, the hadith clearly state that the dates will protect the individual for the day that he eats it! So we know that the Prophet did not get affected by the poison that day and it was four years later when it affected him. It’s also possible that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was so sick that he did not have the ability to eat those dates and therefore the poison killed him. Simple as that. Nothing complicated.

  142. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna,

    Here are some of the titles of my Zawadi rebuttals which gives you an idea of the kind of inconsistent, lying, deceptive Muhammad he truly is. This is why Williams loves his so much since birds of a feather flock together. :-)

    Exposing Zawadi’s Lies and Deceptions: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_of_meccans.html

    Postscript to Zawadi’s Lies and Deceptions: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/allah_of_meccans_ps.html

    Exposing More of Zawadi’s Dishonesty and Inconsistencies: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/pulliam.html

    The Arrogance and Ignorance of Bassam Zawadi Concerning the Torah: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/ignorance_arrogance.html

    The Inconsistency of Bassam Zawadi [Part 1]: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/inconsistent1.html

    The Inconsistency of Bassam Zawadi [Part 2]: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/inconsistent2.html

    Islam’s Divine Insurance Scam: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/substitution.html

    Reexamining Islam’s Divine Insurance Scam [Part 1]: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/perverted_justice1.html

    Reexamining Islam’s Divine Insurance Scam [Part 2]: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/perverted_justice2.html

    So Williams, make sure to stick these in your pagan pipe and smoke it!

    Anyway Williams, since I know how much this must be eating you up inside I will let you can in the last word.

    What a sad and pathetic Islam truly happens to be. ;-)

  143. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, you need to do better than to quote a “response” to another article that I wrote SINCE THE ARTICLE YOU CITED ISN’T IN RESPONSE TO THE ONE I JUST POSTED ON ALLAH MURDERING YOUR PROPHET!

    Man, it really must be eating you up inside that Muhammad died the death of an accursed wretched reprobate ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN QURAN AND AUTHENTIC HADITHS.

    Now you are going to need to do much better than to cite an article which doesn’t address the MAIN article or video that I linked to, and which was even refuted in these articles and video.

    Islam truly is a sad and pathetic religion. :-)

  144. Sam Shamoun says:

    And since we are in the business of reproducing articles here, let me post the one on praying for Muhammad’s salvation, as further proof that your prophet isn’t saved according to your own sources. Make sure to enjoy it!

  145. Sam Shamoun says:

    Praying for Muhammad’s Peace and Security: More Islamic evidence that Muhammad is not Saved

    In several articles and rebuttals (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) we have discussed and presented conclusive and clear evidence proving that Muhammad was uncertain of his own salvation. Here we would like to provide some additional data which further confirms that Muhammad wasn’t saved even according to the Islamic source materials. We will specifically be discussing the Islamic practice of praying for Muhammad during the five daily prayers or whenever his name is mentioned in order see the implications that such a practice has in understanding and determining Muhammad’s status in the afterlife.

    We begin by analyzing what the Quran has to say about this issue.

    According to the Quran Allah and his angels pray for Muhammad and on that basis commands all believers to do the same:

    Verily, God and His angels pray for the prophet. O ye who believe! pray for him and salute him with a salutation! S. 33:56 Palmer

    The following commentators tell us that the prayers of Muslims consist of invoking peace and blessings upon Muhammad:

    Indeed God and His angels bless the Prophet, Muhammad (s). O you who believe, invoke blessings on him and invoke peace upon him in a worthy manner, in other words, say: ‘O God, bless our master Muhammad and grant him peace’ (Allāhumma sallī ‘alā sayyidinā Muhammad wa-sallim). (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

    We will see a little later why such invocations of peace are crucial in determining whether Muhammad is truly saved or not.

    The hadith literature is filled with traditions of Muhammad commanding his followers to pray for him and instructing them how to do it:

    The Command to say Salah upon the Prophet

    Al-Bukhari said: “Abu Al-`Aliyah said: “Allah’s Salah is His praising him before the angels, and the Salah of the angels is their supplication.” Ibn `Abbas said: “They send blessings.” Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: “This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness.’” There are Mutawatir Hadiths narrated from the Messenger of Allah commanding us to send blessings on him and how we should say Salah upon him. We will mention as many of them as we can, if Allah wills, and Allah is the One Whose help we seek. In his Tafsir of this Ayah, Al-Bukhari recorded that Ka`b bin `Ujrah said, “It was said, `O Messenger of Allah, with regard to sending Salam upon you, we know about this, but how about Salah?’ He said…

    <>” Imam Ahmad recorded that Ibn Abi Layla said that Ka`b bin `Ujrah met him and said, “Shall I not give you a gift? The Messenger of Allah came out to us and we said, `O Messenger of Allah! We know how to send Salam upon you, but how can we send Salah?’ He said…

    <>” This Hadith has been recorded by the Group in their books with different chains of narration. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 33:56; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    And:

    Another Hadith

    Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said: “We said, `O Messenger of Allah, this is the Salam upon you, but how do we send Salah upon you?’ He said…

    <>” Abu Salih narrated that Layth said…

    <> Ibrahim bin Hamzah told that, Ibn Abi Hazim and Ad-Darawardi told, that Yazid, i.e., Ibn Al-Had said…

    <> This was also recorded by An-Nasa’i and Ibn Majah. (Ibid.; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    See also the following narrations, repeating basically the same thing: 1, 2.

    Ibn Kathir goes on to exhort Muslims to not only pray for Muhammad often but to do so on many occasions, especially during the call to prayer:

    Occasions for saying Salah upon Him

    It is reported that we should send blessings upon him on many occasions, such as following the call to prayer, as in the Hadith recorded by Imam Ahmad from `Abdullah bin `Amr bin Al-`As, who said that he heard the Messenger of Allah say…

    <> This was recorded by Muslim, Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa’i. Other occasions when we should send Salah upon the Prophet include when entering or exiting the Masjid, because of the Hadith recorded by Imam Ahmad from Fatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah who said: “When the Messenger of Allah entered the Masjid, he would send Salah and Salam upon Muhammad, and say…

    <> When he exited, he would send Salah and Salam upon Muhammad, and say…

    <>” We should also send Salah upon him during the Funeral prayer. The Sunnah is to recite Surat Al-Fatihah following the first Takbir, to send Salah upon the Prophet during the second Takbir, to make supplication for the deceased during the third Takbir, and in the fourth Takbir to say, “O Allah, do not deprive us of his reward, and do not test us after him.”’ Ash-Shafi`i, may Allah have mercy on him, recorded that Abu Umamah bin Sahl bin Hunayf was told by one of the Companions of the Prophet that the Sunnah in the funeral prayer is for the Imam to pronounce the Takbir, then to recite Surat Al-Fatihah silently after the first Takbir, then to send Salah upon the Prophet then to offer sincere supplication for the deceased, but not to recite any Qur’an in any of the Takbirs, then to conclude by saying Salam silently. An-Nasa’i also recorded this from Abu Umamah, who said, “This is from the Sunnah,” and he mentioned it. According to the correct view, such a statement reported from a Companion carries the ruling of Marfu`. (Ibid.; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    As a side note, notice how uncertain Muhammad was regarding whether Allah would actually grant him the status of al-Wasilah, i.e. mediation. Muhammad could only hope for this privilege and asked his followers to pray that Allah would give him this honor.

    And:

    Saying Salah upon the Prophet before the Supplication

    Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi reported the following Hadith and graded it Sahih; An-Nasa’i, Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban recorded in their Sahihs that Fadalah bin `Ubayd, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “The Messenger of Allah heard a man making supplication in his prayer when he had not praised Allah or said Salah upon the Prophet. The Messenger of Allah said…

    <> Then he called him over and said, to him or to someone else…

    <>” (Ibid.; underline emphasis ours)

    Muhammad even had the audacity to claim that a person’s prayer will not reach Allah if s/he does not pray for him at the start of the prayer, during its middle part, and at its conclusion!

    It is recommended to conclude supplications with Salah upon the Prophet.

    At-Tirmidhi recorded that `Umar bin Al-Khattab said: “A supplication remains suspended between heaven and earth and does not ascend any further UNTIL you send Salah upon your Prophet.” This was also narrated by Mu`adh bin Al-Harith from Abu Qurrah from Sa`id bin Al-Musayyib from `Umar, as a saying of the Prophet. It was also recorded by Razin bin Mu`awiyah in his book, where he also attributed it to the Prophet reporting that he said…

    <> Sending Salah upon the Prophet is even more strongly encouraged in the Qunut supplication. Ahmad, the Sunan compilers, Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn Hibban and Al-Hakim recorded that Al-Hasan bin `Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “The Messenger of Allah taught me some words to say during Al-Witr…

    <>” In his Sunan, An-Nasa’i has the addition…

    <> at the end of this Qunut. It is also recommended to say plenty of Salah upon him on Friday and on the eve of Friday. (Ibid.; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    Muhammad also went so far as to encourage his followers to make their entire prayer for him, promising that their sins would be forgiven if they did so!

    The Virtue of saying Salah upon the Prophet

    Another Hadith At-Tirmidhi recorded that Ubayy bin Ka`b said: “When two thirds of the night had passed, the Messenger of Allah would get up and say…

    <>” Ubayy said, “I said, `O Messenger of Allah, I send a lot of Salah upon you, how much of my prayer should be Salah upon you?’ He said…

    <> I said, `A quarter?’ He said…

    <> I said, `Half?’ He said…

    <> I said, `Two thirds?’ He said…

    <> I said, `Should I make my whole prayer for you?’ He said…

    <> Then he said: “This is a Hasan Hadith.” (Ibid.; underline emphasis ours)

    Another incentive that Muhammad gave for praying for him is that Allah will reward all such prayers tenfold and reckon them as charity to the one performing them:

    Another Hadith

    Imam Ahmad recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said…

    <> This was recorded only by Ahmad. (Ibid.; underline emphasis ours)

    And:

    Another Hadith

    Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Talhah said that the Messenger of Allah came one day looking happy. They said, “O Messenger of Allah, we see that you look happy.” He said…

    <> This was also recorded by An-Nasa’i. (Ibid.; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    Again:

    Another Chain of Narration

    Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Talhah Al-Ansari said: “One morning the Messenger of Allah was in a cheerful mood and looked happy. They said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, this morning you are in a cheerful mood and look happy.’ He said…

    <>” This is also a good chain, although they (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) did not report it. (Ibid.; underline emphasis ours)

    Finally:

    Another Hadith

    Muslim, Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa’i recorded that Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, said: “The Messenger of Allah said…

    <> At-Tirmidhi said: “This is a Sahih Hasan Hadith. On the same topic, narrations come from `Abdur-Rahman bin `Awf, `Amir bin Rabi`ah, `Ammar, Abu Talhah, Anas and Ubayy bin Ka`b.” (Ibid.; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    Continued in the next post.

  146. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is the 2nd part:

    There are other narrations where Muhammad even warned and outright threatened the Muslims that they would experience humiliation if they did/do not pray for him whenever they hear his name mentioned:

    Another Hadith

    Imam Ahmad recorded that Al-Husayn bin `Ali said that the Messenger of Allah said…

    <> Abu Sa`id said…

    <> This was also recorded by At-Tirmidhi, who then said: “This Hadith is Hasan Gharib, Sahih.” (Ibid.)

    And:

    Another Hadith

    At-Tirmidhi recorded that Abu Hurayrah said: “The Messenger of Allah said…

    <>” Then he (At-Tirmidhi) said: “Hasan Gharib.” (Ibid.; underline emphasis ours)

    It is obvious that praying for Muhammad is no light matter since a Muslim’s success and salvation hinge on it.

    The reason why Muslims are required to pray for Muhammad

    The following verse gives us an idea as to why Allah, his angels, and the believers pray for Muhammad:

    He it is who prays for you and His angels too, to bring you forth out of the darkness into the light, for He is merciful to the believers. S. 33:43 Palmer

    According to this specific text Allah and the angels pray for the believers to be brought out of darkness and into the light. In other words, Allah and his angels are actively praying for the salvation of Muslims, a point that is confirmed by this next passage.

    Those (angels) who bear the Throne (of Allah) and those around it glorify the praises of their Lord, and believe in Him, and ask forgiveness for those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah) (saying): “Our Lord! You comprehend all things in mercy and knowledge, so forgive those who repent and follow Your Way, and save them from the torment of the blazing Fire! Our Lord! And make them enter the ‘Adn (Eden) Paradise (everlasting Gardens) which you have promised them, and to the righteous among their fathers, their wives, and their offspring! Verily, You are the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. And save them from (the punishment, because of what they did of) the sins, and whomsoever You save from (the punishment, because of what they did of) the sins (i.e. excuse them) that Day, him verily, You have taken into mercy.” And that is the supreme success. S. 40:7-9

    Angels pray to Allah to forgive the believers and to save them from hellfire by bringing them into paradise.

    In light of this it seems reasonably certain that Allah, his angels and the Muslims are all praying for Muhammad’s salvation. Muhammad didn’t have any assurance that he would be saved and so decided to command his followers to pray that Allah would grant him deliverance from hell.

    This is further brought out by the Arabic words that Muslims normally utter whenever Muhammad’s name is mentioned, namely sallallahu alayhi wa-salam, which literally means, “the prayers of Allah be upon him and peace.” The Muslims are basically asking their god to grant Muhammad peace.

    It is obvious that the peace that Muslims are praying that Allah would give Muhammad is paradise which is actually called the home or abode of peace in the Quran:

    Allah calls to the home of peace (i.e. Paradise, by accepting Allah’s religion of Islamic Monotheism and by doing righteous good deeds and abstaining from polytheism and evil deeds) and guides whom He wills to a Straight Path. For those who have done good is the best (reward, i.e. Paradise) and even more (i.e. having the honour of glancing at the Countenance of Allah) Neither darkness nor dust nor any humiliating disgrace shall cover their faces. They are the dwellers of Paradise, they will abide therein forever. S. 10:25-26

    The Quran, in several places, speaks of paradise as the place of both peace and security. Hence, to enter paradise is to enter into peace and safety:

    Truly! The Muttaqun (pious and righteous persons – see V.2:2) will be amidst Gardens and water-springs (Paradise). (It will be said to them): ‘Enter therein (Paradise), in PEACE and security.’ And We shall remove from their breasts any sense of injury (that they may have), (So they will be like) brothers facing each other on thrones. No sense of fatigue shall touch them, nor shall they (ever) be asked to leave it. S. 15:45-48 Hilali-Khan

    Those will be rewarded with the highest place (in Paradise) because of their patience. Therein they shall be met with greetings and the word of PEACE and respect. Abiding therein; excellent it is as an abode, and as a place to dwell. S. 25:75-76

    And Paradise will be brought near to the Muttaqun (pious – see V.2:2) not far off. (It will be said): “This is what you were promised, – (it is) for those oft-returning (to Allah) in sincere repentance, and those who preserve their covenant with Allah (by obeying Him in all what He has ordered, and worship none but Allah Alone, i.e. follow Allah’s Religion, Islamic Monotheism). “Who feared the Most Beneficent (Allah) in the Ghaib (unseen): (i.e. in this worldly life before seeing and meeting Him), and brought a heart turned in repentance (to Him – and absolutely free from each and every kind of polytheism), “Enter you therein in PEACE and security; this is a Day of eternal life!” There they will have all that they desire, and We have more (for them, i.e. a glance at the All-Mighty, All-Majestic). S. 50:31-35 Hilali-Khan

    And those foremost [(in Islamic Faith of Monotheism and in performing righteous deeds) in the life of this world on the very first call for to embrace Islam,] will be foremost (in Paradise). These will be those nearest to Allah. In the Gardens of delight (Paradise). A multitude of those (foremost) will be from the first generations (who embraced Islam). And a few of those (foremost) will be from the later time (generations). (They will be) on thrones woven with gold and precious stones, Reclining thereon, face to face. They will be served by immortal boys, With cups, and jugs, and a glass from the flowing wine, Wherefrom they will get neither any aching of the head, nor any intoxication. And fruit; that they may choose. And the flesh of fowls that they desire. And (there will be) Houris (fair females) with wide, lovely eyes (as wives for the pious), Like unto preserved pearls. A reward for what they used to do. No Laghw (dirty, false, evil vain talk) will they hear therein, nor any sinful speech (like backbiting, etc.). But only the saying of: Salam!, Salam! (greetings with peace)! S. 56:10-26 Hilali-Khan

    Then, if he (the dying person) be of the Muqarrabun (those brought near to Allah), (There is for him) rest and provision, and a Garden of delights (Paradise). And if he (the dying person) be of those on the Right Hand, Then there is safety AND PEACE (from the Punishment of Allah) for (you as you are from) those on the Right Hand. S. 56:88-91 Hilali-Khan

    Thus, by praying that Allah would grant Muhammad peace Muslims are essentially praying for Muhammad’s salvation! Muslims are basically asking Allah to save his messenger from hell by allowing him to enter paradise which is the abode of peace.

    What this all means for Muhammad and his followers

    The Islamic practice of praying for Muhammad’s peace and safety raises some serious problems and questions for Muslims. In the first place, there is not a single Biblical verse or Quranic citation which exhorts believers to pray for the peace and salvation of any of God’s true prophets and apostles after their respective deaths; Muhammad is utterly unique in this respect.

    Interestingly, according to the late great Christian scholar of Islam, W. St. Clair Tisdall, the command to pray for Muhammad’s salvation caused one particular Muslim to start doubting and questioning Muhammad’s prophetic claims and eventually led him to embrace Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior:

    1 A learned Maulavi from Swat, now a Christian convert, was first brought to doubt Muhammad’s claims by reflecting upon the durud (darud) or petition in which, at the close of the fixed prayers (salawat), a Muslim says, “O Lord, have mercy upon and give peace to Muhammad,” &c. The thought arose in his mind, “In no other religion is it thought necessary to pray for God’s mercy on its founder. Why then is Muhammad prayed for?” He next noticed that in the kalimah or Muhammadan creed the title given to Muhammad is merely rasul: he is not even called a nabi or “prophet,” whereas far higher titles are given to Christ in the Qur’an itself (§§ 116-122, 129). In argument it would be well to put these objections to Muhammad’s claims either in the form of the tale told here, or as questions, asking, e.g., “Why is it necessary for Muslims to pray for Muhammad?” This leads the inquirer to form his own conclusions. (Dr. H. M. Clark.) (W. St. Clair Tisdall, A Manual of the Leading Muhammadan Objections to Christianity [Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1904] CHAPTER VII. Objections Against Christianity On The Ground of Muhammad’s Divine Mission, p. 217; bold emphasis ours)

    Secondly, both the Quran and ahadith testify that Muhammad lived in fear and doubt concerning his salvation since Allah never gave him the assurance that he would be saved:

    Or say they: “He (Muhammad) has fabricated it.” Say: “If I have fabricated it, still you have no power to support me against Allah. He knows best of what you say among yourselves concerning it (i.e. this Qur’an)! Sufficient is He for a witness between me and you! And He is the Oft-Forgiving, the Most Merciful.” Say (O Muhammad): “I am not a new thing among the Messengers (of Allah) (i.e. I am not the first Messenger) nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me, and I am but a plain warner.” S. 46:8-9

    Say (unto them, O Muhammad): I pray unto Allah only, and ascribe unto Him no partner. Say: Lo! I control not hurt nor benefit for you. Say: Lo! none can protect me from Allah, nor can I find any refuge beside Him (Mine is) but conveyance (of the Truth) from Allah, and His messages; and whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger, lo! his is fire of hell, wherein such dwell for ever. Till (the day) when they shall behold that which they are promised (they may doubt); but then they will know (for certain) who is weaker in allies and less in multitude. Say (O Muhammad, unto the disbelievers): I know not whether that which ye are promised is nigh, or if my Lord hath set a distant term for it. S. 72:20-25 Pickthall

    In fact, Allah repeatedly threatens to kill his prophet if he turns away or decides to change the message:

    And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us say, ‘Bring a Koran other than this, or alter it.’ Say: ‘It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.’ S. 10:15 Arberry

    This is (part) of that wisdom wherewith thy Lord hath inspired thee (O Muhammad). And set not up with Allah any other god, lest thou be cast into hell, reproved, abandoned. S. 17:39 Pickthall

    Verily, they were about to tempt you away from that which We have revealed (the Qur’an) unto you (O Muhammad), to fabricate something other than it against Us, and then they would certainly have taken you a friend! And had We not made you stand firm, you would nearly have inclined to them a little. In that case, We would have made you taste a double portion (of punishment) in this life and a double portion (of punishment) after death. And then you would have found none to help you against Us. S. 17:73-75 Hilali-Khan

    O Prophet! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and do not comply with (the wishes of) the unbelievers and the hypocrites; surely Allah is Knowing, Wise; S. 33:1

    Say (O Muhammad): “Verily, if I disobey my Lord, I am afraid of the torment of a great Day.” S. 39:13 Hilali-Khan

    it is the speech of a noble Messenger. It is not the speech of a poet (little do you believe) nor the speech of a soothsayer (little do you remember). A sending down from the Lord of all Being. Had he invented against Us any sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would surely have cut his life-vein. S. 69:40-46 Arberry

    And even though Allah never promised to save Muhammad he did inform his messenger that he would definitely die and go to hell!

    Verily, you (O Muhammad) will die and verily, they (too) will die. Then, on the Day of Resurrection, you will be disputing before your Lord. S. 39:30-31

    Now, by thy Lord, We shall surely muster them, and the Satans, then We shall parade them about Gehenna hobbling on their knees. Then We shall pluck forth from every party whichever of them was the most hardened in disdain of the All-merciful; then We shall know very well those most deserving to burn there. Not one of you there is, but he shall go down to it; that for thy Lord is a thing decreed, determined. Then We shall deliver those that were godfearing; and the evildoers We shall leave there, hobbling on their knees. S. 19:68-72 Arberry

    Thus, the only guarantee Muhammad had was that he was going to die and enter into hell itself!

    This is why Muhammad could only hope and pray that Allah would perhaps honor and glorify him:

    And in some parts of the night (also) offer the Salat (prayer) with it (i.e. recite the Qur’an in the prayer), as an additional prayer (Tahajjud optional prayer Nawafil) for you (O Muhammad). It MAY BE that your Lord will raise you to Maqaman Mahmuda (a station of praise and glory, i.e. the highest degree in Paradise!). S. 17:79

    More to come.

  147. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is the 3rd part:

    Third, if Muhammad whom Muslims consider to be their example and the greatest man that ever lived wasn’t certain of his own salvation then what does this say about the fate of his followers? What hope or assurance do Muslims have of ever entering paradise when even their own prophet wasn’t guaranteed of being saved?

    The doubt which lingers over every follower of Muhammad can be more clearly seen from the fact that Muslims are also expected to pray for the companions and wives of Muhammad whenever they happened to be mentioned by name. For instance, whenever a Muslim speaks of Umar ibn al-Khattab s/he is expected to pray the following: “may Allah be pleased with him” (radhi Allah anhu).

    Muslims will even do this when mentioning a renowned Muslim figure or scholar by saying the words, “may Allah have mercy on him” (rahmatullahi alayh).

    In fact, if the readers scroll back and read some of Ibn Kathir’s quotations they will find Ibn Kathir actually doing this very thing whenever he mentions Muhammad’s companions, his wives, and/or some prominent Muslim. I.e.,

    Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawud and At-Tirmidhi reported the following Hadith and graded it Sahih; An-Nasa’i, Ibn Khuzaymah and Ibn Hibban recorded in their Sahihs that Fadalah bin `Ubayd, may Allah be pleased with him, said… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 33:56; bold and italic emphasis ours)

    And:

    “… Ash-Shafi`i, may Allah have mercy on him, recorded that Abu Umamah bin Sahl bin Hunayf was told by one of the Companions of the Prophet that the Sunnah in the funeral prayer is for the Imam to pronounce the Takbir… (Ibid.; bold and italic emphasis ours)

    Now this makes perfect sense. If Muhammad who is the founder of Islam needed and continues to need individuals to pray for his salvation then how much more do his followers and the rest of the Muslim population need such prayers? Surely, Muhammad’s companions and all who follow his religion cannot be more savable than their own prophet; nor could/can any of them have greater assurance that they will be saved than even the founder of their own religion. In light of this, Muslims actually need a lot more prayers for their salvation than Muhammad himself does since they can never expect to be on his level, at least as far as Allah is concerned.

    A Muslim may deny that Muhammad needs the prayers of his people in order to be saved by arguing that he is already in a state of peace. However, if this were really the case then why even pray for Muhammad’s peace? Why pray that Allah grant him mercy if Muhammad has already entered into a state of security and rest? Does it even make sense to pray for a person’s peace if s/he is in paradise or in some other state in which s/he is already experiencing joy and bliss?

    In other words, if Muhammad is already in paradise or is experiencing safety and security in the grave then there is absolutely no need to pray for him at all. There is no need to constantly beg Allah to send down his mercy upon Muhammad when the latter is already experiencing the peace and blessings of his god. Such prayers only make sense if Muhammad isn’t saved and that Allah will actually accept invocations for the salvation of those who have died.

    In fact, the hadiths themselves record that Muhammad was afraid of the torment which he believed individuals would have to experience in the grave and used to pray to Allah to save him from it:

    Narrated Masruq:
    ‘Aisha said that a Jewess came to her and mentioned the punishment in the grave, saying to her, “May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave.” ‘Aisha then asked Allah’s Apostle about the punishment of the grave. He said, “Yes, (there is) punishment in the grave.” ‘Aisha added, “After that I never saw Allah’s Apostle but seeking refuge with Allah from the punishment in the grave in every prayer he prayed.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 454)

    And:

    Narrated ‘Amra bint ‘AbdurRahman:
    A Jewess came to ‘Aisha to ask her about something and then she said, “May Allah give you refuge from the punishment of the grave.” So ‘Aisha asked Allah’s Apostle, “Would the people be punished in their graves?” Allah’s Apostle asked Allah’s refuge from the punishment of the grave (indicating an affirmative reply). Then one day Allah’s Apostle rode (to leave for some place) but the sun eclipsed. He returned on the forenoon and passed through the rear of the dwellings (of his wives) and stood up and started offering the (eclipse) prayer and the people stood behind him. He stood for a long period and then performed a long bowing and then stood straight for a long period which was shorter than that of the first standing, then he performed a prolonged bowing which was shorter than the first bowing, then he raised his head and prostrated for a long time and then stood up (for the second Raka) for a long while, but the standing was shorter than the standing of the first Raka. Then he performed a prolonged bowing which was shorter than that of the first one. He then stood up for a long time but shorter than the first, then again performed a long bowing which was shorter than the first and then prostrated for a shorter while than that of the first prostration. Then he finished the prayer and delivered the sermon and said what Allah wished; and ordered the people to seek refuge with Allah from the punishment of the grave. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 18, Number 164)

    Hence, it only makes perfect sense that Muhammad would command his followers to constantly pray for his peace and security seeing how deathly afraid he was of the torment and punishment of the grave.

    Still, other Muslims see such prayers as Allah’s way of honoring Muhammad more than any other prophet!

    (Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet…) [33:56]. Abu Sa’id informed us> Ibn Abi ‘Amr al-Naysaburi> al-Hasan ibn Ahmad al-Makhladi> al-Mu’ammil ibn al-Hasan ibn ‘Isa> Muhammad ibn Yahya> Abu Hudhayfah> Sufyan> al-Zubayr ibn ‘Adiyy> ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla> Ka’b ibn ‘Ujrah who said: “It was said to the Prophet: ‘We know how to salute you, but how do we invoke blessings on you?’ And so this verse was revealed (Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation)”. ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Hamdan al-’Adl informed us> Abu’l-’Abbas Ahmad ibn ‘Isa al-Washsha’> Muhammad ibn Yahya al-Suli> al-Riyashi> al-Asma’i who said: “I heard al-Mahdi say from the pulpit of [the grand mosque of] al-Basrah: ‘Allah has commanded you with something that He Himself has started first when He said (Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation). Through this, Allah has preferred the Prophet over all other messengers and singled you out from all other communities. Do, therefore, meet Allah’s bounty with gratitude’ ”. I heard master Abu ‘Uthman al-Hafiz say that he heard Imam Sahl ibn Muhammad ibn Sulayman say: “The honour that Allah, exalted is He, bestowed upon our Prophet by His saying (Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet) is more far-reaching and more complete than the honour bestowed upon Adam when the angels were ordered to prostrate to him. This is because it is not conceivable that Allah be with the angels upon the bestowal of that honour. However, Allah, exalted is He, has informed that He Himself showers blessings on the Prophet, and then He informed that the angels do shower blessings upon him. Therefore, an honour which ensues from Him is much far-reaching than an honour which ensues from the angels only and which is inconceivable that Allah be with them upon its bestowal”. What Sahl has said is taken from the saying of al-Mahdi. He might have come across it, adopted some of it and explained it further. He also compared it with the honour bestowed upon Adam and showed that it is more far-reaching and complete than it. It is also mentioned in the rigorously authenticated collections of prophetic sayings the following: Abu Bakr ibn Ibrahim al-Farisi informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Amrawayh> Ibrahim ibn Sufyan> Muslim> Qutaybah and ‘Ali ibn Hajar> Isma’il ibn Ja’far> al-’Ala’> his father> Abu Hurayrah who reported that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever invokes blessings on me once, Allah will invoke blessings upon him ten times”. (‘Alī ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul; bold emphasis ours)

    On the contrary, such prayers actually dishonor Muhammad and are a source of major embarrassment for Muslims. As we had noted, no where will one find in either the Holy Bible or the Quran a command to pray for the peace and salvation of any of the true prophets and messengers of God especially after their deaths. The inspired Scriptures are clear that all true believers, which would include God’s prophets and apostles, enter into the heavenly presence of God the moment after they die (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:1-10; Philippians 1:21, 23; 2 Timothy 4:6-8; Hebrews 12:22-24; Revelation 6:9-11; 7:9-17).

    As we stated, Muhammad is the only person who requires that his followers actually pray for his salvation and security, and not only during his life time. Today there are over one billion followers of Muhammad who are still obligated to pray for him as long as they live, many times in the course of every single day. How many billions of such prayers will ever be sufficient to grant Muhammad’s salvation?

    Thus, by requiring Muslims to pray for the peace of Muhammad Allah has actually dishonored his prophet since this calls into question the very salvation of the one whom Muslims claim is the perfect man. This also casts great fear and doubt into the hearts of Muslims since they can never know whether Allah is truly pleased with them enough to give them salvation. After all, if even Muhammad wasn’t certain that he was saved then how can any Muslim know for sure or have the peace of mind that when s/he dies Allah will grant him/her eternal bliss? The answer is that no Muslim can ever know and must therefore die in fear and despair.

    Now to move to the final part.

  148. Sam Shamoun says:

    However, there is hope for Muslims if they will only turn away from the Islamic god and abandon the false prophet Muhammad. Muslims can have the assurance that God loves them so much that he has promised to give every one of them eternal life if only they turn to his beloved Son, Jesus Christ, and accept him as their sovereign Lord and risen Savior.

    With that said we would like to conclude our discussion by quoting various passages from the Holy Bible, God’s truly inspired Word, which emphatically highlight and proclaim the willingness and desire of the only true and living God to perfectly save every single individual who, by his grace and mercy, trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, his glorious and majestic Son, for salvation:

    “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

    “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” Matthew 26:28

    “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’” Mark 10:45

    “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost.” Luke 19:10

    “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” John 3:14-17

    “Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, ‘He told me everything I ever did.’ So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. And because of his words many more became believers. They said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.’” John 4:39-42

    “Then Jesus declared, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty… All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day… I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.’” John 6:35, 38-40

    “But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world… Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” John 6:50-51, 57-58

    “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” John 10:27-30

    “Jesus said to her, ‘Your brother will rise again.’ Martha answered, ‘I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.’ Jesus said to her, ‘I am the Resurrection and the Life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ she told him, ‘I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.’” John 11:23-27

    “‘Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.’ Thomas said to him, ‘Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?’ Jesus answered, ‘I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me… I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live… Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.’” John 14:1-6, 18-19, 27

    “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” John 16:33

    “After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him… I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.” John 17:1-2, 23-24

    “He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.” John 1:10-13

    “Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:30-31

    “Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand… But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.” Romans 5:1, 8-11

    “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus… For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: ‘For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:1, 28-39

    “For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

    “For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him.” 1 Thessalonians 5:9-10

    “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” Hebrews 4:15-16

    “We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” Hebrews 6:19-20

    “Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them. Such a high priest meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.” Hebrews 7:23-27

    “It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.” Hebrews 9:26-28

    “And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all… by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” Hebrews 10:10, 14

    “We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” 1 John 4:13-18

    “for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God… And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life… We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” 1 John 5:4-5, 11-13, 18-20

    “Then I heard a voice from heaven say, ‘Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.’” Revelation 14:13

    Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/praying_for_mo.html

  149. Paul Williams says:

    Was Prophet Muhammad Uncertain of His Own Salvation?

    By

    Bassam Zawadi

    Christian missionaries argue that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was not certain about his own salvation according to Islamic sources. They put forth one Qur’anic verse and one hadith as proof for this. They are:

    Surah 46:9

    Say: “I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, nor do i know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear.” S. 46:9

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volume 5, Book 58, Number 266:

    Narrated ‘Um al-’Ala:

    An Ansari woman who gave the pledge of allegiance to the Prophet that the Ansar drew lots concerning the dwelling of the Emigrants. ‘Uthman bin Maz’un was decided to dwell with them (i.e. Um al-’Ala’s family), ‘Uthman fell ill and I nursed him till he died, and we covered him with his clothes. Then the Prophet came to us and I (addressing the dead body) said, “O Abu As-Sa’ib, may Allah’s Mercy be on you! I bear witness that Allah has honored you.” On that the Prophet said, “How do you know that Allah has honored him?” I replied, “I do not know. May my father and my mother be sacrificed for you, O Allah’s Apostle! But who else is worthy of it (if not ‘Uthman)?” He said, “As to him, by Allah, death has overtaken him, and I hope the best for him. By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me,” By Allah, I will never assert the piety of anyone after him. That made me sad, and when I slept I saw in a dream a flowing stream for ‘Uthman bin Maz’un. I went to Allah’s Apostle and told him of it. He remarked, “That symbolizes his (good) deeds.”

    There are two solutions to this allegedly apparent problem.

    The first possible solution is that the Qur’anic verse and statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him) came before the Prophet (peace be upon him) knew that he was going to paradise.

    Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani states:

    ولفظه ” فوالله ما أدري وأنا رسول الله ما يفعل بي ولا بكم ” وإنما قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ذلك موافقة
    لقوله تعالى في سورة الأحقاف ( قل ما كنت بدعا من الرسل , وما أدري ما يفعل بي ولا بكم ) وكان ذلك قبل نزول قوله تعالى ( ليغفر لك الله ما تقدم من ذنبك وما تأخر ) لأن الأحقاف مكية , وسورة الفتح مدنية بلا خلاف فيهما , وقد ثبت أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم قال ” أنا أول من يدخل الجنة ” وغير ذلك من الأخبار الصريحة في معناه , فيحتمل أن يحمل الإثبات في ذلك على العلم المجمل , والنفي على الإحاطة من حيث التفصيل .

    As for his expression “By Allah, though I am the Apostle of Allah, yet I do not know what Allah will do to me”, the Prophet (peace be upon him) uttered this in accordance with Allah’s statement in Surah Al Ahqaaf “Say: “I am no bringer of new-fangled doctrine among the messengers, nor do i know what will be done with me or with you”. This was before the revealing of the verse by Allah All Mighty “That Allah may forgive you your sins of the past and the future” (Surah 48:2) because Al Ahqaaf is a Makkan Surah, while Surah Al Fatah is a Madinan Surah and there is no contradiction between the two of them. And it has been established that he (peace be upon him) said “I am the first who will enter paradise” and there other reports which convey this meaning as well. So it is possible to sustain this (i.e. the fact that the Prophet doesn’t know) on knowledge in a general sense, but negating the inclusiveness of the particulars. (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Janaaiz, Bab: Al Dukhool ‘Ala Al Mayyit Ba’d Al Mawt izhaa Adraja fi Akfaanihi, Commentary on Hadith no. 1166, Source)

    Imam Tabari in his commentary quotes Qatadah saying:

    وَمَا أَدْرِي مَا يُفْعَل بِي وَلَا بِكُمْ } ثُمَّ دَرَى أَوْ عَلِمَ مِنْ اللَّه صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ بَعْد ذَلِكَ مَا يُفْعَل بِهِ , يَقُول { إِنَّا فَتَحْنَا لَك فَتْحًا مُبِينًا لِيَغْفِر لَك اللَّه مَا تَقَدَّمَ مِنْ ذَنْبك وَمَا تَأَخَّرَ }

    “Nor do I know what will be done with me or with you”, then he (peace be upon him) knew from Allah after that what he would do with him, for Allah said “Verily, We have given you (O Muhammad SAW) a manifest victory. That Allah may forgive you your sins of the past and the future” (Surah 48:1-2) (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-bayan fi ta’wil al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 46:9, Source)

    So we see that the first possible solution is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) expressed his ignorance of what will happen to him in the next life before he received revelation from Allah that stated that he would be going to paradise.

    The second possible solution is that the Qur’anic verse and hadith are not even speaking about the next life, but this life.

    Tafsir Al Jalalayn states:

    Say: ‘I am not a novelty, unprecedented, among the messengers, that is to say, [I am not] the first to be sent [by God as His Messenger]. Already many of them have come before me, so how can you deny me? Nor do I know what will be done with me or with you, in this world: will I be made to leave my [native] land, or will I be slain as was done with [some] prophets before me, or will you stone me to death, or will the earth be made to swallow you as [it did] deniers before you? I only follow what is revealed to me, that is, the Qur’ān, and I do not invent anything myself. And I am only a plain warner’, one whose warning is plain. (Tafsir Al Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 46:9, Source)

    Imam Qurtubi quotes Abu Ja’far saying:

    لَا يَدْرِي صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَا يَلْحَقهُ وَإِيَّاهُمْ مِنْ مَرَض وَصِحَّة وَرُخْص وَغَلَاء وَغِنًى وَفَقْر

    He (peace be upon him) doesn’t know what would follow for him and them from sickness, health, authority, cheap prices, high prices, wealth and poverty. (Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tasfir al Jami’ li-ahkam al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 46:9, Source)

    Ibn Kathir quotes Al Hassan Al Basri explaining the statement “Nor do I know what will be done with me or with you”:

    أَمَّا فِي الْآخِرَة فَمَعَاذَ اللَّه وَقَدْ عَلِمَ أَنَّهُ فِي الْجَنَّة وَلَكِنْ قَالَ لَا أَدْرِي مَا يُفْعَل بِي وَلَا بِكُمْ فِي الدُّنْيَا أُخْرَجُ كَمَا أُخْرِجَتْ الْأَنْبِيَاءُ عَلَيْهِمْ الصَّلَاة وَالسَّلَام مِنْ قَبْلِي ؟ أَمْ أُقْتَلُ كَمَا قُتِلَتْ الْأَنْبِيَاء مِنْ قَبْلِي ؟

    وَهَذَا الْقَوْل هُوَ الَّذِي عَوَّلَ عَلَيْهِ اِبْن جَرِير وَأَنَّهُ لَا يَجُوز غَيْره وَلَا شَكَّ أَنَّ هَذَا هُوَ اللَّائِق بِهِ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فَإِنَّهُ بِالنِّسْبَةِ إِلَى الْآخِرَة جَازِم أَنَّهُ يَصِير إِلَى الْجَنَّة هُوَ وَمَنْ اِتَّبَعَهُ . وَأَمَّا فِي الدُّنْيَا فَلَمْ يَدْرِ مَا كَانَ يَئُول إِلَيْهِ أَمْره وَأَمْر مُشْرِكِي قُرَيْش إِلَى مَاذَا ؟ أَيُؤْمِنُونَ أَمْ يَكْفُرُونَ فَيُعَذَّبُونَ فَيُسْتَأْصَلُونَ بِكُفْرِهِمْ

    As for the Hereafter, I seek refuge in Allah and he (i.e. the Prophet) knew that he was going to paradise, but he said “I don’t know what He (i.e. Allah) will do to me and to you in this life. Will I be kicked out just as the Prophets (may Allah bestow His peace and blessings upon them) before me were kicked out? Or would I be killed just as the Prophets before me were killed?”

    And this is the opinion that Ibn Jareer (i.e. Tabari) took and insisted that there should not be another opinion in this matter; for there is no doubt that this is the suitable explanation that suits the Prophet (peace be upon him). This is because in regards to the Hereafter it is certain that he (i.e. the Prophet) will go to paradise along with those who followed him. And in regards to this life, he didn’t know what was going to happen to him or the polytheists of Quraysh. Were they going to believe, or disbelieve and be punished and extirpated for their disbelief? (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 46:9, Source)

    So we see that the second possible solution is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not speaking about how he is ignorant of what is going to happen to him in the Hereafter, but in this life.

    I personally favor the first solution. This is because it appears to me that the context of the hadeeth in Saheeh Bukhari makes it appear that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is speaking about how he doesn’t know what will happen to him in the Hereafter. This of course is not necessarily true, but in my opinion it seems more likely. Thus, even though I believe that the second solution is still plausible, I will nevertheless personally opt for the first solution.

    Either way we look at it, there is a solution and that is all that matters.

    Appendix

    Shamoun tried to respond to my article over here.

    Shamoun tries to argue that the Prophet’s statement refers to the afterlife by citing Ibn Kathir’s tafsir:

    This and similar texts indicate that it is not allowed to declare that a specific person will enter Jannah except for those who were distinctly indicated by Allah or his Messenger. Examples of those are the Ten, Ibn Sallam, Al-Ghumaysa’, Bilal, Suraqah, `Abdullah bin `Amr bin Haram (Jabir’s father), the Seventy Reciters (of Qur’an) who were assassinated near the Well of Ma`unah, Zayd bin Harithah, Ja`far, Ibn Rawahah, and other similar individuals, may Allah be pleased with them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)

    The narration says “I do not know what will happen to him.” What does this have to do with the Prophet (peace be upon him) knowing about his own salvation?

    He then misrepresents my position by saying:

    Even Muslim polemicist Bassam Zawadi, who tried to address this very topic, accepts that Q. 46:9 is dealing with Muhammad’s eternal destiny:
    I personally favor the first solution. This is because it appears to me that the context of the hadeeth in Saheeh Bukhari makes it appear that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is speaking about how he doesn’t know what will happen to him in the Hereafter. This of course is not necessarily true, but in my opinion it seems more likely. Thus, even though I believe that the second solution is still plausible, I will nevertheless personally opt for the first solution. (Was Prophet Muhammad Uncertain of His Own Salvation?; source; underline emphasis ours)
    We can therefore rule out the second explanation since the context of the hadiths demonstrates the implausibility of this view, just as this Muslim dawagandist admits.

    Is Shamoun blind?. Not only did I not say that this view is implausible, but I said the exact opposite! This is what I said:

    Thus, even though I believe that the second solution is still plausible, I will nevertheless personally opt for the first solution.

    Perhaps Shamoun could see better now.

    Shamoun says:

    But is this what the verse actually says? Does it really claim that Allah had forgiven all of Muhammad’s previous and latter sins? Let us see:
    Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory, That Allah MAY forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and MAY perfect His favour unto thee, and MAY guide thee on a right path, S. 48:1-2 Pickthall Medinan
    As the readers can see for themselves the reference doesn’t say that Allah HAD forgiven Muhammad completely, but that he MAY forgive his messenger of his sins.

    The Arabic word translated as “may” isعسى (‘assa). Ibn Mandhur in his famous Lisaan al-Arab dictionary says that the word ‘assa could linguistically either indicate probability or certainty. (Ibn Manzur, Lisaan Al Arab, Volume 15, page 54; under the word عسا)

    Imam Al-Qurtubi said:

    عَسَى ” مِنْ اللَّه وَاجِبَة.
    ‘assa from Allah is an obligation. (Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tasfir al Jami’ li-ahkam al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 9:18, Source)

    Al-Tabari states:

    وَكُلّ ” عَسَى ” فِي الْقُرْآن فَهِيَ وَاجِبَة
    Every occurrence of ‘assa in the Qur’an is an obligation. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-bayan fi ta’wil al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 9:18, Source)

    Even in English the word “may” could either be used to express contingency/possibility OR power/ability.

    An example of it expressing possibility is “I may travel to Ireland next week”. An example of it expressing ability is:

    Luke 1:4

    so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

    The verses that Shamoun cited are not of those that express contingency because they are explained off by other verses that indicate certainty (e.g. Allah guaranteeing and making promises for paradise).

    The definite proof for this is when Allah revealed Surah 9:102, which states:

    And there are others who confessed their faults. They mixed good works with others that are evil. It may be that ALLAH will turn to them with compassion. Surely, ALLAH is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

    Waakharoona iAAtarafoo bithunoobihim khalatoo AAamalan salihan waakhara sayyi-an AAasa Allahu an yatooba AAalayhim inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun

    This verse was revealed regarding Abu Lubabah. Tafsir Al-Jalalayn states:

    And [there are] others (ākharūn is the subject), [another] folk, who have confessed their sins, for having stayed behind (i’tarafū bi-dhunūbihim is an adjectival qualification of it [the subject] and the predicate is [the following, khalatū 'amalan sālihan]) they have mixed a righteous deed, that is, their former [participation in the] struggle, or the their confession of their sins, or otherwise, with another that was bad, which is their having stayed behind. It may be that God will relent to them. Truly God is Forgiving, Merciful: this was revealed regarding Abū Lubāba and a group of men who tied themselves to the walls of the mosque after they heard what had been revealed regarding those who stayed behind; they swore that only the Prophet (s) would untie them, which he did when this [verse] was revealed. (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 9:102, Source)

    The background of this story is that Abu Lubabah mistakenly told the Bani Qurayza tribe what their fate would be. He realized that this was a big mistake and then he tied himself to the wall of the mosque until God forgave him. Then Surah 9:102 (containing the word ‘assa) was revealed. Once it was revealed Abu Lubabah was untied. The question here is why he would do that if the word ‘assa indicated that his repentance would be conditional? The answer is because it didn’t. Abu Lubabah understood that he was definitely forgiven and that is why he agreed to untie himself.

    Hence, the verses that Shamoun has cited do not prove his case at all. Rather, he is just ignorant of the Arabic language and needs to settle with fallible English translations. Shamoun doesn’t seem to be too knowledgeable of English as well, since he should have remembered that the word “may” does not always express contingency in any given context.

    Shamoun says:

    Moreover, the following Sura, which was composed at a later time, shows that Allah hadn’t removed all of Muhammad’s sins:
    When comes the Help of Allah (to you, O Muhammad against your enemies) and the conquest (of Makkah), And you see that the people enter Allah’s religion (Islam) in crowds, So glorify the Praises of your Lord, and ask for His Forgiveness. Verily, He is the One Who accepts the repentance and forgives. S. 110:1-3 Medinan

    And then asks:

    The question to ask is why is Muhammad still being commanded to ask forgiveness for his sins if Allah had already completely forgiven him?

    Could it be that the reason why Allah informed His Messenger that His past and future sins are forgiven is because Allah already knew how Muhammad (peace be upon him) would continue to live out the rest of his life? You think that Muhammad (peace be upon him) could turn around and say “Haha God! I can do whatever I want now since you promised to forgive all my future sins!”? Obviously not. Allah already forgave the Prophet (peace be upon him) in advance and informed him in advance because He knew that he would continue repenting and worshipping Allah until the day he dies.

    Aisha asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) a similar question:

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volume 6, Book 60, Number 361:

    Narrated Aisha:

    The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?” He said, “Shouldn’t I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?’ When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

    The question Shamoun should be asking himself is why he continues to repent when his imaginary God supposedly died for his sins and already paid his debt? Such a belief is as strange as someone trying to repay back someone whom he doesn’t owe money to anymore. But that’s a different topic and we won’t delve into that here.

    The rest of Shamoun’s points are irrelevant.

    In conclusion, Shamoun has failed to prove that Muhammad (peace be upon him) wasn’t certain of his own salvation.

  150. Sam Shamoun says:

    Now Williams, make sure you practice what you preach by not reproducing Zawadi’s trash, since you whined when I posted links refuting his garbage. This time around make sure THAT YOU ACTUALLY BEGIN PERSONALLY REFUTING ALL THESE POINTS IN THIS THREAD, just like you asked me to do.

    Man, it must really be eating you up inside that your own prophet died the death of an accursed wretch according to your alleged authentic sources. :-)

  151. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, do you really want to do this all day? Do I now need to go ahead and post ALL THE INFORMATION FROM ALL THE LINKS WHICH REFUTED ZAWADI’S TRASH? Really?

    Let me know since i don’t mind humilating you and Zawadi by doing so. It will actually bring me great pleasure to do so.

    And btw, make sure you actually refute my article which I just reproduced concerning you Muslims needing to pray for Muhammad’s salvation.

    Man, what a sad and pathetic religion Islam truly is. :-)

  152. Paul Williams says:

    Answering Common Questions on Salvation That Christians Pose to Muslims

    By

    Bassam Zawadi & Mansur Ahmed

    If it’s not the concept of God Himself that is the major dividing line between Muslims and Christians, then it is definitely the way to attain salvation.

    There are nine common questions that Christians usually pose to Muslims regarding the concept of salvation in Islam and we will attempt to briefly address them here in this article.

    1) Islam teaches that Allah’s will is arbitrary. He can forgive whomever He wills according to the Qur’an. If Allah can forgive you without punishing you, how does Allah balance between mercy and justice when granting or denying salvation to people? In Christianity, God has punished all sin so we don’t have to worry about this.

    Islam does not teach that Allah’s Will is arbitrary. In fact, Allah’s Will is exercised or expressed in accordance to His Divine nature and Wisdom. Sin is not a thing – that exists by itself independent of volitional actors – which needs punishing when committed. A woman is not sin, neither are our eyes, or our hearts. But the action of the eye or the heart when looking at a woman with lust is a sin. Sin does not exist as an entity – wrongly conceived in Christianity – which you can punish. Punishing the actors of sin has a meaning and not punishing the sin.

    We do not believe that Allah needs to express both His Mercy and Justice on every individual at the same time at all times. His Justice is carried out on every individual in perfect wisdom. No one will be wronged, for everyone gets their due (as good and bad is explained through the prophets and messengers at all times in human history). Any good one has done or any bad one has done – be they small or big – will be accounted for. That’s the Justice of God.

    His Mercy however, though in a general sense is open to all in this life (as understood from His name Al-Rahman). The Qur’an states:

    Surah 3:31

    Say (Oh Muhammad): If you love Allah, then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you your faults, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful

    Here we see that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is commanded to tell the people that they must follow his guidance, which was revealed to him by Allah in order to receive Allah’s love. Allah says:

    Surah 21:107

    And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.

    So here we see that Allah is offering His love and mercy to everyone in the form of Islam. If one rejects Islam then he or she is rejecting Allah’s offer of love in turn. It’s not an issue of Allah not wanting to love the person, but an issue of the person not allowing Allah’s love to reach him.

    Allah has declared to humanity about His nature:

    Surah 7:156

    My Mercy encompasses all things

    Surah 6:12

    He has taken it upon Himself to be Merciful

    Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said:

    When Allah created the creation He put down in his Book, which is with Him upon the Throne: Verily, My mercy prevails over My wrath. (Sahih Muslim 4939)

    He has however, in a specific sense, reserved the abundant mercy (Surah 7:156) for the believers in the hereafter (as understood from His name Al-Raheem).

    God by taking on to Himself to be Merciful, which prevails over His wrath (i.e. punishing through Justice) has told us how He expresses these two apparently contradictory attributes. His attributes therefore are complimentary.

    There are two kinds of sins that could occur. One is sin against God and the other is sin against creation. If we sin against God, it is entirely within God’s prerogative to forgive us. If we sin against humanity more than one thing could occur. 1) He whom I sinned against could forgive me for my crime or 2) God could forgive me for my crime and then recompense the victim in order to ensure overall justice.

    Furthermore, God could punish me in this life for my crimes without punishing me in hell. For example, he could punish me with trials in this life. He could punish me in the grave. He could punish me and wipe out my sins by making me feel pain when the angel of death is pulling out my soul. He could temporarily punish me in hell for any sins that I committed.

    This doesn’t contradict God being All Merciful. We don’t define All Just and All Merciful as meaning that God should be fully just and fully merciful with a human being at all given times. Surely, Muslims and Christians alike would agree that God won’t be merciful to the disbelievers on the Day of Judgment for instance. Rather, when we say that God is All Merciful or All Just we mean to say that His ability to exercise these two attributes is infinitely vast, but whether He decides to exercise them is entirely up to His will that is in accordance with His nature.

    Also, we should bear in mind that Justice does not always denote vengeance or punishment. Sometimes forgiveness and display of mercy could be an act of justice. Allah’s forgiving someone for a sin without punishing him for it does not mean that Allah compromised His Justice. Human beings are created weak and are meant to fall into sin from time to time. There is no reason to believe that we deserve to be punished for every single thing that we do. We will expand more on this point below.

    2) You Muslims aren’t even sure whether you have attained salvation. For crying out loud, Muhammad himself wasn’t sure if he would go to heaven according to an authentic hadeeth, so how could you be!?

    It is not correct that Muslims aren’t sure whether they have attained salvation or not. Muslims have a guarantee of salvation and Promise from God to that matter.

    Allah states:

    Surah 9:72

    Allah has promised to the believers -men and women, – Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of ‘Adn (Eden Paradise). But the greatest bliss is the Good Pleasure of Allah. That is the supreme success.

    Allah also states:

    Surah 3:9

    Verily, Allah never breaks His Promise

    Now if you ask the Muslim “are you going to paradise?” he is going to say to you “if Allah wills” (insha’allah). The well informed Muslim is not going to tell you “Yes I am going paradise for sure.” No, the Muslim hopes and prays that he will end up in paradise. It’s not because the Muslim is worried whether Allah will keep His promise, for as we have seen Allah does not break His promise. Rather, it is because the Muslim cannot be sure whether he would continue remaining on the straight path and die as a Muslim and the guarantee or promise of salvation is conditional in remaining and dying as a Muslim.

    As for Christians, well there is no consensus regarding this matter.

    If you are a Calvinist you would adhere to the doctrine of the preservation of saints, which basically states that once you’re saved, you’re always saved. Once the Holy Spirit dwells in you it will never leave you. But if you happen to be following the Arminian school of thought you would take a different stance and take a position similar to what Muslims take, which is the doctrine of conditional preservation of the saints, which states that there must be a condition for one to be saved and it is possible for one to lose that status.

    One verse that Christians who adhere to the conditional preservation of saints often appeal to is the following:

    Hebrews 6:4-8

    “For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.”

    The above verse according to Arminians clearly shows that the Holy Spirit could possibly leave even after it has dwelt in you.

    They also appeal to the various verses in the Bible that warn believers about apostasy (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:1 and several other verses in the book Hebrews) and then ask why the New Testament would warn against something that isn’t even possible?

    Also, Paul is reported to have said:

    1 Corinthians 15:2

    “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”

    Paul is putting on a condition for one to be saved by the Gospel. That condition is that one holds firmly onto it. Clearly there is no point for saying such a thing if it is not possible for a true believer to let go of it. If the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints were true then it would have been enough for Paul to say (or something similar):

    “By this gospel you are saved, once you have firmly embraced the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”

    According to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints once one has become truly regenerate, he will never apostatize. Once he has embraced the gospel he will never let go of it. There is no “ifs” about the matter. However, Paul’s statement fits perfectly well with the doctrine of conditional preservation of the saints, which states that there must be a condition for one to be saved and that is the condition that Paul put:

    if you hold firmly to the word.

    These verses point to the apostasy and since apostasy is at least possible, then how could one be 100% sure that he wouldn’t apostatize in the future? Obviously, Calvinists would try to engage with these verses so we will allow the Christians to have their own “in house” debates on the side and they could try to settle the issue amongst themselves.

    Uncertainty is a motivational factor to make you word harder in being a better person. Imagine you join a university and you are absolutely guaranteed that you would pass all your subjects no matter what you do. It would make no difference whatsoever if you study or not, you are still guaranteed your degree. If that is the case, would any students study just for the sake of studying? Not too many we suppose.

    If someone claims certainty that he will go to heaven then this could lead to some problems. For example if you are absolutely certain that you are going to paradise why should you fear God? The New Testament states:

    1 Peter 2:17

    Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

    Why should we fear God if we know for a fact that we are going to paradise? Why should we fear God anyways? Well the Bible states:

    Exodus 20:20

    Moses said to the people, “Do not be afraid. God has come to test you, so that the fear of God will be with you to keep you from sinning.”

    So here we see that the reason why we should fear God is so that it could be a motivation for us to stop sinning. Well why should we stop sinning? Well it’s to avoid God’s wrath. But if the Christian already avoids God’s wrath by believing in and accepting what Jesus supposedly did on the cross then the Christian doesn’t have to worry about God’s wrath anymore. And if he doesn’t have to worry about God’s wrath anymore because he is certain that he is going to paradise then why fear God as the New Testament instructs him to do?

    As for Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) supposedly not being assured of his salvation, this has already been addressed over here.

    3) The Qu’ran says that Allah is a deceiver, how can you trust a deceiver when he promises you something? Even Muhammad’s close companion Abu Bakr said he wasn’t sure about going to heaven because he doesn’t feel safe from the deception of Allah.

    Allah in His wisdom throws back the deception at the deceiving unbeliever. The word ‘makr’ for example, according to classical Arabic dictionaries can have meaning of praise or blame depending on its usage in context. Breaking the deceivers plot is not to be taken as a blameworthy action, but it is on the contrary a praiseworthy action.

    Such language is also present in the Bible (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:11) where God sends a lying spirit so they can believe in the lie in the spirit of outperforming the evil ones in their own evil plot.

    As for the narration of Abu Bakr, this narration has not been proven to be authentic and even if it was Abu Bakr’s statement it is to be interpreted as him speaking out of humility.

    4) Islam teaches that salvation is dependent upon the scales and whether your good deeds would outweigh the bad. How do you know what your scales would say on the Day of Judgment? Do you have some kind of notebook where you keep track of your actions or something? How about if you forgot to repent from a sin?

    The weightiest deed on the Day of Judgment is ‘laa ilaaha illallaah’ the declaration of faith in Islam. This is both a faith and deed which is described as the key to entering paradise. No other bad deed can outweigh this one on the scales (except Shirk- which negates faith anyway if it’s not repented of before death).

    All our actions are recorded – the good and the bad even if they are like the size of a mustard seed -, by the angels who are placed as scribes (Surah 82:10-13). A book that records everything from small to large where everything is accounted for (Surah 42:18)

    As for possibly forgetting to repent for a sin, the Prophet (peace be upon him) taught us to make a prayer asking Allah to forgive us all of our sins while acknowledging that Allah knows better about them than us:

    O Allah, forgive my sin, my ignorance, my immoderation in my affairs, and all that You know better about my (faults) than myself. O Allah, forgive for me my joking, my seriousness, my unintended error, and my deliberate (mistakes) — and I have done of all that.) (Tafsir Ibn Kathir)

    Secondly, Allah said that He will not hold us accountable for what we forgot:

    Surah 2:286

    Allah burdens not a person beyond his scope. He gets reward for that (good) which he has earned, and he is punished for that (evil) which he has earned. “Our Lord! Punish us not if we forget or fall into error, our Lord! Lay not on us a burden like that which You did lay on those before us (Jews and Christians); our Lord! Put not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Pardon us and grant us Forgiveness. Have mercy on us. You are our Maula (Patron, Supporter and Protector, etc.) and give us victory over the disbelieving people.”

    5) Since Allah’s will and judgment are arbitrary, how do you know if Allah forgave your sins?

    Allah’s will and His attributes are not arbitrary as explained before. His justice is such that no one will be wronged unjustly on the Day of Judgment (Surah 42:18). His Grace, love and forgiveness will be showered on the Day of Judgment upon those who showed to be the recipient of His Grace. People will go to Hell due to His Justice and to heaven by His Grace. Allah has described, unlike being anything arbitrary, that to receive His Grace, Mercy and forgiveness – one needs to follow the prophetic guidance and obey Him(Surah 3:31; 3:132). So if one has the correct faith in Allahand follows His will, now offered as Islam, and sincerely repents for his shortcomings/sins, Allah will surely forgive him (Surah 15:49; 40:2; 20:82)

    6) How could Muslims believe that finite works could “earn” them paradise and please God? God is too great for that and requires something more and that thing is the acceptance of God’s sacrifice for us.

    Islam makes it clear that one will enter paradise based on his faith and good works. Allah says:

    Surah 2:25

    And give glad tidings to those who believe and do righteous good deeds, that for them will be Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise).

    Without faith, Allah will not accept those good deeds that one has done as He states in Surah 9, verse 17.

    When Islam says that one must have faith, one must have faith in six specific things.

    1) Belief in Allah as the only true God

    2) Belief in the angels

    3) Belief in all the revelations that God has sent

    4) Belief in all the of the Messengers that God has sent

    5) Belief in the Day of Judgment

    6) Belief in predestination.

    It is essential that the Muslim believes in all six of these things in order to make sure that his or her heart is purified because Allah says:

    Surah 26: 88-89

    The Day where neither wealth nor sons will avail. Except him who brings to Allâh a clean heart [clean from Shirk (polytheism) and Nifâq (hypocrisy)].

    Also, the Muslim must recognize and be aware that it is ultimately only by Allah’s mercy that one will enter paradise:

    Sahih al-Bukhari

    Volume 8, Book 76, Number 474

    The Prophet (peace be upon him) said,

    “Do good deeds properly, sincerely and moderately, and receive good news because one’s good deeds will NOT make him enter Paradise.” They asked, “Even you, O Allah’s Apostle?” He said, “Even I, unless and until Allah bestows His pardon and Mercy on me.”

    So here we see that it’s not by one’s good deeds that one will enter paradise but by Allah’s Mercy. However, Allah has commanded us to do good deeds and we would not be recipient of His mercy unless we obey His commands.

    Now when it comes to Christianity there doesn’t seem to be a consensus amongst Christians regarding this crucial point. The Roman Catholics would say like what the Muslims say and that is that salvation is achieved by both faith and works. However, the Protestants take a different stance and say that salvation is only attained by faith alone and that this is the kind of faith that manifests itself and bears the fruit of good works.

    We personally tend to agree more with the Roman Catholics on this point, since it appears that the Old Testament, the Biblical Jesus and his half brother James believed and taught such a doctrine as the following verses below illustrate:

    Ezekiel 18:21-22
    21 “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
    22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will

    Matthew 19:16-21

    16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

    17″Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

    18″Which ones?” the man inquired.

    Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’[d] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]”

    20″All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

    21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

    James 2:20-26

    20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

    Dr. Umar Al-Ashqar states the harmony between faith and good works in the process of salvation:

    Paradise is something of immense value; a person cannot earn it by virtue of his deeds alone, but by the Grace and Mercy of Allah. Muslim reported from Abu Hurayrah that the Messenger of Allah said:

    “No one of you will enter Paradise by his deeds alone.” They asked, “Not even me, unless Allah covers me with His Grace and Mercy. (Muslim, 4/2170, hadith no. 2816)

    The fact that some texts indicate that Paradise is the price for the deeds could be problematic, for example:

    {No person knows what is kept hidden for them of joy as a reward for what they used to do.} (Qur’an 32:17)

    {. such are the dwellers of Paradise. They will abide therein.} (Qur’an 7:43)

    However, there is no conflict between these aayaat (verses) and the meaning of the hadith. The aayaat indicate that good deeds will be a reason, not the price, for admission to Paradise. The hadith says that good deeds are not the price for admission. Two groups were misled in this matter: the Jabariyah, who took the hadith to mean that the reward is not connected to deeds, because man has nothing to do with his deeds [i.e. everything is foreordained]; and the Qadariyah, who took the hadith to mean that Paradise was the price for good deeds, and man has the right to enter by virtue of his good deeds.

    The commentator on At-Tahaawiyah said: “As for the idea that recompense results directly from one’s deeds, the Jabariyah and Qadariyah are misled, and Allah, to Whom be praise, has guided Ahl as-Sunnah. The Arabic preposition ba’ of negation (nafyi) is not like the ba’ used for affirmation. The negation in the hadith “No one will enter Paradise by virtue of his deeds (bi ‘amaalihi) is the ba’ of substitution or exchange, as if good deeds were not the price of a man’s admission to Paradise. This is like the (false) Mu’tazili claim that good deeds will give a person the right to enter Paradise, whereas the truth is that admission to Paradise is by the Grace and Mercy of Allah. The bi’ in the ayah, {. a reward for what they used to do [Jaza'an bi maa kaanu ya'maloon].} (Qur’an 32:17) is known in Arabic grammar as the bi’ of causation, i.e. because of their deeds. But Allah is the Creator of cause and effect, so everything is referred back to His Grace and Mercy.” (Sharh at-Tahaawiyah, 495.) (Umar Al Ashqar, Islamic Creed Series, Volume 5: Paradise and Hell in Light of the Qur’an and Sunnah, pages 265-266)

    7) The Qu’ran says that Allah “misguides people” and “hardens their hearts”. This shows that several people end up in hell and lose salvation because Allah made that to be the case. What kind of hope for salvation does Islam offer us when Allah could end up hindering us from attaining it?

    One can refer to this article for a fuller explanation http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/what_does_it_mean_that_allah_guides_whom_he_wills_and_misguides_whom_he_wills_

    It is not that He ‘misguides’ them, but rather leaves them astray even after reminding them. This is because they chose misguidance over His guidance. There are some who have become oblivious to the guidance due to their own making, and no advice or warning benefits them. They have chosen to seal their own hearts from guidance. This is from the foreknowledge of God. It is not Allah who hinders us from attaining salvation; neither is it He who has made us like that.

    In the Bible, God hardened the heart of Pharaoh. God declares:

    Exodus 4:21

    I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will not let the people go.

    But if God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, then Pharaoh cannot be held morally responsible for his actions, since he did not do it of his own free will, but out of constraint (cf. 2 Cor. 9:7 ; 1 Peter 5:2 ). Why did he harden Pharaoh’s heart so he would reject God’s will? If God is just, why blame Pharaoh for his sin when it was God who hardened his heart to sin?

    Paul says:

    God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden (Rom.9:18-19 )

    We see that the Bible contains similar apparently problematic passages. The question we would like answered is why Christians are applying double standards when critiquing Islam?

    8) The concept of salvation straight from the time of Adam involved blood sacrifice, yet Islam mentions nothing about this. Islam’s concept of salvation contradicts that of the previous prophets.

    Blood sacrifice was not the only way of atonement. Three different methods of atonement are identified in the Hebrew Bible: animal sacrifices, contrite repentance & prayer, and charitable deeds. For a fuller explanation please read http://l.b5z.net/i/u/6103974/i/Blood_Sacrifice_by_Messiah_Truth__Out_Reach_and_Jews_for_Judaism.doc.

    9) Can you perfectly obey God’s law? No you cannot, so why do you deserve going to paradise? Shouldn’t Allah be All-Just and only accept perfection?

    For starters the question is a straw man. Islam does not expect Muslims to perfectly follow each Islamic ruling or law. Secondly, the question seems to demand perfection, yet God did not create us perfect, God created us with free will, and knew that we would fall sometimes, so you can’t demand perfection when you haven’t been created to be capable of being a perfect saint. Thirdly, in Islam God expects us to sin, because when we sin we turn back to God in repentance. In essence this is a way to open up a relationship with God! In Islam God expects you to fall, but it’s about picking yourself up, learning from your mistakes, and moving on. Fourthly, not all Muslims will automatically go to heaven, many will go to hell where they will be cleansed of their sins, as for Muslims who do go straight to heaven, they will be punished in this life as a way to get rid of that sin, as the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught, punishments in this life is a form of taking the sin away and being saved in the hereafter. Fifthly, let us use some logic and rationality as God would want us to, saying a bad word is a sin, punching someone is a sin, etc., yet these are minor sins at most, do you really expect God to send you to hell for eternity for such a small sin? God never created us with the intention of being perfect, hence to assume perfection is a straw man, a straw man Christians can’t impose on us as Muslims.

    Allah said:

    Surah 16:61

    And if Allâh were to seize mankind for their wrongdoing, He would not leave on it (the earth) a single moving (living) creature

    Thus, anyone who invokes Allah for His Wrath against his own self will be taking foolishness as their way. Those who have sane minds, in contrast, invoke Allah for His Mercy and only invoke Him for His Wrath with their enemies. This is because Allah’s Mercy encompasses everything:

    Surah 7:156

    (As to) My punishment I afflict therewith whom I will and My Mercy embraces all things. That (Mercy) I shall ordain for those who are the Muttaqûn (the pious), and give Zakât; and those who believe in Our Ayât (revelations,

    Allah does not require anyone to perfectly fulfill His commandments, but to be as righteous as they humanly can:

    Surah 2:256

    Allâh burdens not a person beyond his scope

    Surah 64:16

    So keep your duty to Allâh and fear Him as much as you can

    Thus, Allah shows His Kindness to His creation that He treats them with His Mercy. How can this be a source of criticism? We thank Allah that He treats us with His Mercy, that He only requires us to do what we can in return for His Promise of Paradise, {(Allah said) eat of the Tayyibât (good lawful things) wherewith We have provided you, and commit no transgression or oppression therein, lest My Anger should justly descend on you. And he on whom My Anger descends, he is indeed perished. And verily, I am indeed forgiving to him who repents, believes (in My Oneness, and associates none in worship with Me) and does righteous good deeds, and then remains constant in doing them (until his death).} (Surah 20:81-82)

    We reiterate the point that display of Mercy does not necessarily contradict the notion of being Just. Justice does not equal revenge. Justice equals fairness. Allah could forgive someone fairly without punishing him because that person repented from his sin sincerely and was too weak by his own nature to resist committing it. We are not saying that the weakness of humans justifies their committing sins. There are minor and major sins and there usually aren’t any good excuses for one to commit major sins. Also, it depends on how frequent one is sinning. But what matters the most is how the person picks himself up after sinning. That would determine how Allah would deal with such a person. Whether Allah chooses to forgive or punish, at the end no matter what He does He is being fair.

  153. Paul Williams says:

    Does Islam Permit Muslim Men to Rape Their Slave Girls?

    By

    Bassam Zawadi

    There are those who argue that since Islam permits Muslim men to have sexual intercourse with their slave girls, this then means that they also have the right to rape them.

    This is absurd. The right to have sex with a woman does not necessarily imply that one has the right to rape her as well. To say that a Muslim man has the right to rape his slave girl is like saying that a man has the right to rape his wife; which is not true. Refer to this article.

    Rape in Islam is completely forbidden. See this and this.

    Imam Maalik said:

    ÇáÃãÑ ÚäÏäÇ Ýí ÇáÑÌá íÛÊÕÈ ÇáãÑÃÉ ÈßÑÇð ßÇäÊ Ãæ ËíÈÇ : ÃäåÇ Åä ßÇäÊ ÍÑÉ : ÝÚáíå ÕÏÇÞ ãËáåÇ , æÅä ßÇäÊ ÃãóÉ : ÝÚáíå ãÇ äÞÕ ãä ËãäåÇ ¡ æÇáÚÞæÈÉ Ýí Ðáß Úáì ÇáãÛÊÕÈ ¡ æáÇ ÚÞæÈÉ Úáì ÇáãÛÊÕÈÉ Ýí Ðáß ßáå

    In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a “dowry” like that of her peers, and if she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case. (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta’, Volume 2, page 734)

    Imam Al Shaafi’i said:

    æÅÐÇ ÇÛÊÕÈ ÇáÑÌá ÇáÌÇÑíÉ Ëã æØÆåÇ ÈÚÏ ÇáÛÕÈ æåæ ãä ÛíÑ Ãåá ÇáÌåÇáÉ ÃÎÐÊ ãäå ÇáÌÇÑíÉ æÇáÚÞÑ æÃÞíã Úáíå ÍÏ ÇáÒäÇ

    “If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse.” (Imam Al Shaafi’i, Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253)

    Notice that both of these top classical scholars have stated that a man is to be punished for raping a slave girl. Of course this not our ultimate proof that Islam forbids rape, but this is to show that the early classical scholars surely did not understand Islam to be teaching it.

    In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685 we read the following story:

    Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: ‘I permit you and made it lawful to you.’ He said: ‘No not until you write a message to Umar’. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar’s message was delivered, Dharar was dead. (Khalid) said: ‘Allah didn’t want to disgrace Dharar’

    Notice that Umar ibn Al Khattab (the second caliph) ordered the man who captured the slave girl and had sex with her to be stoned for this crime, for he took the slave girl unjustly.

    Do these critics who raise these arguments know Islam better than Umar ibn al Khattab?

    We anticipate what our opponents might say in response. They will say that the scholars whom I just cited and the story of Umar ibn Al Khattab only refer to someone who raped a slave girl who did not belong to him, however one may rape the slave girl that is his property. Even though the story in Sunan Al Bayhaqi makes it clear that the man had sex with the girl after possessing her, we will accept this response only for the sake of argument.

    It is nonsense to suggest that one could rape the slave girl he possesses because the Prophet (peace be upon him) warned us that we must take good care of those under our authority:

    “There is no person to whom Allaah has given people to take care of, and he fails to take care of them properly, but he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise.” (Saheeh Bukhari no. 6731; Saheeh Muslim, no. 142)

    ‘Umar ibn al-Ahwas (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that he heard the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say during his Farewell Pilgrimage:

    “Verily, you have rights over your women, and your women have rights over you. As for your rights over your women, they are that they should not allow anyone to sit on your beds whom you dislike, or allow anyone into your houses whom you dislike. Verily, their rights over you are that you should treat them well with regard to their clothing and food.” (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, 1163, and Ibn Maajah, 1851).

    The Prophet (peace be upon him) made it clear that we shouldn’t harm slaves:

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29

    Narrated Al-Ma’rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, “I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names.” The Prophet said to me, ‘O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.

    The Prophet (peace be upon him) said that our slaves are like our siblings. Who would rape his own sister?

    The Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade causing physical harm to slaves:

    Saheeh Muslim

    Book 015, Number 4082:

    Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl. Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap) but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin, and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free.

    Book 015, Number 4086

    Abu Mas’ud al-Badri reported: “I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me: Understand, Abu Masud; but I did not recognise the voice due to intense anger. He (Abu Mas’ud) reported: As he came near me (I found) that he was the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he was saying: Bear in mind, Abu Mas’ud; bear in mind. Abu Mas’ud. He (Aba Maslad) said: threw the whip from my hand. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Bear in mind, Abu Mas’ud; verily Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave. I (then) said: I would never beat my servant in future.

    If the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade slapping and whipping slaves then it’s unthinkable that he would have permitted raping them. It just makes no sense.

    Thus, our argument is as follows:

    - The Prophet (peace be upon him) has prohibited causing harm to and oppressing those under our authority.

    - Rape is causing harm to someone and is considered a form of oppression

    - If the critic says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) made an exception to this general prohibition by allowing one to rape his slave girl, the burden of proof is upon him to show evidence for this exception.

    - If he is not able to show evidence for this exception then we must assume that the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) general command is upheld, thus proving that Islam forbids one to rape his slave girl.

    Critics would reply back and say that it’s unthinkable that slave girls back then would hae willingly consented to having sex with their Muslim captors who just killed their family members. They would usually point to the specific example of Banu Al-Mustaliq.

    The narration states:

    Sahih al-Bukhari 4138 – Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the mosque and saw Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e., coitus interruptus). Abu Sa’id said, “We went out with Allah’s Messenger for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So, when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus without asking Allah’s Messenger while he is present among us?’ We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection.’” (Sahih Bukhari, no. 4138)

    Here the critic’s argument goes something like this:

    - The Islamic traditions show that Muslims had sex with their slave girls

    - According to my subjective logic it is inconceivable that slave girls would consent to having sex with the captors that just killed members from their tribe

    - In conclusion, the Islamic traditions show that Muslims raped their slave girls

    These critics are ignorant of history, for slave girls did consent to having sex with their captors back in the past.

    John McClintock said:

    Women who followed their father and husbands to the war put on their finest dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor in the eyes of their captors in case of a defeat. (John McClintock, James Strong, “Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature” [Harper & Brothers, 1894], p. 782)

    Matthew B. Schwartz said:

    The Book of Deuteronomy prescribes its own rules for the treatment of women captured in war [ Deut 21:10-14 ] . Women have always followed armies to do the soldiers’ laundry, to nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes

    They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the battle. The Bible recognizes the realities of the battle situation in its rules on how to treat female captives, though commentators disagree on some of the details.

    The biblical Israelite went to battle as a messenger of God. Yet he could also, of course, be caught up in the raging tide of blood and violence. The Western mind associates prowess, whether military or athletic, with sexual success.

    The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not around the players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the winning hero “attracts” the women. (Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J. Kaplan, “The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology of Biblical Women” [Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007] , pp. 146-147)

    Thus we see from two non-Muslim authors that slave girls back in the past would consent to having sex with their captors. So if we put aside our 21st century mindset and look at history objectively, there is nothing wrong with saying that slave girls back then consented to having sex with their captors.

    One might object to the fact that the above authors are only speaking about the Israelite era. However, that is really not a good response. The point I am trying to make is that the idea of the possibility of slave girls willingly having sex with their captors is not absurd. Thus, one is required to provide proof that those slave girls who had sex with their Muslim captors did not consent. This is especially due to the fact that 1) It was possible for slave girls back in the past to consent to having sex with their captors and 2) Muslims were prohibited from harming their slave girls.

    If the critic says that not all of the slave girls felt this way and there were bound to be some who didn’t want to have sex, I would agree with him. However, how does this prove that the Muslims raped their slave girls? How does the critic know whether the Muslim back then actually raped the slave girl who was unwilling to have sex with him? Isn’t it possible that if he saw her unwilling he would have sold to her to another Muslim at a cheaper price? Or he would have purchased another slave girl who was willing to have sex with him? Or he would have waited for her to consent, for by that time he would have treated her very nicely and convinced her that Islam is true and that it was her tribe’s fault for starting the battle, etc. Yes these things are possible.

    How does the critic know that none of these things happened? What is his proof that the Muslims raped their slave girls?

    The narration doesn’t show:

    - How many Muslim captors decided to go through with having sex with the slave girls?

    - How many women actually ended up having sex with their Muslim captors?

    - Most importantly, whether any slave girls were raped

    Even if the critic is successful in showing that the Muslims raped them, what is his proof that this was approved by the Prophet (peace be upon him)? It’s possible that Muslims committed sins back then and disobeyed the Prophet (peace be upon him). So where could the critic show us the Prophet (peace be upon him) approving of such behavior?

    He cannot and I challenge him to.

    Another narration that the critics appeals to is this:

    Sunan Abu Dawud

    Volume 2, Number 2150

    Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) 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.

    The critics would argue that no slave girl would consent to having sexual intercourse in the presence of her husband.
    However, this is a completely false translation of the hadith. The words “in the presence of” are no where to be found in the Arabic text.

    The full Arabic text (found here) states:

    þÍÏËäÇ þ þÚÈíÏ Çááå Èä ÚãÑ Èä ãíÓÑÉ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þíÒíÏ Èä ÒÑíÚ þ þÍÏËäÇ þ þÓÚíÏ þ þÚä þ þÞÊÇÏÉ þ þÚä þ þÕÇáÍ ÃÈí ÇáÎáíá þ þÚä þ þÃÈí ÚáÞãÉ ÇáåÇÔãí þ þÚä þ þÃÈí ÓÚíÏ ÇáÎÏÑí þ

    þÃä ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÈÚË íæã þ þÍäíä þ þÈÚËÇ þ þÅáì þ þÃæØÇÓ þ þÝáÞæÇ ÚÏæåã ÝÞÇÊáæåã ÝÙåÑæÇ Úáíåã æÃÕÇÈæÇ áåã þ þÓÈÇíÇ þ þÝßÃä ÃäÇÓÇ ãä þ þÃÕÍÇÈ ÑÓæá Çááå þ þÕáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã þ þÊÍÑÌæÇ ãä þ þÛÔíÇäåä þ þãä ÃÌá ÃÒæÇÌåä ãä ÇáãÔÑßíä ÝÃäÒá Çááå ÊÚÇáì Ýí Ðáß þ
    þæÇáãÍÕäÇÊ þ þãä ÇáäÓÇÁ ÅáÇ ãÇ ãáßÊ ÃíãÇäßã þ
    þÃí Ýåä áåã ÍáÇá ÅÐÇ ÇäÞÖÊ ÚÏÊåä

    If the reader does not know how to read Arabic, let him bring someone who does and ask him whether he can point out to him the words “in the presence of”. He won’t be able to. The translation in Saheeh Muslim seems more accurate:

    Saheeh Muslim

    Book 008, Number 3432:

    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:” And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)” (i. e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end).

    So here we see that the Muslim soldiers were feeling uncomfortable with engaging in sexual intercourse with women who were already married. However, the verse was revealed saying that it is permissible to engage in sexual intercourse with slave girls even if they are married.

    Imam Al Tabari in his commentary on Surah 4:24 cites several of the companions and second generation Muslims stating that the marriage of a woman is annulled after she has been captured and made a slave.

    Imam Nawawi in his commentary on this hadith states:

    ÝÅäå íäÝÓÎ äßÇÍ ÒæÌåÇ ÇáßÇÝÑ

    It (i.e. to come to own a slave girl) annuls the marriage between her and her disbeliever husband. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Ridaa’, Bab: Jawaaz Wati’ Al Missbiyyah Ba’d Al Istibraa’ wa en Kaana laha Zawj Infasakh, Commentary on Hadith no. 2643, Source)

    Thus, we see that in the eyes of Islam this marriage becomes invalid (some opinions like that of the Hanafi school state other conditions required for the annulment to occur). The critic would definitely argue back stating “what gives your religion the right?” but that is not the point of discussion. This is an external critique of Islam and the basis for this discussion really isn’t about this topic in particular but about whether Islam really is true and whether this is God’s decree. To debate the specifics is just useless. The Muslim sees this decree to be internally consistent and submits to God’s law that states that action x results in a divorce.

    One might shout out to the Christian as well, “What gives your Bible the right to declare a woman an adulteress if she happened to marry a man who divorced her by not following the proper procedures (Matthew 5:2)?” The Christian really has nothing to say except the fact that he believes that this is God’s decree and submits to it. He believes that God has the power and right to determine how divorce should take place (e.g. what conditions are valid for divorce) and submits to them. Well, the Muslim says the same thing in this regard.

    Imam Nawawi goes on to say:

    æÇÚáã Ãä ãÐåÈ ÇáÔÇÝÚí æãä ÞÇá ÈÞæáå ãä ÇáÚáãÇÁ Ãä ÇáãÓÈíÉ ãä ÚÈÏÉ ÇáÃæËÇä æÛíÑåã ãä ÇáßÝÇÑ ÇáÐíä áÇ ßÊÇÈ áåã áÇ íÍá æØÄåÇ Èãáß Çáíãíä ÍÊì ÊÓáã ÝãÇ ÏÇãÊ Úáì ÏíäåÇ Ýåí ãÍÑãÉ , ÝåÄáÇÁ ÇáãÓÈíÇÊ ßä ãä ãÔÑßí ÇáÚÑÈ ÚÈÏÉ ÇáÃæËÇä , ÝíÄæá åÐÇ ÇáÍÏíË æÔÈåå Úáì Ãäåä ÃÓáãä , æåÐÇ ÇáÊÃæíá áÇ ÈÏ ãäå æÇááå ÃÚáã

    And know that the school of thought of Al Shafi’i and who agreed with him from amongst the scholars have stated that the idol worshipper and those whom have no religious book cannot be approached for sexual intercourse unless they convert to Islam first. As long as they are following their religion they are forbidden to approach. These slave girls (i.e. in the particular narration) are idol worshippers. This hadith and whatever resembles it must be interpreted as implying that the slave girls accepted Islam. There is no other choice but to interpret the hadiths this way and Allah knows best. (Ibid)

    So here we see that a great number of scholars have argued that just as Muslims are forbidden to marry idol worshippers, they are forbidden as well from engaging in sexual intercourse with idol worshipping slave girls. In order to engage in the sexual act, the Muslim must wait for the slave girl to convert to Islam and in Islam there is no shred of evidence whatsoever that the Muslim can force or compel his slave girl to convert to Islam.

    We see cases in the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) where slave girls willingly prefer to accept Islam over returning to their tribe due to recognizing the truth of Islam and injustice of their own tribe for provoking the Muslims to war. The most famous case being that of Safiyyah, one of the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him).

    Furthermore, when analyzing the particular story mentioned in the hadith we see that no rape could have reasonably taken place.

    Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri states:

    The Enemy’s March and their Encampment at Awtas
    When Malik bin ‘Awf – the general leader – decided to march and fight the Muslims, he made his countrypeople take their wealth, women and children with them to Awtas – which is a valley in Hawazin land and is quite near Hunain. It differs from Hunain in its being adjacent to Dhi-Al-Majaz which is around ten miles from Makkah in ‘Arafat’s direction. [Fath Al-Bari 8/27,42]

    The War-experienced Man wrongs the Leader’s Judgement
    As soon as they had camped in Awtas, people crowded round Malik. The old sane Duraid bin As-Simmah, who was well-known as a war-experienced man, and who was among those who gathered round Malik, asked: “What valley are we in?” “In Awtas,” they said. “What a good course it is for horses! It is neither a sharp pointed height nor a loosed soiled plain. What? Why do I hear camels’ growling, the donkeys’ braying, the children’s cries and the sheep bleating?” asked Duraid. They said: “Malik bin ‘Awf had made people bring their women, properties and children with them.” So he called Malik and asked him what made him do such a thing. Malik said that his aim was to have everybody’s family and properties around them so that they fight fiercely to protect them.” “I swear by Allâh that you are nothing but a shepherd,” answered Duraid, “Do you believe that there is anything whatsoever, can stand in the way of a defeated one or stop him from fleeing? If you win the battle you avail nothing but a man with a sword and a spear; but if you lose you will bring disgrace on your people and properties,” then he resumed his talk and went on wondering about some septs and their leaders. “O Malik, thrusting the distinguished people of Hawazin into the battlefield will avail you nothing. Raise them up to where they can be safe. Then make the young people mount their horses and fight. If you win, those whom you tarried will follow you, but if you were the loser it would be a loss of a battle, but your kinsmen, people and properties would not be lost.” (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar): The Third Stage, Source)

    So here we see that it was the disbeliever’s fault for bringing their own women and children to the battle field. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was not interested in invading their lands and taking their women as it would be made clear as we read on:

    A similar battalion of horsemen pursued the idolaters who threaded the track to Nakhlah and caught up with Duraid bin As-Simmah, who was killed by Rabi’a bin Rafi’. After collecting the booty, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] left for Ta’if to face the greatest number of the defeated idolaters. The booty was six thousand captives, twenty four thousand camels; over forty thousand sheep and four thousand silver ounces.

    So here we see that the Muslims were victorious and obtained an impressive amount of war booty.

    Continuing on:

    The Distribution of the Booty at Al-Ji’ranah
    Upon returning and lifting the siege in Ta’if, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] had stayed over ten nights at Al-Ji’ranah before starting to distribute the booty. Distribution delay was due to the Prophet’s hope that Hawazin’s delegation might arrive and announce their repentance and consequently reclaim their loss. Seeing that none of them arrived, he started dividing the booty so as to calm down the tribes’ chiefs and the celebrities of Makkah. The first to receive booty and the ones who obtained the greatest number of shares were the people who had recently embraced Islam.

    Notice this crucial point. The Prophet (peace be upon him) intentionally delayed distributing the booty because he wanted the Hawazin to come back and surrender and then collect their lost war booty.

    Notice how the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not eager to keep the women and have his men rape them as some critics allege.

    What happens next is amazing:
    Arrival of the Hawazin Delegation
    Hawazin’s delegation arrived a Muslims just after the distribution of spoils. They were fourteen men headed by Zuhair bin Sard. The Messenger’s foster uncle was one of them. They asked him to bestow upon them some of the wealth and spoils. They uttered so touching words that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said to them: “You surely see who are with me. The most desirable speech to me is the most truthful. Which is dearer to you, your wealth or your women and children?” They replied: “Nothing whatsoever compares with kinship.” Then when I perform the noon prayer, stand up and say: “We intercede with the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to exhort the believers, and we intercede with the believers to exhort the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to forego the captives of our people fallen to their lot.” So when the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] performed the noon prayer, they stood up and said what they had been told to say. The Messenger [pbuh], then, said: “As for what belongs to me and to the children of Abdul Muttalib, you may consider them, from now on, yours. And I will ask my folksmen to give back theirs.” Upon hearing that the Emigrants and the Helpers said: “What belongs to us is, from now on, offered to the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh].” But Al-Aqra’ bin Habis said, “We will grant none of what belongs to me and to Bani Tamim,”; so did ‘Uyaina bin Hisn, who said: “As for me and Bani Fazarah, I say ‘No’.” Al-’Abbas bin Mirdas also refused and said: “No” for Bani Saleem and him. His people, however, said otherwise: “Whatever spoils belong to us we offer to the Messenger of Allâh ([pbuh].)” “You have undermined my position.” Said Al-’Abbas bin Mirdas spontaneously. Then the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said: “These people have come to you as Muslims. For this I have already tarried the distribution of the booty. Besides, I have granted them a fair option but they refused to have anything other than their women and children. Therefore he who has some of theirs and will prefer willingly to give them back, let them do. But those who favours to keep what he owns to himself, let them grant them back too, and he will be given as a recompense six times as much from the first booty that Allâh may provide us.” People then said, “We will willingly offer them all for the sake of the Messenger of Allâh.” The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said: “But in this way we are not able to find out who is content and who is not. So go back and we will be waiting for your chiefs to convey to us your decisions.” All of them gave back the women and children. The only one who refused to comply with the Messenger’s desire was ‘Uyaina bin Hisn. He refused to let an old woman of theirs go back at first. Later on he let her go back. The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] gave every captive a garment as a gift.

    Just look at the mercy of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Indeed, this is the true definition of the word “mercy”. Mercy is only real when one is in power to not be merciful yet willingly decides to be, just as we see the Prophet (peace be upon him) do in this situation (and many other situations as well).

    So here we see that the Muslims weren’t raping savages, but merciful human beings.

    Thus, for this particular narration we can conclude that:

    - Muslims are not permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with idol worshippers unless they convert to Islam first and once they have converted to Islam it would make their consenting to sexual intercourse much easier.

    - There is no evidence of any ill treatment of the slave girls by the Muslim soldiers.

    - There is no evidence of any slave girls engaging in sexual intercourse with any Muslim soldier. The Muslims might have returned them back to their tribe before they had the chance to.

    - There is no evidence of any Muslim soldier raping his slave girl.

    - Even if there is evidence, there is no evidence that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of it.

    The Islamic critic would also appeal to the following narration, which states:

    Jami At-Tirmidhi 1137 – Jabir bin Abdullah narrated: “We practiced Azl while the Qur’an was being revealed.” . . . Malik bin Anas said: “The permission of the free woman is to be requested for Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus), while the slave woman’s permission need not be requested.”

    He would argue that this narration shows that one could engage in coitus interruptus without the permission of his slave girl, which means that he could rape her.

    The first and most important thing to note is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn’t say that, Imam Maalik said that. The Prophet (peace be upon him) is our final authority.

    Imam Maalik’s reasoning was that the free woman has the right to have a child. The man doesn’t have the right to forbid his wife from having a child, thus he must ask her permission before doing azl. However, if the Muslim gets his slave girl pregnant, she ceases to become his slave girl and he must marry her. The Muslim therefore, doesn’t have to ask for her permission to do azl when they make consensual sex.

    Again, where is the rape? Even if Imam Malik said that you can rape her (which he didn’t), he is not my final authority, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is. So what evidence did Imam Maalik use then from the Qur’an and Sunnah to justify his statement that one can rape his slave girl (which he didn’t say, it’s only for the sake of argument)?

    The critic might reply back and say that the fact that the man has a “right” to have sex with his slave girl indicates that the man is permitted to do “all it takes” to take his rights.

    Even if we say that it is his right, it is his right just like how it is his right to receive obedience from his children. Just like how it is his right to get inheritance if his father passes away.

    Now is the critic seriously trying to argue that Islam would permit a man to physically abuse his children if they didn’t give him his right of respect? Is he also trying to say that he can physically abuse and harm his sister if she were to try and steal some of his inheritance money?

    In Islam, one of the rights that a Muslim has over his brother is to be visited when he is sick and to be greeted with peace. If my Muslim brother does not greet me with peace or visit me when I am sick, does that mean that I can physically abuse him until he does, so that “he gives me my right”?

    It seems like this is what he is saying if he were to be consistent. According to this logic, if the Qur’an says someone is entitled to something or has a right to something that means that the person can do whatever he wants – even if it was forbidden – in order to obtain that right.

    This is something absolutely ridiculous, which no Muslim scholar in antiquity has stated. I am really speechless and don’t really know how to reply back to such a laughable argument.

    Plus, this could also work against the Christian. I can argue that the Bible states that the man has the right to have sex with his wife, thus if she refuses then he can hurt her! The Christian would reply back and say that he can’t hurt his wife because there are other verses that state that he can’t do so and this is exactly what we have shown in this article in regards to the slave girl.

    Conclusion

    Islam forbids one to harm those under his authority. Since rape is considered a form of harm that would mean that rape is forbidden. We have also seen that history shows that slave girls in the past did consent to having sex with their captors; hence we must keep our subjective emotions aside and agree with this objective fact. In light of this fact, there is nothing absurd in believing that the Muslims did not rape their slave girls especially since they were forbidden from doing so. And even if some of the Muslims back then did rape their slave girls, this would only show that they committed a sinful act and not that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of such behavior. In conclusion, Islam does not permit the Muslim man to rape his slave girl.

    Recommended Readings on the Rape of Slave Girls in the Bible

    Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29
    Haughty women are punished with rape

    Isaiah 3:17, foreheads or secret parts?

    Women are punished again with rape

    More rape in the Hebrew Bible?

    Biblical Law Permits Rape of Female Captive

  154. Paul Williams says:

    Did Prophet Lot (peace be upon him) Offer His Daughters To Evil Men To Be Raped?

    By

    Bassam Zawadi

    Christian missionaries try to quote the Quran in order to show that it says that Prophet Lot peace be upon him was willing to give his daughters to men in order to have them raped. They think that the Quranic narrative is the same as the disturbing one found in their own Bible regarding Prophet Lot…

    Genesis 19:1-9

    1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”
    “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”

    3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom-both young and old-surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

    6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

    9 “Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

    John Gill says regarding verse 8…

    this was a very great evil in Lot to make such an offer of his daughters; it was contrary to parental love and affection, an exposing the chastity of his daughters, which should have been his care to preserve; nor had he a power to dispose of them in such a manner: and though fornication is a lesser evil than sodomy, yet all evil is to be avoided, and even it is not to be done that good may come: nothing can be said to excuse this good man, but the hurry of spirit, and confusion of mind that he was in, not knowing what to say or do to prevent the base designs of those men; that he might be pretty certain they would not accept of his offer, their lust burning more after men than women; that this showed his great regard to the laws of hospitality, that he had rather sacrifice his daughters to their brutal lusts, than give up the men that were in his house to them; and that he might hope that this would soften their minds, and put them off of any further attempt; (John Gill’s Exposition to the Bible, Commentary on Genesis 19:8, Source)

    Here we see that the Bible says that Lot said to his people that they can do what ever they please with his two daughters.

    Now let’s see what the Quran says…

    Surah 11:77-79

    And when Our messengers came unto Lot, he was distressed and knew not how to protect them. He said: This is a distressful day. And his people came unto him, running towards him – and before then they used to commit abominations – He said: O my people! Here are my daughters! They are purer for you. Beware of Allah, and degrade me not in (the person of) my guests. Is there not among you any upright man? They said: Well thou knowest that we have no right to thy daughters, and well thou knowest what we want.

    Surah 15:67-71

    And the people of the city came, rejoicing at the news (of new arrivals). He said: Lo! they are my guests. Affront me not! And keep your duty to Allah, and shame me not! They said; Have we not forbidden you from (entertaining) anyone? He said: Here are my daughters, if ye must be doing (so).

    Ibn Kathir says…

    Concerning the statement,

    (and since aforetime they used to commit crimes.) This means that this did not cease being their behavior until they were seized (by Allah’s torment) and they were still in the same condition.

    (He said: “O my people! Here are my daughters (the women of the nation), they are purer for you…”) This was his attempt to direct them to their women, for verily the Prophet is like a father for his nation. Therefore, he tries to guide them to that which is better for them in this life and the Hereafter. This is similar to his statement to them in another verse,

    (Go you in unto the males of the nation, and leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your wives Nay, you are a trespassing people!)[26:165-166] Allah said in another verse,

    (They (the people of the city) said: “Did we not forbid you from entertaining any of the `Alamin”)[15:70] This means, “Didn’t we forbid you from hosting men (male) guests”

    ([Lut] said: “These (the girls of the nation) are my daughters, if you must act (so).” Verily, by your life, in their wild intoxication, they were wandering blindly.)[15:71-72] Then, Allah said, in this noble verse,

    (Here are my daughters, they are purer for you.) Mujahid said, “Actually, they were not his daughters, but they were from among his nation. Every Prophet is like a father to his nation.” A similar statement has been reported from Qatadah and others. Concerning the statement,

    (So have Taqwa of Allah and disgrace me not with regard to my guests!) This means, “Accept what I command you by limiting the fulfillment of your desires to your women.”

    (Is there not among you a single right-minded man) This means, “Is there not a good man among you who will accept what I am enjoining upon you and abandon what I have forbidden for you”

    (They said: “Surely, you know that we have no need of your daughters…”) This means, “Verily, you know that we do not want our women, nor do we desire them.”

    (and indeed you know well what we want!) This means, “We only want males and you know that. So what need is there for you to continue speaking to us about this” (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Source)

    Tabari in his Tafsir of Surah 11:78 quotes several narrations, which also state that Prophet Lot’s intention when he said “daughters” meant the women of his tribe. (Source)

    Also when Lot referred the men to the women it was not that they just go unto them and fornicate with them. It was meant for purposes of marriage…

    And his people, when they became aware of them, came to him, running, hastening, towards him – and previously, before they came, they had been committing abominations, namely, penetrative sexual intercourse with men. He, Lot, said, ‘O my people! Here are my daughters, marry with them; they are purer for you. So fear God, and do not degrade me, [do not] disgrace me, before my guests. Is there not among you any upright man?’, to enjoin decency and forbid indecency? (Jalal ud-Din Siyuti, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 11:78, Source

    He said, ‘These here are my daughters, if you must be doing’, what you desire [to do] in the way of satisfying your lust, then marry them. God, exalted be He, says: (Jalal ud-Din Siyuti, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 15:71, Source

    Narrated by Qutada: Allah’s Messenger Lot commanded the people to marry women. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-bayan fi ta’wil al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 15:71, Source

    Qurtubi also says the same thing in his commentary on Surah 11:78 (Source) and Surah 15:71 (Source) that Prophet Lot meant that the men should go and marry the women of his tribe.

    Obviously the Quran in no way shows that Prophet Lot ordered the men to go and rape his daughters or anyone but that he wanted them to become normal and marry the women of the tribe

    The Bible clearly teaches that Lot was talking about his own blood daughters because it says

    Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them

    Its a shame that the Bible depicts this horrible portrayal of the glorious Prophets

    .Praise to Allah for sending us down the Quran in order to correct these misconceptions of some of the greatest men that ever lived

    Return to Refuting Miscellaneous Arguments

    Return to Homepage

  155. Paul Williams says:

    Men and Women’s Rights in Islam: Equal or Equally Balanced?

    By

    Bassam Zawadi

    Unfortunately there are many people who believe that because Islam gives men the right of having authority over their wives, then this means that they are superior to women and have more honor than them. Men are not superior to women and women are not superior to men in Islam due to gender. Allah Almighty makes it perfectly clear that those superior in His sight are those who have more taqwa (God fearing consciousness)…

    Surah 49:13

    O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

    In Islam, men and women DO NOT HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS. Their rights are different because of their nature. Their rights are not equal, rather they are EQUALLY BALANCED.

    Let me quote Dr Zakir Naik from his lecture “Women’s Right in Islam Modernizing or Outdated?” who explains the concept clearly…

    As I said in the beginning of my talk, Islam believes in equality between men and women – Equality does not mean identicallity.

    Suppose in a classroom 2 students, student ‘A’ and ‘B’, during an examination both come out first – Both secure 80% marks – 80 out of 100

    Out of the hundreds of students, 2 come out first ‘A’ and ‘B’

    When you analyze the question paper, the question paper has 10 different questions, each carrying 10 marks.

    In question 1 student ‘A’ got 9 out of 10, and student ‘B’ got 7 out of 10 – So in question 1 student ‘A’ was higher than student ‘B’.

    In question 2, student ‘A’ got 7 out of 10 and student ‘B’ got 9 out of 10,
    – Student ‘B’ was higher than student ‘A’ in question number 2.

    In question 3 both of them got 8 out of 10, both were equal

    So when we add up the marks of all the ten questions, both student ‘A’ and ‘B’ got 80 out of 100

    So in short, student ‘A’ and student ‘B’ are over all equal

    In some question ‘A’ is higher than ‘B’, in some question ‘B’ is higher than ‘A’, in others both are equal

    In the same fashion, taking the example that since Allah has given man more strength – Suppose a thief enters the house will you tell, ‘I believe in women’s rights – I believe in women’s rights’ – will you tell your mother, your sister and your daughter, to go and fight the thief?’

    No, but natural you’ll fight him – If required they may interfere – under normal circumstances since Allah has given you more physical strength, you have to go and tackle the thief.

    So here, in physical strength, man is one degree higher than the woman

    Let us take another example where. where it comes to giving respect to the -where it comes to respecting the parents – The children are supposed to respect the mother 3 times more than the father.

    Here the women have one degree higher than the men – Over all both equal

    So as we can see, men are superior when it comes to certain rights that they have over women (authority and expect obedience from the wife unless he asks her to do something impermissible; asking for sexual intercourse whenever they please unless the woman has her menses, is fasting on compulsory days or the intercourse could cause her physical harm; having more than one spouse etc.) and women are superior when it comes to rights that they have over men. In this article, I will be focusing mostly on some rights and privileges that women have over men, since misconceptions usually stem regarding women’s rights in Islam and not men’s rights.

    The woman as a parent has a right to earn better treatment from the children than the father…

    Saheeh Muslim

    Book 032, Number 6180:

    Abu Huraira reported that a person came to Allah, ‘s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Who among the people is most deserving of a fine treatment from my hand? He said: Your mother. He again said: Then who (is the next one)? He said: Again it is your mother (who deserves the best treatment from you). He said: Then who (is the next one)? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Again, it is your mother. He (again) said: Then who? Thereupon he said: Then it is your father. In the hadith transmitted on the authority of Qutalba, there is no mention of the word” the people”.

    A’ishah (May Allah be pleased with her) asked the Messenger of Allah (PBUH): “Who has the greatest rights over a woman?” He said, “Her husband.” She asked, `And who has the greatest rights over a man?” He said, “His mother.” (Reported by al-Bazzar with a hasan isnad. See Majma’ al-Zawa’id, 4/308, Bab haqq al-zawj ‘ala’l-mar’ah, Cited here)

    The Prophet (peace be upon him) emphasized the negativity of disobeying the mother more than the father…

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volume 9, Book 92, Number 395:

    Narrated Warrad:

    (The clerk of Al-Mughira) Muawiya wrote to Al-Mughira ‘Write to me what you have heard from Allah’s Apostle.’ So he (Al-Mughira) wrote to him: Allah’s Prophet used to say at the end of each prayer: “La ilaha illalla-h wahdahu la sharika lahu, lahul Mulku, wa lahul Hamdu wa hula ala kulli shai’in qadir. ‘Allahumma la mani’ a lima a’taita, wala mu’tiya lima mana’ta, wala yanfa’u dhuljadd minkal-jadd.” He also wrote to him that the Prophet used to forbid (1) Qil and Qal (idle useless talk or that you talk too much about others), (2) Asking too many questions (in disputed Religious matters); (3) And wasting one’s wealth by extravagance; (4) and to be undutiful to one’s mother (5) and to bury the daughters alive (6) and to prevent your favors (benevolence to others (i.e. not to pay the rights of others (7) And asking others for something (except when it is unavoidable).

    Women have a right for security (financial and emotional) from their husbands…

    Surah 4:4

    And give the women (on marriage) their dower as a free gift; but if they, of their own good pleasure, remit any part of it to you, Take it and enjoy it with right good cheer.

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volume 7, Book 64, Number 272:
    Narrated ‘Aisha:

    Hind bint ‘Utba came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Abu Sufyan is a miser so is it sinful of me to feed our children from his property?” Allah’s Apostle said, “No except if you take for your needs what is just and reasonable. ”

    Saheeh Muslim

    Book 018, Number 4251:
    A’isha reported: Hind. the daughter of ‘Utba, wife of Abu Sufyan, came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Abu Sufyan is a miserly person. He does not give adequate maintenance for me and my children, but (I am constrained) to take from his wealth (some part of it) without his knowledge. Is there any sin for me? Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Take from his property what is customary which may suffice you and your children.

    Awn ibn Abi Juhayfah narrated that his father said: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) established brotherhood (mu’aakhah) between Salmaan and Abu’l-Dardaa’. Salmaan visited Abu’l-Dardaa’ and noticed that Umm al-Dardaa’ appeared scruffy and unkempt (this was before the aayah of hijaab was revealed). He said to her, What is the matter with you? She said, Your brother Abu’l-Dardaa’ has no need of this world. Then Abu’l-Dardaa’ came (to visit him). He made some food for him, and said, Eat. [Abu'l-Dardaa'] said, I am fasting. [Salmaan] said, I will not eat until you eat. So he ate. When night came, Abu’l-Dardaa’ went to pray qiyaam, but [Salmaan] said to him, Sleep, so he slept. Then he wanted to get up for qiyaam, but [Salmaan] said, Sleep. When the last part of the night came, Salmaan said, Now get up. So they prayed, then Salmaan said to him, Your Lord has a right over you, your soul has a right over you and your wife has a right over you, so give each one his due. He [Abu'l-Dardaa'] went to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and told him about that. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Salmaan is right.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1867, cited here).

    ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-’Aas (may Allaah be pleased with them both) said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to me, “O ‘Abd-Allaah, have I not heard that you fast all day and pray all night?” I said, yes, O Messenger of Allaah. He said, “Do not do that. Fast and break your fast, pray qiyaam and sleep, for your body has a right over you, your eyes have a right over you, your wife has a right over you and your visitors have a right over you. It is sufficient for you to fast three days of every month. For every good deed (hasanah) you will be rewarded tenfold, so that will be like fasting for an entire lifetime.” But I went to extremes and made things hard for myself. I said, O Messenger of Allaah, I can do more than that. He said, “Then observe the fast of the Prophet of Allaah, Dawood (peace be upon him), and no more.” I said, What is the fast of the Prophet of Allaah, Dawood (peace be upon him)? He said, “Half a lifetime.” After he grew old, ‘Abd-Allaah used to say, I wish that I had taken the easier option which the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) offered me. (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1874; Muslim, 1159, cited here)

    The following narrations are taken from http://www.islam-qa.com...

    ‘Umar ibn al-Ahwas (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that he heard the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say during his Farewell Pilgrimage:

    “Verily, you have rights over your women, and your women have rights over you. As for your rights over your women, they are that they should not allow anyone to sit on your beds whom you dislike, or allow anyone into your houses whom you dislike. Verily, their rights over you are that you should treat them well with regard to their clothing and food.” (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, 1163, and Ibn Maajah, 1851).

    Mu’aawiyah ibn Haydah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:

    “I said, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, what are the rights of the wife of any one of us over us?’ He said, ‘That you feed her when you feed yourself and clothe her when you clothe yourself, that you do not say to her, “May Allaah make you face ugly!”, and that you do not hit her.’” (Reported by Abu Dawood, 2/244; Ibn Maajah, 1850; Ahmad, 4/446).

    Imaam al-Baghawi said: “Al-Khattaabi said: this is a command to spend on women and clothe them, according to the capabilities of the husband. As the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) made this a right of women, it is necessary whether the husband is present or absent. If the husband is not able to do it, it become a debt which he owes, as with all other duties, whether or not the qaadi (judge) issues a decree to that effect.”

    It was reported that Wahb said:

    “A freed slave of ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Amr said to him, ‘I want to go and spend this month there in Jerusalem.’ He said, ‘Have you left enough for your family to live on during this month?’ He said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘Then go back to your family and leave them what they need, for I heard the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saying: “It is enough sin for a man not to give food to the one whom he is supposed to feed.”‘” (Reported by Ahmad, 2/160; Abu Dawood, 1692).

    Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said:

    “I heard the Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) saying, ‘By Allaah, if one of you were to get up in the morning and carry firewood on his back, and sell it and meet his own needs from the money and give some away in charity, this would be better for him than coming to a man and begging from him, and either being given something or not. The upper hand (the one which gives) is better than the lower hand (the one that takes), and start with those for whom you are responsible.” (Reported by Muslim, 3/96). According to a report narrated by Ahmad (2/524), it was said: “For whom am I responsible, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Your wife is one of those for whom you are responsible.”

    Men should not be harsh with women, they should treat them with kindness…

    Surah 4:19

    O ye who believe! Ye are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should ye treat them with harshness, that ye may Take away part of the dower ye have given them,-except where they have been guilty of open lewdness; on the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If ye take a dislike to them it may be that ye dislike a thing, and God brings about through it a great deal of good.

    And if the man does not take care of this wife whom he has authority over appropriately then there are dire consequences…

    Saheeh Muslim

    Book 020, Number 4496:
    It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar that the Holy Prophet (May be upon him) said: Beware. every one of you is a shepherd and every one is answerable with regard to his flock. The Caliph is a shepherd over the people and shall be questioned about his subjects (as to how he conducted their affairs). A man is a guardian over the members of his family and shall be questioned about them (as to how he looked after their physical and moral well-being). A woman is a guardian over the household of her husband and his children and shall be questioned about them (as to how she managed the household and brought up the children). A slave is a guardian over the property of his master and shall be questioned about it (as to how he safeguarded his trust). Beware, every one of you is a guardian and every one of you shall be questioned with regard to his trust.

    And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Allaah will ask every person in a position of responsibility about that which was entrusted to him, whether he took care of it or was negligent, until He will ask a man about the members of his household.” (Narrated by Ibn Hibbaan, classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Ghaayat al-Maraam, no. 271, cited here)

    Saheeh Muslim

    Book 001, Number 0261:
    Hasan reported: ‘Ubaidullah b. Ziyad paid a visit to Ma’qil b. Yasar Muzani in his illness of which he (later on) died. (At this juncture) Ma’qil said: I am going to narrate to you a hadith which I have heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and which I would not have transmitted if I knew that I would survive. Verily I have heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: There is none amongst the bondsmen who was entrusted with the affairs of his subjects and he died in such a state that he was dishonest in his dealings with those over whom he ruled that the Paradise is not forbidden for him. (You can see the Arabic version of the hadith here)

    “There is no person to whom Allaah has given people to take care of, and he fails to take care of them properly, but he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 6731; Muslim, 142, cited here)

    Women get to wear gold and silk while men are not allowed to…

    “These two [gold and silk] are forbidden for the males of my ummah and permissible for the females.” (Narrated by Ibn Maajah, 3640; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah, cited here)

    In Islam men have a jihad, which is to fight in the sake of Allah. However, the women’s jihad is only to perform Hajj…

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 043.

    Narrated By ‘Aisha : (That she said), “O Allah’s Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed. Should we not fight in Allah’s Cause?” He said, “The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj-Mabrur (i.e. Hajj which is done according to the Prophet’s tradition and is accepted by Allah).”

    In Islam we have a concept of the seven deadly sins…

    Saheeh Muslim

    Book 001, Number 0161:

    It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: Avoid the seven noxious things. It was said (by the hearers): What are they, Messenger of Allah? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Associating anything with Allah, magic, killing of one whom God has declared inviolate without a just cause, consuming the property of an orphan, and consuming of usury, turning back when the army advances, and slandering chaste women who are believers, but unwary.

    Here we see that one of the seven deadly sins is slandering chaste women. Why is it that slandering chaste men is not mentioned above although this is also a great sin? That is because the sin for slandering chaste women is worse. This is the honor that God Almighty has given to Muslim women in order to preserve and maintain their honor.

    Some people find it unfair that a husband gets to have more than one wife while a wife could not have the same right. However, we have to understand that this is one of the tests for women here on earth. The woman who pleases her husband has such great honor that it could lead her straight to paradise. For a Muslim man to achieve that he would probably have to die as a martyr! So just imagine how much easier it is for the woman to do so in order to attain paradise. If she is in a polygamous marriage it would actually be much easier for her because she has other women helping her in pleasing her husband. Only if women truly understood this they would all want to be in a polygamous marriage. Earning paradise is not easy and the woman is required to be patient. This is her test in life. Just look at the magnificent awards that an obedient and pleasing wife would receive out of something that she should be happy doing anyways…

    A woman’s being patient in obeying her husband is one of the means of entering Paradise, as it says in the hadeeth narrated by Ibn Hibbaan: “If a woman offers her five daily prayers and fasts her month (i.e., Ramadaan) and guards her chastity and obeys her husband, it will be said to her: ‘Enter Paradise from whichever of the gates of Paradise you wish.’” (This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’ al-Sagheer, no. 660, Cited here)

    Umm Salamah (May Allah be pleased with her) said:

    “The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: `Any woman who dies, and her husband is pleased with her, will enter Paradise.’” (Ibn Majah, 1/595, Kitab al-nikah, bab haqq al-zawj ‘ala’l-mar’ah; al-Hakim, 4/173, Kitab al-birr wa’l-silah; he said its isnad is sahih, Cited here)

    A woman came to ask the Prophet (PBUH) about some matter, and when he had dealt with it, he asked her, “Do you have a husband?” She said, “Yes.” He asked her, “How are you with him?” She said, “I never fall short in my duties, except for that which is beyond me.” He said, “Pay attention to how you treat him, for he is your Paradise and your Hell.”13 (Reported by Ahmad and al-Nisa’i with jayyid isnads, and by al-Hakim, who said that its isnad was sahih. See al-Mundhiri, Al-Targhib wa’l-Tarhib, 3/52, Kitab al-nikah, Cited here)

    In conclusion, we see that men have privileges that women don’t have and vice versa. To distribute rights equally does not mean that it is being distributed fairly. Islam distributed and allocated the rights to the different genders fairly.

    Recommended Links

    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/idealmuslimah/chapter5.html (A MUST READ)

    http://www.as-sidq.org/women.html

    http://muslim-canada.org/women.htm

    http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/humanrelations/womeninislam/womenquransunnah.html

    Return to General Articles on Islam

    Return to Homepage

  156. Sam Shamoun says:

    Ok Williams,

    Here goes:

    Revisiting the issue of whether Muhammad was certain of his own salvation

    Bassam Zawadi added an appendix to his article seeking to refute my claim that Muhammad was uncertain of his salvation since his god is unreliable and cannot be trusted.

    We suggest reading my article and then Zawadi’s appendix before embarking on this rebuttal.

    I had quoted Ibn Kathir’s explanation of Q. 46:9 to prove that the passage is referring to Muhammad’s salvation, i.e. Muhammad was uncertain about what would happen to him in the afterlife. Since Zawadi has shown that he has a hard time comprehending what he reads I am therefore not surprised that he didn’t get the point and wonders how Ibn Kathir’s narration confirms my position.

    It is very simple. In his explanation of Q. 46:9 Ibn Kathir quoted a hadith concerning Muhammad being uncertain about the eternal fate of a Muslim who had just died. This shows that the verse in question is addressing the issue of the afterlife, e.g. Ibn Kathir’s narration proves that Muhammad’s statement in Q. 46:9 that he does not know what will happen to him is in relation to his salvation. Muhammad wasn’t saying that he didn’t know what would happen to him during his earthly ministry but was claiming to be uncertain regarding what Allah would do to him in the afterlife!

    Hopefully Zawadi gets the point now.

    Zawadi tries to squirm him his way out of one of his statements which I used to establish that even he acknowledges that Q. 46:9 is speaking of Muhammad being uncertain of his own salvation.

    Is Shamoun blind?. Not only did I not say that this view is implausible, but I said the exact opposite! This is what I said:

    Thus, even though I believe that the second solution is still plausible, I will nevertheless personally opt for the first solution.

    Let me repost what I quoted from Zawadi, this time by adding a little more context and by putting the relevant sections in capitals:

    The first possible solution is that the Qur’anic verse and statement of the Prophet came before the Prophet knew that he was going to paradise…

    So we see that the first possible solution is that the Prophet EXPRESSED HIS IGNORANCE OF WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO HIM IN THE NEXT LIFE before he received revelation from Allah that stated that he would be going to paradise…

    The second possible solution is that the Qur’anic verse and hadith are not even speaking about the next life, but this life…

    I PERSONALLY FAVOR THE FIRST SOLUTION. This is because IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE CONTEXT OF THE HADEETH IN SAHEEH BUKHARI MAKES IT APPEAR THAT THE PROPHET IS SPEAKING ABOUT HOW HE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO HIM IN THE HEREAFTER. This of course is not necessarily true, BUT IN MY OPINION IT SEEMS MORE LIKELY. Thus, even though I believe that the second solution is still plausible, I WILL NEVERTHELESS PERSONALLY OPT FOR THE FIRST SOLUTION.

    As anyone can see Zawadi expressly states that he agrees that Q. 46:9 is referring to Muhammad’s uncertainty of what will happen to him in the next life, even though he qualifies this by saying that this was before Muhammad received revelation that he was going to paradise! And that was my point, namely that even Zawadi accepts the fact that Q. 46:9 is referring to the afterlife not about this temporal life.

    Zawadi tries to convince the readers that the Quranic verses which use the Arabic word asa, “may” or “maybe,” doesn’t necessarily imply probability but can also convey certainty. He then produces a list of Muslim authorities who argue that when asa is used in relation to Allah it always means an obligation, i.e., Allah will certainly forgive and pardon. As if he couldn’t get any more desperate he quotes Luke 1:4 to prove that even the English word “may” doesn’t have to refer to possibility, as if the English use of “may” has any relevance in helping us understand what the Arabic word for “may” means and how it is used in the Quran!

    Zawadi also thinks that the following exposition proves his point:

    The definite proof for this is when Allah revealed Surah 9:102, which states:

    And there are others who confessed their faults. They mixed good works with others that are evil. It may be that ALLAH will turn to them with compassion. Surely, ALLAH is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

    Waakharoona iAAtarafoo bithunoobihim khalatoo AAamalan salihan waakhara sayyi-an AAasa Allahu an yatooba AAalayhim inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun

    This verse was revealed regarding Abu Lubabah. Tafsir Al-Jalalayn states:

    And [there are] others (ākharūn is the subject), [another] folk, who have confessed their sins, for having stayed behind (i’tarafū bi-dhunūbihim is an adjectival qualification of it [the subject] and the predicate is [the following, khalatū 'amalan sālihan]) they have mixed a righteous deed, that is, their former [participation in the] struggle, or the their confession of their sins, or otherwise, with another that was bad, which is their having stayed behind. It may be that God will relent to them. Truly God is Forgiving, Merciful: this was revealed regarding Abū Lubāba and a group of men who tied themselves to the walls of the mosque after they heard what had been revealed regarding those who stayed behind; they swore that only the Prophet would untie them, which he did when this [verse] was revealed. (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 9:102, Source)

    The background of this story is that Abu Lubabah mistakenly told the Bani Qurayza tribe what their fate would be. He realized that this was a big mistake and then he tied himself to the wall of the mosque until God forgave him. Then Surah 9:102 (containing the word ‘assa) was revealed. Once it was revealed Abu Lubabah was untied. The question here is why he would do that if the word ‘assa indicated that his repentance would be conditional? The answer is because it didn’t. Abu Lubabah understood that he was definitely forgiven and that is why he agreed to untie himself.

    It is rather unfortunate that Zawadi is unable to see how his own sources actually prove my case, not his.

    In the first place, Zawadi’s quote is another example of a straw man argument since it gives the misleading impression that I am somehow arguing that asa means that Allah NEVER forgives anyone. Otherwise, why even bother quoting an example of a person being forgiven? However, I never said or even implied that asa means that Allah NEVER forgives. Nor did I base my case on the meaning of this one specific word since some of the texts I quoted don’t even use asa at all!

    The point I was making was that the Quran uses a variety of expressions that imply that Allah MIGHT choose to forgive a person but gives no guarantee that he will. This is why the Quran says that the righteous and the prophets can only HOPE for Allah’s mercy and forgiveness since Allah gives absolutely no assurance that he will grant them salvation:

    But as to him who repents and believes and does good, MAYBE he will be among the successful: S. 28:67 Shakir

    Verily, those who have believed, and those who have emigrated (for Allah’s Religion) and have striven hard in the Way of Allah, all these HOPE for Allah’s Mercy. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most-Merciful. S. 2:218 Hilali-Khan

    Those unto whom they cry seek the way of approach to their Lord, which of them shall be the nearest; they HOPE for His mercy and they FEAR His doom. Lo! the doom of thy Lord is to be shunned. S. 17:57

    Verily! We really HOPE that our Lord will forgive us our sins, as we are the first of the believers [in Musa (Moses) and in the Monotheism which he has brought from Allah].” 26:51 Hilali-khan

    And Who, I [Abraham] ardently HOPE, will forgive me my sin on the Day of Judgment. S. 26:82 Pickthall

    The following texts speak of Allah having the freedom and final choice in deciding whether he will forgive anyone or not:

    To Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth, and whether you disclose what is in your ownselves or conceal it, Allah will call you to account for it. Then He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things. S. 2:284

    Allah made it not but as a message of good news for you and as an assurance to your hearts. And there is no victory except from Allah, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. That He might cut off a part of those who disbelieve, or expose them to infamy, so that they retire frustrated. Not for you (O Muhammad, but for Allah) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them; verily, they are the Zalimun (polytheists, disobedients, and wrong-doers, etc.). And to Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. He forgives whom He wills, and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. S. 3:126-129 Hilali-Khan

    Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin. S. 4:48 – cf. 116; 5:18, 40; 48:14

    Have you not considered those who attribute purity to themselves? Nay, Allah purifies whom He pleases; and they shall not be wronged the husk of a date stone. S. 4:49

    “… And had it not been for the Grace of Allah and His Mercy on you, not one of you would ever have been pure from sins. But Allah purifies whom He wills, and Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.” S. 24:21

    He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned. S. 21:23

    It is clear from all of these citations that salvation and forgiveness are not guaranteed to anyone in Islam since Allah is a sovereign despot who can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants whenever he wants.

    Secondly, the only reason that Zawadi even thinks that Abu Lubabah was “forgiven” is because Muhammad came to set him free which, however, is inconclusive. Moreover, how does Abu Lubabah’s case prove that Allah will do this for everyone?

    Thirdly, just because Allah had supposedly forgiven Abu Lubabah for committing this particular sin this doesn’t mean that Allah had also forgiven all his future sins or that Lubabah had the assurance that he would not go to hell.

    Fourthly, this story still fails to prove that Allah gave any assurance that THIS particular sin was forgiven.

    It seems that those who “stayed back” got some severe threat of punishment from Allah, and were shocked about that. They tied themselves to the wall of the mosque, and since this was obviously not a good advertisement for Muhammad’s religion here comes a new revelation saying that Allah MAY STILL forgive (contrary to what it looked like before). Yet this is still nothing more than a possibility of forgiveness in the verse, not a definite promise and assurance of forgiveness. This forgiveness still depends on their future performance and obedience. So, Muhammad comes and unties Abu Lubabah as a sign that he still has a chance and Allah is willing to forgive him (if from then on, he will be a loyal follower).

    Thus, there is absolutely nothing in the story that demands that it be read as an assurance of forgiveness. It is the same vague language as throughout the Quran that keeps the believers in fear and insecurity.

    More in the next post.

  157. Sam Shamoun says:

    This is the 2nd part of my reply.

    This leads me to my next point. What does Zawadi do with cases where Muhammad’s companions were afraid to die because they did not know whether Allah would forgive their sins and save them from hell?

    Also narrated by Abdel Razak, narrated by Ibn Ayena, narrated by Ismail Ibn Abu Khalid, narrated by Qais Ibn Abu Hazem who said that Abdallah Ibn Rawaha placed his head on his wife’s lap and BEGAN TO WEEP, so his wife began to weep also. So he asked her, “Why are you weeping?” She responded, “I saw you weeping and so I started to weep.” He said, “I remembered the saying of Allah – who is glorified and exalted- (Surah 19:71) ‘Not one of you but will pass through it,’ AND I DON’T KNOW IF I WILL BE SAVED FROM IT OR NOT.” In another narration it adds the phrase, ‘he said this while he was ill.’

    Also narrated by Ibn Jarir, narrated by Abu Kurayb, narrated by Ibn Yaman, narrated by Malik Ibn Maghul, narrated by Ibn Ishaq who said, “Whenever Abu Maysarah would lie down on his bed he would say, ‘I WISH MY MOTHER HAD NEVER BORE ME.’ AND THEN HE WOULD BEGIN TO WEEP. When asked why he was weeping he would respond, ‘We were told that WE WOULD ENTER HELL, BUT WE WEREN’T TOLD THAT WE WOULD EXIT FROM IT.’”

    Also narrated by Abdallah Ibn Al-Mubarak, narrated by Al-Hassan Al-Basri who said, “A man said to his brother ‘Have you been told that you shall enter hell?’ The brother answered ‘YES.’ He then asked, ‘Have you also been told that you shall exit from it?’ The brother responded ‘NO.’ So he asked, ‘Then why the laughter?’ The brother responded, ‘I have not seen a person laugh until he joined Allah.’

    Narrated by Abdel Razak, narrated by Ibn Ayena narrated by Amru who told us that he heard Ibn Abbas feud with Nafi Ibn Al-Azraq regarding the meaning of, ‘Entering (Al-wurood).’ He said it meant ‘Entering (Hell),’ but Nafi disagreed. Thus Ibn Abbas read (Surah 21:98) “‘Verily ye, and the gods that ye worship besides Allah, are but fuel for Hell! To it will ye surely will enter (Wardan),’ and asked did they enter or not? He also read (Surah 11:98) ‘He will go before his people on the Day of Judgment, and lead them (Awrada-hum) into the fire: but woeful indeed will be the place (Wird) to which they are led (Al-mawrud)!’ Did they enter or not? As for you and I, WE WILL ENTER IT but let us see if we will exit from it and I don’t see Allah taking you out of it because you lie (regarding its meaning).” Nafi then laughed.

    Narrated by Ibn Jarir, narrated by Atta who stated that Abu Rashid Al-Harury, who is called Nafi Ibn Al-Azraq, said, “They (the believers) will not hear hell’s roar.” So Ibn Abbas responded, “Woe to you! Are you insane? What of Allah’s verse (Surah 11:98) ‘He will go before his people on the Day of Judgment, and lead them (Awrada-hum) into the fire,’ and also the verse (Surah 19:86) ‘And We shall drive the sinners to hell being lead (Wirdan)’? And also the verse (Surah 19:71) ‘Not one of you but will pass (Waridu-ha) through it’? By Allah, the supplication of those who lived previously used to be, ‘O Allah TAKE ME OUT OF HELL FIRE peacefully and allow me to enter paradise victorious.’”

    Narrated by Ibn Jarir, narrated by Muhammad Ibn Ubaid Al-Mihrabu, narrated by Asbat, narrated by Abdel Malik, narrated by Ubaid Allah narrated by Mujahid who said, “I was in the company of Ibn Abbas when a man called Abu Rashid, who is also known as Nafi Al-Azraq, came and asked Ibn Abbas, ‘Have you seen the saying of Allah (Surah 19:71) ‘Not one of you but will pass through (Waridu-ha) it: this is, with thy Lord, a Decree which must be accomplished?’ Ibn Abbas replied, ‘As for you and I, O Abu Rashid, WE SHALL ENTER IT (hell), but let us see WHETHER we shall exit from it or not.’”

    Narrated by Abu Dawud Al-Tayalisi, narrated by Sha’aba, narrated by Abdallah Ibn Al-Sa’ib about those who heard Ibn Abbas read the verse (Surah 19:71) ‘Not one of you but will pass through (Waridu-ha) it,’ meaning the infidels. This is how it was narrated by Amru Ibn Al-Walid Al-Basti that he heard Ikrimah read it likewise.

    Also narrated by Al-Awfi, narrated by Ibn Abbas who said, “(Surah 19:71) ‘Not one of you but will pass through (Waridu-ha) it’ means that the righteous and the sinner (shall enter hell). For don’t you hear what Allah said to Pharaoh (Surah 11:98) ‘He will go before his people on the Day of Judgment, and lead them (Awrada-hum) into the fire,’ and also the verse (Surah 19:86) ‘And We shall drive the sinners to hell being lead (Wirdan)’? So he called ‘passing through’ (Wird) AN ENTRY INTO HELL AND NOT AN EXIT OUT OF IT.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 19:71)

    Doesn’t the fear and uncertainty of Muhammad’s companions show that even those who actually knew the language of the Quran better than anyone else could plainly see that their god had given them absolutely no assurance of salvation and forgiveness of sins?

    Sixthly, what makes Zawadi’s reply rather disturbing is that it gives the misleading impression that the scholars unanimously hold to the view that Q. 9:102 was “revealed” in reference to Abu Lubabah informing the Banu Qurayza that they would be murdered, when such is not the case just as the following commentaries prove:

    (And (there are) others who have acknowledged their faults…) [9:102-103]. Ibn al-Walibi reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “This verse was revealed about some people who failed to join the Messenger of Allah at the Battle of Tabuk and then regretted it, saying: ‘We are enjoying shelter and shade with the women while the Messenger of Allah and his Companions are engaging in Jihad. By Allah, we shall tie ourselves to the columns [of the mosque] and remain tied until the Messenger himself unties and pardons us’. And they tied themselves to the columns of the mosque. When the Messenger of Allah returned from the battle, he passed by them and asked about who they were. He was told: ‘These are the people who failed to join you. They vowed to remain in their position until you untie them yourself’. The Prophet said: ‘And I swear that I will not set them free until I am commanded to do so nor will I pardon them unless it is Allah Who pardons them first. They have failed to join me and shunned fighting alongside the Muslims’. And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse. When it was revealed, the Messenger of Allah, sent for them, freed them and pardoned them. When they were freed, they said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, these are our riches which caused us to fail to join you, spend them on charity on our behalves to purify us and ask forgiveness for us’. He said: ‘I was not commanded to take anything from your riches’. Allah, glorious and majestic is He, then revealed (Take alms of their wealth, wherewith thou mayst purify them and mayst make them grow…) [9:103]”. Said Ibn ‘Abbas: “They were ten men”. (Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi; bold emphasis ours)

    And:

    (And (there are) others) and of the people of Medina, there are other people: Wadi’ah Ibn Judham al-Ansari, Abu Lubabah Ibn ‘Abd al-Mundhir al-Ansari and Abu Tha’labah (who have acknowledged their faults) by not joining in the Battle of Tabuk. (They mixed a righteous action) they went forth with the Prophet once (with another that was bad) and stayed behind once. (It may be) ‘may be’ ['asa] when used in connection with Allah denotes a requisite (that Allah will relent towards them) forgive them. (Lo! Allah is Relenting) towards those who repent among them, (Merciful) towards he who dies in a state of repentance. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, Q. 9:102)

    Allah then explained to the Prophet what he should take of their wealth because they had asked him to take some of it because they had stayed behind and not taken part in the Battle of Tabuk. But the Prophet initially refused to take anything from them until, that is, Allah explained the matter to him, saying: (Take alms) a third (of their wealth) the wealth of those who stayed behind, (wherewith thou mayst purify them) from their sins (and mayst make them grow) and reform them with it, (and pray for them) ask forgiveness for them and make supplication for them. (Lo! Your prayer) your asking for their forgiveness and your supplications (is an assuagement for them) tranquility for their hearts that their repentance WILL BE ACCEPTED. (Allah is Hearer) of what they say, i.e. their saying: take our wealth, (Knower) of their repentance and intention. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs, Q. 9:103)

    It is rather unfortunate that Zawadi who acts as if he can read Arabic and pretends that he understands English is constantly embarrassing himself and demonstrating that he has no problem using lies and deceptions to accomplish his aims.

    And isn’t it ironic that these individuals were still required to go to Muhammad to pay him some money as “charity” and pray for their forgiveness in order for their repentance to be accepted?!

    Thus, the Quran turns Muhammad into a co-savior with Allah, one whose intercession is necessary for salvation and forgiveness of sins. And this is despite the fact that Muhammad himself was uncertain of his own salvation!

    I had asked why Allah commanded Muhammad in Q. 110:1-3 to seek his forgiveness when he had already promised him that all of his sins had already been forgiven. Here is how Zawadi answered the question:

    Could it be that the reason why Allah informed His Messenger that His past and future sins are forgiven is because Allah already knew how Muhammad would continue to live out the rest of his life? You think that Muhammad could turn around and say “Haha God! I can do whatever I want now since you promised to forgive all my future sins!”? Obviously not. Allah already forgave the Prophet in advance and informed him in advance because He knew that he would continue repenting and worshipping Allah until the day he dies.

    This fails to answer my question. I am not asking for the reason why Allah told his false prophet that all his immoral, wicked acts which he had committed and would continue to commit would be forgiven. I am asking why Allah commanded Muhammad to seek forgiveness at all WHEN he had already told him that he had pardoned all of his vile transgressions.

    If Allah already knew in advance how Muhammad would continue to live the rest of his days and on that basis had already promised him that all of his sins were forgiven then there was absolutely no need for Allah to “reveal” a sura commanding his messenger to seek his forgiveness.

    Still more to come.

  158. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is the third and final part.

    Zawadi then posts a hadith which he again thinks confirms his point:

    Aisha asked the Prophet a similar question:

    Saheeh Bukhari

    Volume 6, Book 60, Number 361:

    Narrated Aisha:

    The Prophet used to offer prayer at night (for such a long time) that his feet used to crack. I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Why do you do it since Allah has forgiven you your faults of the past and those to follow?” He said, “Shouldn’t I love to be a thankful slave (of Allah)?’ When he became old, he prayed while sitting, but if he wanted to perform a bowing, he wound get up, recite (some other verses) and then perform the bowing.

    All Zawadi is doing at this point is illustrating that he is good at attacking straw men and throwing out red herrings. I am not asking the reason why Muhammad asked for Allah’s forgiveness, so this is nothing more than a straw man. I am asking WHY ALLAH COMMANDED MUHAMMAD TO SEEK FORGIVENESS FOR HIS SINS!

    It is one thing for Muhammad to continue to ask pardon out of gratitude to his lord. It is another thing altogether for Allah to continue to demand that Muhammad seek for forgiveness even after he had informed him that he had already forgiven him. Does Zawadi understand the difference?

    Besides, Muhammad’s reply conflicts with Q. 110 since this surah does not say that the reason why Allah commanded his false prophet to ask for pardon even after he had been informed that all his sins were already forgiven is because Allah wanted him to show gratitude.

    That Allah would continue to command Muhammad to seek for forgiveness even after he had told him that all his sins were already forgiven is a clear indication that he is a god that cannot be trusted. This is especially so when we take into account that the Quran describes Allah as the greatest deceiver of them all and depicts him as changing his mind, thereby resulting in Allah having to expunge commandments from the Quran and replacing them with others!

    But that’s not all. There is every indication that Allah actually changed his mind and did not forgive Muhammad but condemned him to hell instead.

    According to the Islamic sources Muhammad agreed to change the words of the Quran due to the suggestions of one of his scribes. For instance, the following passage:

    Who is more wicked than the man who invents a falsehood about God, or says: “This was revealed to me”, when nothing was revealed to him? Or the man who says, “I can reveal the like of what God has revealed”? S. 6:93 N.J. Dawood

    Was “revealed” in reference to the scribe Abdallah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh:

    (Who is guilty of more wrong than he who forgeth a lie against Allah, or saith: I am inspired…) [6:93]. This was revealed about the liar, Musaylimah al-Hanafi. This man was a soothsayer who composed rhymed speech and claimed prophethood. He claimed that he was inspired by Allah. (… and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed?) [6:93]. This verse was revealed about ‘Abd Allah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. This man had declared his faith in Islam and so the Messenger of Allah called him one day to write something for him. When the verses regarding the believers were revealed (Verily, We created man from a product of wet earth…) [23:12-14], the Prophet dictated them to him. When he reached up to (and then produced it as another creation), ‘Abd Allah expressed his amazement at the precision of man’s creation by saying (So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!). The Messenger of Allah said: “This [‘Abd Allah’s last expression] is how it was revealed to me”. At that point, doubt crept into ‘Abd Allah. He said: “If Muhammad is truthful, then I was inspired just as he was; and if he is lying, I have uttered exactly what he did utter”. Hence Allah’s words (and who saith: I will reveal the like of that which Allah hath revealed). The man renounced Islam. This is also the opinion of Ibn ‘Abbas according to the report of al-Kalbi. ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Abdan informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Nu‘aym> Muhammad ibn Ya‘qub al-Umawi> Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Jabbar> Yunus ibn Bukayr> Muhammad ibn Ishaq> Shurahbil ibn Sa‘d who said: “This verse was revealed about ‘Abd Allah ibn Sa‘d ibn Abi Sarh. The latter said: ‘I will reveal the like of that which Allah has revealed’, and renounced Islam. When the Messenger of Allah Mecca, this man fled to ‘Uthman [ibn ‘Affan] who was his milk brother. ‘Uthman hid him until the people of Mecca felt safe. He then took him to the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, and secured an amnesty for him”. (‘Ali ibn Ahmad al-Wahidi, Asbab al-Nuzul; bold and underline emphasis ours)

    The Quran had warned Muhammad that if he ever decided to tamper with the so-called revelation that Allah would cut off his aorta or his life-vein.

    And when Our signs are recited to them, clear signs, those who look not to encounter Us say, ‘Bring a Koran other than this, or alter it.’ Say: ‘It is not for me to alter it of my own accord. I follow nothing, except what is revealed to me. Truly I fear, if I should rebel against my Lord, the chastisement of a dreadful day.’ S. 10:15 Arberry

    it is the speech of a noble Messenger. It is not the speech of a poet (little do you believe) nor the speech of a soothsayer (little do you remember). A sending down from the Lord of all Being. Had he invented against Us any sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand, then We would surely have cut his life-vein. S. 69:40-46 Arberry

    Lo and behold this is precisely what happened to Muhammad! Muslim tradition attests that Muhammad died a very painful death due to the effects of poison, effects that he claimed cut at his jugular vein:

    The messenger of God said during the illness from which he died – the mother of Bishr had come in to visit him – “Umm Bishr, at this very moment I feel my aorta being severed because of the food I ate with your son at Khaybar.” (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York (SUNY), Albany 1997] Volume VIII, p. 124)

    In a footnote the translator of al-Tabari writes that the expression, “it severed his aorta,” need not be taken literally since it can be an expression denoting extreme pain.

    Other sources corroborate that Muhammad’s painful death was due to the poison he had ingested years before his demise:

    Anas reported that a Jewess came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) with poisoned mutton and he took of that what had been brought to him (Allah’s Messenger). (When the effect of this poison were felt by him) he called for her and asked her about that, whereupon she said: I had determined to kill you. Thereupon he said: Allah will never give you the power to do it. He (the narrator) said that they (the Companion’s of the Holy Prophet) said: Should we not kill her? Thereupon he said: No. He (Anas) said: I felt (the affects of this poison) on the uvula of Allah’s Messenger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 026, Number 5430)

    Narrated Ibn Abbas:

    ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab used to let Ibn Abbas sit beside him, so ‘AbdurRahman bin ‘Auf said to ‘Umar, “We have sons similar to him.” ‘Umar replied, “(I respect him) because of his status that you know.” ‘Umar then asked Ibn ‘Abbas about the meaning of this Holy Verse:– “When comes the help of Allah and the conquest of Mecca…” (110.1)

    Ibn ‘Abbas replied, “That indicated the death of Allah’s Apostle which Allah informed him of.” ‘Umar said, “I do not understand of it except what you understand.” Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 713)

    Compare the foregoing statements with the following Quranic citation:

    We indeed created man; and We know what his soul whispers within him, and We are nearer to him than the jugular vein. When the two angels meet together, sitting one on the right, and one on the left, not a word he utters, but by him is an observer ready. And death’s agony comes in truth; that is what thou wast shunning! S. 50:16-19 Arberry

    Allah warns those who disbelieve that he is nearer to them than their jugular vein, an obvious threat that he has the power to kill them, and further threatens that they would experience an agonizing death.

    The fact that the Islamic narrations state that Muhammad died a severe death, describing his death in language that is reminiscent of Q. 69:45-46 and 50:16-19, supports the position that he was being punished for the heinous sin of changing the Quran at the suggestions of his scribe.

    This means that Allah did not forgive all of Muhammad’s sins but actually killed him for changing the text of the Quran by including the statements of an uninspired scribe!

    For more on this issue and to see why Allah murdering his prophet doesn’t imply that we somehow believe that the Quran is true or that Muhammad’s deity must truly be God, we recommend this article.

    Zawadi ends by asking me why I continue to repent if my debt has already been paid for by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Not only is this another red herring it is also a false analogy which further proves that Zawadi simply didn’t understand my argument and is incapable of getting the point (which doesn’t surprise me in the least). However, as Zawadi rightfully said this question is a different topic which will have to be addressed in another rebuttal.

    In conclusion, Zawadi once again failed to refute the fact Muhammad was uncertain of his own salvation. The evidence we presented showed that Muhammad had every reason to be afraid since his god Allah is a deceiver who cannot be trusted to do as he says.

    Lord Jesus willing, we will have more replies to Zawadi’s “responses” in the near future.

  159. Sam Shamoun says:

    Whistling in the Dark: Exercises in “Islamic Lexicography”

    For some time now, Sam Shamoun and Bassam Zawadi have been involved in a discussion on the question of whether Muhammad was assured of his (eternal) salvation and of Allah’s forgiveness of his sins. Their exchange can be viewed on these pages (1-Conclusion, 2, 3, 2-Appendix, 4). I am happy to leave the bulk of the theological discussion to them. But in his most recent instalment, in the appendix to his main article, Bassam Zawadi made a really bad linguistic argument which I could not resist responding to.

    In a nutshell, Zawadi argues that the same word in the Qur’an (‘assa), usually translated as “may” or “perhaps” actually means “certainly” or “definitely” in some verses in the Qur’an. As ludicrous as this sounds at first sight, let’s examine the argument that Zawadi puts before us. He writes:

    Shamoun says:

    But is this what the verse actually says? Does it really claim that Allah had forgiven all of Muhammad’s previous and latter sins? Let us see:

    Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory, That Allah MAY forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and MAY perfect His favour unto thee, and MAY guide thee on a right path, S. 48:1-2 Pickthall Medinan

    As the readers can see for themselves the reference doesn’t say that Allah HAD forgiven Muhammad completely, but that he MAY forgive his messenger of his sins.

    The Arabic word translated as “may” isعسى (‘assa). Ibn Mandhur in his famous Lisaan al-Arab dictionary says that the word ‘assa could linguistically either indicate probability or certainty. (Ibn Manzur, Lisaan Al Arab, Volume 15, page 54; under the word عسا)

    My guess is that the dictionary actually speaks of “possibility” rather than “probability”. Moreover, if Zawadi isn’t even certain how he should spell the name of the author of this dictionary, how much confidence can we have that he understood the text? Having gotten these trivia out of the way, let us now turn to the substance.

    Frankly, I have the suspicion that Zawadi’s summary of the dictionary entry is not quite “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. Why? If there is any language that uses the same word to express “possibility” and “certainty”, i.e. the same word means both “perhaps” and “certainly”, this is bound to produce an enormous number of misunderstandings in daily communications. It would be incredibly impractical to use such a word at all. It is nearly like claiming a word could mean both “left” and “right” or “up” and “down” or “square” and “circle” or “yes” and “no”. Even though in most languages many words have a range of meanings, this range does not usually include meanings that are nearly self-contradictory.

    There are several points to be made. Occasionally even dictionaries contain errors and misunderstandings. More likely, however, is that this word takes a certain meaning in a very precise context (e.g. within a certain idiomatic expression). Dictionaries are usually produced on the basis of textual evidence. The question is: What is the textual basis, what is the context in which this word indicates certainty? This MUST be stated precisely so that we can determine if the above Quran verse fits this context. Otherwise, a comment like the above is virtually useless. Therefore, if Bassam Zawadi wants to appeal to this dictionary, or any other, he needs to produce the full entry on the word so that we can examine what it says, and in which context it supposedly indicates certainty.

    As it stands, the above “summary” is an empty and useless claim.

    Apparently, Zawadi was intuitively aware that the above claim wasn’t worth much, all by itself, and thus he sought to substantiate this claim with a number of “proof texts”. He states:

    Imam Al-Qurtubi said:

    عَسَى ” مِنْ اللَّه وَاجِبَة.

    ‘assa from Allah is an obligation. (Abu ‘Abdullah Al-Qurtubi, Tasfir al Jami’ li-ahkam al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 9:18, Source)

    Al-Tabari states:

    وَكُلّ ” عَسَى ” فِي الْقُرْآن فَهِيَ وَاجِبَة

    Every occurrence of ‘assa in the Qur’an is an obligation. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami’ al-bayan fi ta’wil al-Qur’an, Commentary on Surah 9:18, Source)

    It seems that Zawadi has not even understood what he is doing, or trying to do. These citations are completely irrelevant to this discussion for several reasons.

    First, obligation and certainty are different concepts. Remember that Zawadi claimed ‘assa indicates or at least can occasionally indicate certainty (because he wants the verse in question to mean that Allah not only perhaps but definitely forgave the sins of Muhammad).

    However, obligation does not produce certainty. This can be illustrated very easily. The five daily prayers are an obligation on every adult Muslim. Does every adult Muslim perform the obligatory prayers? Certainly NOT! (This also is a kind of certainty, but the opposite of the obligation.) Okay, maybe asking about every Muslim is asking too much. So then: Does the average Muslim faithfully observe his obligatory five daily prayers? Probably not! Then let’s be more specific: Did Bassam Zawadi faithfully perform all five daily prayers on every day during the last year? Possibly yes, but probably not. Given his zeal for Islam, I consider it likely that he performed them on most days during the last year, but I still consider it unlikely that he was able to do all of them on every single day. Clearly: Obligation does not imply actuality, obligation does not produce certainty.

    Therefore, even if the above quotations could prove that the word ‘assa implies some kind of obligation (on whom?), it fails to prove Zawadi’s case that ‘assa indicates certainty since obligation does not imply certainty.

    This observation alone renders Zawadi’s proof texts irrelevant and useless for this discussion. However, it is going to get worse. S. 48:1-2 and S. 9:18 are simply too different for one to try and reason from the latter to the former. Here are the two texts in a couple of translations:

    Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory, that Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path, (S. 48:1-2; Pickthall)

    Surely We have given thee a manifest victory, that God may forgive thee thy former and thy latter sins, and complete His blessing upon thee, and guide thee on a straight path, (Arberry)

    He only shall tend Allah’s sanctuaries who believeth in Allah and the Last Day and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due and feareth none save Allah. For such (only) is it possible that they can be of the rightly guided. (S. 9:18, Pickthall)

    Only he shall inhabit God’s places of worship who believes in God and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms, and fears none but God alone; it may be that those will be among the guided. (Arberry)

    He alone can maintain the Mosques of ALLAH who believers in ALLAH, and the Last Day, and observes Prayer, and pays the Zakaat and fears not but ALLAH; so these it is who may be rightly guided. (Sher Ali)

    Note the difference: In S. 48:2, Allah is the subject, Allah may (or may not) DO something. In S. 9:18, the subject is/are (a group of) believers and a statement is made about the possibility of them BEING something. Compare:

    Allah may forgive thee
    Those may be among the rightly guided

    48:2 – subject: Allah, verb: forgive [action]
    9:18 – subject: these/they [Muslims], verb: “be among the rightly guided” [status]

    Given that the two verses are so very different in structure, on what basis does Zawadi think that an observation on S. 9:18 can simply be transferred to explain a very different phrase in S. 48:2? That is certainly not obvious. Zawadi needs to present a proper argument.

    Based on the English translations alone, we see that there are considerable problems for simply reasoning from S. 9:18 to S. 48:2. It becomes even worse when we look at the Arabic text. But that will actually be so bad and fatal to Zawadi’s argument and so embarrassing for Zawadi as an Arab and apologist for Islam that it deserves a section of its own. I will save that for last, making it the final point and climax of my rebuttal.

    Despite the prestigious names of Al-Qurtubi and Al-Tabari connected with the claim that “’assa from Allah is an obligation” or “every occurrence of ‘assa in the Qur’an is an obligation”, I fail to see any obligation in the last phrase of S. 9:18. Since the discussion of that matter is too lengthy, and ultimately irrelevant to Zawadi’s argument here, I may deal with that in a separate article as time permits.

    Zawadi then tries to make an argument from the English usage of the auxiliary verb “may”:

    Even in English the word “may” could either be used to express contingency/possibility OR power/ability.

    An example of it expressing possibility is “I may travel to Ireland next week”. An example of it expressing ability is:

    Luke 1:4

    so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

    Zawadi’s original claim was that the word “may” may also indicate “certainty”. But the certainty in the above verse is found in the word “certainty”, not in the word “may”. Zawadi is right in saying that the “may” indicates ability. Because Luke wrote up his account of the life and teachings of Jesus, the reader is thus enabled to know the truth of the Christian message. But ability is really not so different from possibility (i.e. poss-ability). Similar to the discussion of obligation above, ability and possibility do not automatically produce actuality. Therefore, this example again fails to substantiate Zawadi’s case. The English word “may” can indicate a wish, a possibility, or ability, but it does not indicate certainty.

    Ironically, Zawadi is his own best refutation, i.e. the person of Bassam Zawadi is the best refutation of the claim of Bassam Zawadi. Luke wrote his gospel account so that his readers may know for sure that what they have been taught is true:

    Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1-4)

    However, seeing that he still is a Muslim, it is clear that Zawadi did not become certain of its truth. Zawadi was enabled to know the certainty of the truth of the Gospel, but he did not turn that ability into a personal reality. It remained only a possibility for him, while for other readers it has become a certainty.

    That is exactly the common use and normal meaning of “may” – indicating possibility.

    However, one thing is certain: Zawadi has so far not made any progress in proving his hypothesis that “may” indicates certainty.

    Zawadi continues:

    The verses that Shamoun cited are not of those that express contingency because they are explained off [sic] by other verses that indicate certainty (e.g. Allah guaranteeing and making promises for paradise).

    Since Zawadi questions even Sam Shamoun’s knowledge of English (later on in the same appendix), I have to ask him in which dictionary he found the verb “to explain off”. Did he perhaps mean “explained away”?

    I searched hard in Zawadi’s article, but I could not find any refutation of the verses used by Sam Shamoun in his article, nor was I able to find those alleged other verses, supposedly guaranteeing paradise, listed in Zawadi’s article. The only verse Zawadi quotes and discusses in this regard is S. 9:102, which we will examine shortly.

    Furthermore, notice how ironic and self-refuting Zawadi’s formulation “indicating certainty” actually is. Certainty comes through clear unambiguous statements, but “indicating” speaks of something that is veiled, ambiguous, unclear. An indication is a hint, but not clear evidence. Zawadi is clearly squirming and trying to affirm something that is fundamentally unclear in the Qur’an. But as stated above, the theological discussion on this matter I will leave to Sam Shamoun; I will focus here on the linguistic argument.

    More in the next part.

  160. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is the 2nd part:

    Well, then, let’s now turn to Zawadi’s only verse from the Qur’an that he offered as proof for certainty:

    The definite proof for this is when Allah revealed Surah 9:102, which states:

    And there are others who confessed their faults. They mixed good works with others that are evil. It may be that ALLAH will turn to them with compassion. Surely, ALLAH is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

    Waakharoona iAAtarafoo bithunoobihim khalatoo AAamalan salihan waakhara sayyi-an AAasa Allahu an yatooba AAalayhim inna Allaha ghafoorun raheemun

    This verse was revealed regarding Abu Lubabah. Tafsir Al-Jalalayn states:

    And [there are] others (ākharūn is the subject), [another] folk, who have confessed their sins, for having stayed behind (i’tarafū bi-dhunūbihim is an adjectival qualification of it [the subject] and the predicate is [the following, khalatū 'amalan sālihan]) they have mixed a righteous deed, that is, their former [participation in the] struggle, or the their confession of their sins, or otherwise, with another that was bad, which is their having stayed behind. It may be that God will relent to them. Truly God is Forgiving, Merciful: this was revealed regarding Abū Lubāba and a group of men who tied themselves to the walls of the mosque after they heard what had been revealed regarding those who stayed behind; they swore that only the Prophet (s) would untie them, which he did when this [verse] was revealed. (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 9:102, Source)

    The background of this story is that Abu Lubabah mistakenly told the Bani Qurayza tribe what their fate would be. He realized that this was a big mistake and then he tied himself to the wall of the mosque until God forgave him. Then Surah 9:102 (containing the word ‘assa) was revealed. Once it was revealed Abu Lubabah was untied. The question here is why he would do that if the word ‘assa indicated that his repentance would be conditional? The answer is because it didn’t. [sic] Abu Lubabah understood that he was definitely forgiven and that is why he agreed to untie himself.

    It is amazing how much ignorance and faulty reasoning Zawadi was able to pack into these few lines, and still call it “definite proof”.

    Let us first clarify the historical background. The slaughter of the Banu Qurayza took place in Spring 627 AD (cf. this chapter in Muir’s biography of Muhammad). But Surah 9 was “revealed” as one of the last surahs near the end of Muhammad’s life. Syed Abu-Ala’ Maududi writes in his introduction to Surah 9:

    The third discourse (vv. 73-129) was revealed on his return from the Campaign of Tabuk. There are some pieces in this discourse that were sent down on different occasions during the same period and were afterwards consolidated by the Holy Prophet into the Surah in accordance with inspiration from Allah. But this caused no interruption in its continuity because they dealt with the same subject and formed part of the same series of events. This discourse warns the hypocrites of their evil deeds and rebukes those Believers who had stayed behind in the Campaign of Tabuk. Then after taking them to task, Allah pardons those true Believers who had not taken part in the Jihad in the Way of Allah for one reason or the other. (Source)

    The Campaign of Tabuk is dated to October 630 AD (source), i.e. about 3.5 years after Muhammad’s slaughter of the Banu Qurayza. Does Zawadi want to make us believe that Abu Lubabah was tied to the mosque for 3.5 years, waiting for his pardon for the sin of “betraying Muhammad” by indicating to the besieged Banu Qurayza that Muhammad would slaughter them if they should surrender?

    Moreover, Tafsir Al-Jalalayn clearly says that this verse was revealed about a group of people whose sin was that they “stayed behind” (instead of going to war against the unbelievers) and who tied themselves to the walls of the mosque as a sign of their repentance. But in the Banu Qurayza story, there was only one man, Abu Lubabah, not a group of people, who tied himself to a pillar of the mosque. And at that time, Abu Lubabah did not have a problem with having “stayed behind”. So, all of this doesn’t fit. Zawadi was again too hasty in his conclusions (cf. Haste makes Waste). He saw the name Abu Lubabah and the words “tied … in the mosque” and then he thought he knows it all and doesn’t need to look up the details.1 Zawadi exposed both his ignorance and his sloppiness with these claims.

    There are several more details which Zawadi got wrong. To mention just one that is quite significant, Zawadi claims that [based on this Qur’an verse] “Abu Lubabah understood that he was definitely forgiven and that is why he agreed to untie himself” but Ibn Ishaq reports it this way:

    When the apostle heard about him, for he had been waiting for him a long time, he said, ‘If he had come to me I would have asked forgiveness for him, but seeing that he behaved as he did I will not let him go from his place until God forgives him.’ Yazid b. ‘Abdullah b. Qusayt told me that the forgiveness of Abu Lubaba came to the apostle at dawn while he was in the house of Umm Salama. She said: ‘At dawn I heard the apostle laugh and I said: ‘Why did you laugh? May God make you laugh!’ He replied, ‘Abu Lubaba has been forgiven.’ She said, ‘Cannot I give him the good news?’ and when he said that she could she went and stood at the door of her room (this was before the veil had been prescribed for women) and said, ‘O Abu Lubaba, rejoice, for God has forgiven you’; and men rushed out to set him free. He said, ‘No, not until the apostle frees me with his own hand.’ When the apostle passed him when he was going out to morning prayer he set him free. (A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad – A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, Oxford University Press, Karachi, 1955, pp. 462-463)

    Note also that the Sirat does not mention any Qur’an verse given for Abu Lubabah in the incident of the Banu Qurayza. It claims that (somehow) “that the forgiveness of Abu Lubaba came to the apostle at dawn” but not that this information is found in the Qur’an. Also, Abu Lubabah was not satisfied with the news that God had allegedly forgiven him, he demanded to be untied by Muhammad himself. All of this is contrary to Zawadi’s claims.

    In fact, even Zawadi’s own quote from Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, although referring to a different incident, explicitly says, “they swore that only the Prophet would untie them, which he did when this [verse] was revealed” which didn’t hinder Zawadi to claim otherwise.

    And it would have been so easy to avoid that mistake. Zawadi would just have had to follow the link to (Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 9:102, Source) that he himself provided, then switch in the drop-down menu from “Tafsir al-Jalalayn” to “Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs” and click “Display” to read:

    (And (there are) others) and of the people of Medina, there are other people: Wadi’ah Ibn Judham al-Ansari, Abu Lubabah Ibn ‘Abd al-Mundhir al-Ansari and Abu Tha’labah (who have acknowledged their faults) by not joining in the Battle of Tabuk. (They mixed a righteous action) they went forth with the Prophet once (with another that was bad) and stayed behind once. … (Source; bold emphasis mine)

    Although the entry in the Tafsir Al-Jalalayn is not explicit on this, the same site offers, just two clicks away, two other classical commentaries, “Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs” and “Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi”, which both explicitly state that this refers to “the Battle of Tabuk” (and has therefore nothing to do with the attack on the Banu Qurayza). There is really no excuse for Zawadi’s ignorant claims and shoddy research.

    Okay then, it was another incident, and Zawadi is hopefully duly embarrassed about that blunder, … but having clarified this and adjusting the argument to these different historical circumstances, does the proposed argument then become solid? Does it help Zawadi to extract certainty from “may be”?

    As stated in the paragraph by Maududi that was quoted earlier, this part of Sura 9 is a scathing attack and condemnation of those Muslims who stayed at home and did not take part in the military campaign of Tabuk. These people are denounced as hypocrites and threatened with severe punishment and in the end hell-fire (cf. S. 9:81-90, 93-96, 98, 101) – without any “maybe” attached to it. No wonder some Muslims who had not joined Muhammad’s jihad against the unbelievers in this particular campaign really became fearful. They recognized that doom was pronounced on them. And they apparently felt they needed a public acceptance of their repentance and re-instatement in the community by Muhammad himself. Thus they tied themselves up in the mosque and asked to be untied by Muhammad as a sign that they were forgiven. That is the context of S. 9:102, pronouncing on them:

    And there are others who confessed their faults. They mixed good works with others that are evil. It may be that ALLAH will turn to them with compassion. Surely, ALLAH is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

    After they were faced with SURE condemnation and hell-fire in the earlier verses, the new announcement “it may be that Allah will turn to them in compassion” was already great relief. There was hope after all. Perhaps they could draw some consolation or even “certainty” from the last phrase “surely, Allah is Most Forgiving”, but not from the sentence before it. It is formulated as “may be” and no amount of denial is going to change that. More than the “may be” from Allah in the Qur’an verse, it was the action of Muhammad to untie them which brought them relief.

    Zawadi had argued that

    … he tied himself to the wall of the mosque until God forgave him. Then Surah 9:102 (containing the word ‘assa) was revealed. Once it was revealed Abu Lubabah was untied. The question here is why he would do that if the word ‘assa indicated that his repentance would be conditional? The answer is because it didn’t. [sic] Abu Lubabah understood that he was definitely forgiven and that is why he agreed to untie himself.

    But that exactly is not true. He did not untie himself because the Qur’an verse had provided that assurance, but they needed the physical sign and demanded that Muhammad untie them as a sign of that forgiveness. The mere “revelation” was not enough, it needed Muhammad’s personal and physical action to convey that assurance to them.

    In the final analysis, Zawadi has not provided any substantial evidence (from the historical context) to prove that the word ‘assa conveys certainty.

    Al-Hilali & Khan render S. 9:102 in this way:

    And (there are) others who have acknowledged their sins, they have mixed a deed that was righteous with another that was evil. Perhaps Allah will turn unto them in forgiveness. Surely, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    The word “perhaps” doesn’t sound like these translators saw a certainty in this clause. And the final phrase is a generality about Allah without being specifically applied to the people in question. Again, there is no assurance in this verse.

    Compare these three statements:

    Allah has forgiven you.
    Allah will forgive you.
    Perhaps Allah will forgive you.

    The first formulation conveys full certainty of forgiveness. The second can still be understood as certain although it is projected into the future and the forgiveness is therefore not yet reality.2 Adding the word “perhaps”, however, takes away the certainty that was present in the other formulations, it certainly doesn’t add any assurance.

    The situation is no different in Arabic. Why would Allah add ‘assa in order to add an element of certainty? It makes no sense. In order to give assurance of forgiveness, he simply would have had to leave this word out. That is what Zawadi has to explain. How does the word ‘assa add certainty which had been missing if this word had not been added?

    Zawadi did not invent this explanation, it is a classical interpretation in Islam:

    (And (there are) others) and of the people of Medina, there are other people: Wadi’ah Ibn Judham al-Ansari, Abu Lubabah Ibn ‘Abd al-Mundhir al-Ansari and Abu Tha’labah (who have acknowledged their faults) by not joining in the Battle of Tabuk. (They mixed a righteous action) they went forth with the Prophet once (with another that was bad) and stayed behind once. (It may be) ‘may be’ ['asa] when used in connection with Allah denotes a requisite (that Allah will relent towards them) forgive them. (Lo! Allah is Relenting) towards those who repent among them, (Merciful) towards he who dies in a state of repentance. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs on Q. 9:102; bold and underline emphasis mine)

    The very fact that Ibn Abbas (and other commentators after him) felt the need to explain such a common word proves that this is not the natural understanding of the term. This revealing comment is itself evidence that ‘assa USUALLY simply means “perhaps”, “it may be that”. It is merely a claim that if this word is used in connection with Allah, THEN it implies a requirement, obligation, or duty on Allah to actually do what he only expressed in the form of a possibility.

    Even if famous names like Ibn Abbas, Al-Qurtubi or Al-Tabari are connected to it, it still remains a claim without proof. I have yet to see a proper linguistic basis for this interpretation. So far, this presents itself as merely special pleading seeking to force a meaning on the word which it doesn’t have.

    There is a clear reason why “Allah” / Muhammad had to add “perhaps” to the statement. The Quran contains many definite statements. Allah could easily have made it definite if he wanted, but he constructed it as indefinite for a purpose. He safeguards his own sovereignty with it. He is not bound by anything. He has the ultimate freedom to do whatever he wants. He does not restrict his free will with promises, he may not want to fulfil later on. He is not “accountable” to anyone, just as the following verses prove:

    To Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on the earth, and whether you disclose what is in your ownselves or conceal it, Allah will call you to account for it. Then He forgives whom He wills and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is Able to do all things. S. 2:284

    Allah made it not but as a message of good news for you and as an assurance to your hearts. And there is no victory except from Allah, the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. That He might cut off a part of those who disbelieve, or expose them to infamy, so that they retire frustrated. Not for you (O Muhammad, but for Allah) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them; verily, they are the Zalimun (polytheists, disobedients, and wrong-doers, etc.). And to Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. He forgives whom He wills, and punishes whom He wills. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. S. 3:126-129 Hilali-Khan

    Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin. S. 4:48 – cf. 116; 5:18, 40; 48:14

    Have you not considered those who attribute purity to themselves? Nay, Allah purifies whom He pleases; and they shall not be wronged the husk of a date stone. S. 4:49

    “… And had it not been for the Grace of Allah and His Mercy on you, not one of you would ever have been pure from sins. But Allah purifies whom He wills, and Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.” S. 24:21

    He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned. S. 21:23

    If it had been a specific statement like “Allah has forgiven person A, B and C for not participating in the battle of Tabuk” there would not have been much of a problem, but the author of the Qur’an tries to speak indirectly and general and that forces him to be vague. Because this verse is formulated in such a general manner, it therefore had to be vague and not offer more than a possibility. Look at S. 9:102 again:

    And (there are) others who have acknowledged their sins, they have mixed a deed that was righteous with another that was evil. Perhaps Allah will turn unto them in forgiveness. …

    Doesn’t that apply to a vast number of people? In particular, doesn’t that hold true of most religious people in just about every religion? Most people have done some good deeds and some bad deeds, so there is a mixture of good and bad deeds in their life. And most sincere religious people acknowledge that they have sinned and they have confessed those sins.

    Following this “general description” with a statement like “Allah will definitely forgive them and make Paradise their abode” would have been detrimental to Islam. It would have declared a general forgiveness for nearly all people, regardless of their religion. Therefore the author had to add the “maybe”, to safeguard his sovereignty and freedom of decision in the final judgment. The “perhaps” allows him to add further aspects and conditions into the equation, particularly the condition of future obedience of these people, instead of handing them a free pass.

    Even if Muhammad wanted to let these particular people know that they are forgiven and reinstated, his urge to couch everything in a lofty general language forced him to be vague and make his pronouncement contingent by adding “perhaps”.

    And this holds not only for this verse, but for many other passages as well resulting in a religion where believers have no assurance and certainty in regard to forgiveness of their sins or their eternal destiny. And that is a fearsome situation.3 How are Muslims to deal with that fundamental insecurity? I do not envy them.

    However, interpreting an explicit “perhaps” or “it may be that” as conveying certainty is like whistling in the dark, to suppress the fear that keeps on gnawing at your soul.

    In the final analysis, there is a clear reason why this verse HAS TO contain a “perhaps” in regard to the promised forgiveness. The generality forces its vagueness. Ibn Abbas and other Muslims have so far only asserted that ‘assa conveys certainty when connected with Allah but have not provided real linguistic textual evidence for this interpretation which runs contrary to the normal and established meaning of the word.

    Zawadi closes his argument with this paragraph of compliments:

    Hence, the verses that Shamoun has cited do not prove his case at all. Rather, he is just ignorant of the Arabic language and needs to settle with fallible English translations. Shamoun doesn’t seem to be too knowledgeable of English as well, since he should have remembered that the word “may” does not always express contingency in any given context.

    I can very confidently leave the judgment to the reader whether or not Bassam Zawadi was able to present a convincing argument to support his claim that ‘assa conveys certainty in (at least) some passages of the Qur’an, and in whom they think ignorance has been found.

    In my view, there is nothing left of Zawadi’s hypothesis. Every argument in support of it has been found wanting.

    However, EVEN IF Zawadi had been able to successfully establish that ‘assa occasionally conveys certainty, it still would have been absolutely futile, because he made another enormous mistake which renders his whole argument irrelevant.

    Zawadi’s Self-Destruction

    Let’s go back to the beginning and recall Zawadi’s main claim which he seeks to prove.

    Responding to Sam Shamoun’s discussion of S. 48:1-2, Zawadi wrote:

    Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory, That Allah MAY forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and MAY perfect His favour unto thee, and MAY guide thee on a right path, S. 48:1-2 Pickthall Medinan

    The Arabic word translated as “may” isعسى (‘assa). Ibn Mandhur in his famous Lisaan al-Arab dictionary says that the word ‘assa could linguistically either indicate probability or certainty. (Ibn Manzur, Lisaan Al Arab, Volume 15, page 54; under the word عسا)

    The bold red color emphasis in the above paragraph is mine, and this color symbolizes the embarrassment and red face of Bassam Zawadi when he realizes the blunder he committed here.

    No question, there are plenty of places in the Qur’an where the word ‘assa is rendered as “may” in English translations. S. 9:18 and 9:102 were listed by Zawadi himself as proof texts, even though these passages did not really help his case when examined closely.

    However, there is no ‘assa in the Arabic text of S. 48:2.

    Therefore, going on and on about ‘assa in order to establish a certain meaning for it is utterly futile because this verse does not even contain the word ‘assa.

    Zawadi, a native speaker of Arabic, an Arab Islamic apologist who regularly boasts that he reads the Qur’an in its original language and therefore understands it much better than all those infidel critics who do not have a clue, … this very same Zawadi simply ASSUMED that the word “MAY” in the English translation quoted by Sam Shamoun MUST HAVE come from ‘assa. And then Zawadi wrote and published an article about the correct interpretation of S. 48:1-2 without bothering to read it in Arabic even once. Consequently, he is merely punching the air and missing his target by more than a mile.

    Against this background, Zawadi’s closing paragraph acquires a whole new flavour and meaning:

    Hence, the verses that Shamoun has cited do not prove his case at all. Rather, he is just ignorant of the Arabic language and needs to settle with fallible English translations. Shamoun doesn’t seem to be too knowledgeable of English as well, since he should have remembered that the word “may” does not always express contingency in any given context.

    That is what I call self-destruction. As mentioned above, Zawadi is his own best refutation.

    Footnotes
    1 Although, somehow I can understand Zawadi. Personally, I find it rather strange to see Abu Lubabah making it a habit to tie himself to a pillar in the Mosque when he had again sinned, and thus “forcing” Allah/Muhammad to publicly and specifically pronounce to him that he had been forgiven, and finding Muhammad giving in to the same trick from the same person twice.

    2 And who knows whether Allah may change his mind later on? Abrogation is a rather disconcerting feature of Allah’s speech. On the other hand, whether past or future tense, the certainty of either statement depends on the confidence one has in the trustworthiness of this Allah who even boasts to be the greatest of all deceivers (*).

    3 In fact, though the Qur’an does not give any definite promise of Paradise, it does give a definite statement that all Muslims will go to Hell, and only some of them will get out of it again, cf. these articles (1, 2, 3).

  161. Sam Shamoun says:

    None Can Feel Safe From Allah’s Schemes: How the deceptive and capricious nature of Muhammad’s deity Caused Abu Bakr to despair for his salvation

    Abu Bakr wasn’t only Muhammad’s best friend and father-in-law, he was also Islam’s first caliph or leader and one of the greatest Muslims that ever lived. He was also one of ten men whom Muhammad personally guaranteed would enter paradise:

    Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, `Atiq ibn Abi Quhafa, Shaykh al-Islam, `Abd Allah ibn `Uthman ibn `Amir al-Qurashi al-Taymi (d. 13), the Prophet’s intimate friend after Allah, exclusive companion at the Prophet’s Basin (hawd) and in the Cave, greatest supporter, closest confidant, first spiritual inheritor, first of the men who believed in him and the only one who did so unhesitatingly, first of his four Rightly-Guided successors, first of the ten promised Paradise, and first of the Prophet’s Community to enter Paradise. (Source)

    And:

    By Divinely-ordained prescription (tawqif) the best human beings after Prophets are the Companions, in the following order:

    First, the Ten Promised Paradise; these are: Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman, Ali, al-Zubayr ibn al-`Awwam, Talha, `Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf, Abu -Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah, Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas, and Sa`id ibn Zayd ibn `Amr. (Sh. G. F. Haddad, Sahaba)
    However, Abu Bakr knew his god too well and was aware that such a promise was pretty much meaningless since Allah cannot be trusted seeing that he boasts of being the greatest deceiver of them all:

    But they (the Jews) schemed/connived/used deceit (Wa-makaroo), and Allah schemed/connived/used deceit, for Allah is the best of deceivers (wa-makara Allahu wa-Allahu khayru al-makireena)! S. 3:54; cf. 8:30

    As such, Allah could say one thing but do another since Allah has no problem changing his mind or breaking his word:

    Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things? S. 2:106 Hilali-Khan

    Allah basically does whatever he wants to whomever he wants when he wants to since he doesn’t answer to anyone:

    He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned. S. 21:23

    This is why Abu Bakr wept over not knowing whether he was truly saved or not:

    “Although he had such a faith, which was too great to suffice all the inhabitants of the earth, he was afraid that his heart might go astray. So, he used to utter, while weeping: ‘Would that I have been a bitten tree!’ Whenever he was reminded of his position in Allah’s sight, he would say: ‘By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.’” (Khalid Muhammad Khalid, Successors of the Messenger, translated by Muhammad Mahdi al-Sharif [Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut Lebanon, 2005], Book One: Abu Bakr Has Come, p. 99; bold and italic emphasis ours)

    What a sad state of affairs! Abu Bakr was so fearful of Allah’s schemes that he still felt that he couldn’t be safe from Allah’s deceit even if he already had one foot in paradise!(1)

    Abu Bakr had every reason to be fearful that his heart might turn away from the faith since this close companion of Muhammad knew what the Quran says about Allah misleading and turning people away from the guidance:

    Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made to go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance). S. 4:88

    And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allah misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise. S. 14:4

    He would have also known what Muhammad himself taught about a person who believes and does good for most of his life and then all of a sudden completely turns away from the faith:

    Chapter 4. What Has Been Related About ‘One’s Deeds Depend Upon One’s End’

    2137. ‘Abdullah bin Mas‘ud said: “The Messenger of Allah narrated to us – and he is the truthful and entrusted one: ‘Indeed the creation of one of you is gathered inside his mother in forty days. Then, for a similar period, he is a clot. Then, for a similar period, he is a piece of flesh. Then Allah sends the angel to him to blow the soul into him, and he is ordered to write four (things): To write his provision, his life-span, his works, and whether he will be wretched or happy. By the One besides Whom there is none other worthy of worship! One of you will do deeds of the people of the Paradise, until there is between him and it but a forearm span, THEN HE IS OVERCOME BY WHAT IS WRITTEN FOR HIM, and he is sealed off with the deeds of the people of the Fire, so that he enters it. And indeed one of you will do deeds of the people of the Fire, until there is between him and it but a forearm span, then he is overcome by what is written for him, and he is sealed off with the deeds of the people of Paradise, so that he enters it.’” (Sahih)

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

    (Another chain, but including Yahya bin Sa‘eed) with similar meaning.

    [Abu ‘Eisa said:] There are narrations on this topic from Abu Hurairah and Anas and I heard Ahmad bin Al-Hasan say: “I heard Ahmad bin Hanbal saying: ‘I have not seen the likes of Yahya bin Sa‘eed with my eyes.’” And this Hadith is Hasan Sahih …

    Commentary:

    It is necessary that all of us be constantly supplicating Allah for a good end to our lives, and salvation from an evil end. It is also necessary that we, on the basis of our seeing a person doing what he does, do not jump to judgement on whether he is destined for Hell or Paradise, since we have no means to know how he will behave towards the end of his life. (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by Imam Hafiz ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, From Hadith no. 1897 to 2605, translated by Abu Khalil (USA), Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, final review by Islamic Research Section Darussalam [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 4, pp. 200-201; underline emphasis ours)

    In light of this Abu Bakr had every reason to be fearful of Allah turning his heart away and condemning him to hell despite the fact that Muhammad had personally guaranteed his salvation! Abu Bakr surely knew from both the Quran and his prophet’s teachings that the Islamic deity is a deceiver who cannot be trusted to do what he promises.

    A Weak Narration?

    Some Muslims out of embarrassment argue that this narration from Abu Bakr is either a weak report or a sheer fabrication. They realize just how damaging this story is and how poorly it reflects on Allah’s reliability as well as Abu Bakr’s faithfulness so they choose to simply brush it aside by classifying it as weak or deeming it a forgery.

    However, there are several main problems with claiming that this is a weak report or an outright fabrication.

    In the first place a weak narration is not necessarily an inauthentic one. Even those hadiths which some scholars have classified as weak can still be based on reliable information, especially when supported by the testimony of the Quran. In fact, this report perfectly comports with the Muslim scripture since according to the latter it is only those who perish that feel secure from the deception or makr of Allah:

    Are the people of the townships then secure from the coming of Our wrath upon them as a night-raid while they sleep? Or are the people of the townships then secure from the coming of Our wrath upon them in the daytime while they play? Are they then secure from Allah’s scheme (makra Allahi)? None deemeth himself secure from Allah’s scheme (makra Allahi) save folk that perish. S. 7:97-99 Pickthall

    What! do they then feel secure from Allah’s plan? But none feels secure from Allah’s plan except the people who shall perish. S. 7:99 Shakir

    The implication here is that the believers know better than to feel safe from Allah’s schemes and deceit. Thus, since Abu Bakr was a believer who knew the Quran it only makes perfect sense that he would be deathly afraid of Allah’s tricks or plotting and therefore have serious doubts about his own salvation.

    Moreover, Muhammad himself was extremely fearful of Allah’s judgment since he used to panic whenever a strong wind blew, an eclipse occurred, or if there was a cloud in the sky. Muhammad thought that these natural phenomena signified that the day of judgment was at hand!

    Narrated Abu Musa:
    The sun eclipsed and the Prophet got up, being afraid that it might be the Hour (i.e. Day of Judgment). He went to the Mosque and offered the prayer with the longest Qiyam, bowing and prostration that I had ever seen him doing. Then he said, “These signs which Allah sends do not occur because of the life or death of somebody, but Allah makes His worshipers afraid by them. So when you see anything thereof, proceed to remember Allah, invoke Him and ask for His forgiveness.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 18, Number 167)

    Narrated Anas:
    Whenever a strong wind blew, anxiety appeared on the face of the Prophet (fearing that wind might be a sign of Allah’s wrath). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 17, Number 144)

    Narrated Ata:
    ‘Aisha said, “If the Prophet saw a cloud in the sky, he would walk to and fro in agitation, go out and come in, and the color of his face would change, and if it rained, he would feel relaxed.” So ‘Aisha knew that state of his. So the Prophet said, “I don’t know (am afraid), it may be similar to what happened to some people referred to in the Holy Quran in the following Verse: — ‘Then when they saw it as a dense cloud coming towards their valleys, they said, “This is a cloud bringing us rain!” Nay, but, it is that (torment) which you were asking to be hastened a wind wherein is severe torment.’ (46.24)” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 428)

    More to come.

  162. Sam Shamoun says:

    He also feared such things as punishment in the grave:

    Narrated Masruq:
    ‘Aisha said that a Jewess came to her and mentioned the punishment in the grave, saying to her, “May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave.” ‘Aisha then asked Allah’s Apostle about the punishment of the grave. He said, “Yes, (there is) punishment in the grave.” ‘Aisha added, “After that I never saw Allah’s Apostle but seeking refuge with Allah from the punishment in the grave in every prayer he prayed.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 454)

    Now why would Muhammad be afraid of the grave or the day of judgment if he was certain of his salvation? The answer is obvious… Muhammad, like his best friend and father-in-law, knew better than to feel safe and secure from Allah’s schemes and deceptions!

    Secondly, the narration passes the criterion of embarrassment, which is one of the principles used by historians to determine whether a particular anecdote or event likely happened. Accordingly, this is a rather embarrassing episode since it depicts Allah as a cruel despot who cannot be trusted to do what he says and portrays one of the greatest Muslims who ever lived as a person who did not have complete trust in his god to keep his promises. It, therefore, becomes all the more likely that this narrative is based on a sound report seeing how it presents both Allah and Muhammad’s best friend in a less than favorable or admirable light. After all, why would Muslims want to create such an embarrassing story that casts shame and reflects so poorly on the character of their god as well as upon one of their greatest leaders?

    Thirdly, the author’s entire point in quoting this narration is to show just how pious and humble Abu Bakr truly was. As such, it makes absolutely no sense for him to cite an unreliable report, one deemed to be defective or weak, especially when he knows that Muslim scholars would not accept such narrations, especially when it comes to establishing a specific point. In light of this we would naturally expect the author to reference a saying which Muslim scholars accept as sound, as being reliable, since it would defeat his entire purpose to source a weak or fabricated narration.

    These factors present a very strong case that this particular narration can be trusted to tell us how Abu Bakr actually felt about his salvation and the reliability of his god.

    The true followers of the true God

    Contrast Abu Bakr’s fears and doubts with the assurance that Jesus’ followers had concerning their salvation and of all those who truly believe in Christ:

    “One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: ‘Aren’t you the Christ? Save yourself and us!’ But the other criminal rebuked him. ‘Don’t you fear God,’ he said, ‘since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.’ Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ Jesus answered him, ‘I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.’” Luke 23:39-43

    “But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. ‘Look,’ he said, ‘I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.’ At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ Then he fell on his knees and cried out, ‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them.’ When he had said this, he fell asleep.” Acts 7:55-60

    “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance. I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death. For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain, and I will continue with all of you for your progress and joy in the faith, so that through my being with you again your joy in Christ Jesus will overflow on account of me.” Philippians 1:18-25

    “For I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day — and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.” 2 Timothy 4:6-8 – cf. 2 Peter 1:13-15

    Christ’s followers knew that their God, unlike Allah, could be trusted to keep his promises since he is a faithful God who never lies:

    “As far as the gospel is concerned, they are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned, they are loved on account of the patriarchs, for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.” Romans 11:28-29

    “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness — a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and at his appointed season he brought his word to light through the preaching entrusted to me by the command of God our Savior.” Titus 1:1-3

    “Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” Hebrews 6:17-20

    We invite Muslims to abandon their god Allah and turn to serve and worship the living and true God who is revealed in his true Word, the Holy Bible. It is only the God of the Holy Bible that gives those who truly love him the absolute assurance of salvation:

    “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus… because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, ‘Abba, Father.’ The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. … For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all — how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died — more than that, who was raised to life — is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: ‘For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.’ No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Romans 8:1, 14-17, 28-39

    “For they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead — Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.” 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

    “For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.” 1 Thessalonians 5:9-11

    “For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline. So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life — not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. And of this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher. That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.” 2 Timothy 1:7-12

    “We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” 1 John 4:13-18

    Endnotes

    (1) We do need to mention that the Muslim translator has deliberately distorted the original text of Muhammad Khalid’s book. Instead of translating the Arabic words limakr Allah as “the deception of Allah” he has decided to render it as, “from Allah’s punishment,” in order to obscure the real meaning. It seems that the Muslim translator was rather embarrassed by Abu Bakr’s statement that Allah is a deceiver whose promises of granting eternal bliss to the faithful cannot be trusted.

    If the reader is interested in seeing what the original text really says we suggest that they turn to page 70 of the Arabic version of Muhammad Khalid’s book.

  163. Sam Shamoun says:

    Refuting Zawadi on Rape in Islam

    Islam and Rape and Adultery

    Seeing that Zawadi had a problem with the Holy Bible supposedly permitting or commanding rape we wonder what Zawadi has to say about the following Quranic verse:

    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

    The above passage emphatically allows Muslim men (including Muhammad) to rape women that are taken captive, even if these captives happened to be married, thereby condoning and encouraging adultery!

    Unfortunately, this did not remain a mere abstraction but was readily put into practice by the Muslim 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 god did not share the shame and concern of the jihadists regarding the morality of raping captives whose husbands were still alive but actually rushed to compose a text to justify such a perverted and heinous action!

    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)

    1137. Jabir bin ‘Abdullah narrated: “We practiced ‘Azl while the Qur’an was being revealed.” (Sahih)

    (Abu ‘Eisa said:) The Hadith of Jabir is a Hasan Sahih Hadith. It has been reported from him through other routes.

    There are those among the people of knowledge, among the Companions of the Prophet and others, who permitted ‘Azl. Malik bin Anas said: “The permission of the free woman is to be requested for ‘Azl, while the slave woman’s permission need not be requested.” (Ibid., Chapter 39. What Has Been related About ‘Azl, p. 507)

    (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)

    In one instance Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law couldn’t wait for his prophet to divide the female booty but rushed into having sex with a female slave which angered some of the Muslims:

    Chapter 19. The Virtues Of ‘Ali Bin Abi Talib. It Is Said That He Has Two Kunyah: Abu Turab, And Abul-Hasan.

    3712. ‘Imran bin Husain narrated that the Messenger of Allah dispatched an army and he put ‘Ali bin Abi Talib in charge of it. He left on the expedition and he entered upon a female slave. So four of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah scolded him, and they made a pact saying: “[If] we meet the Messenger of Allah we will inform him of what ‘Ali did.” When the Muslims returned from the journey, they would begin with the Messenger of Allah and give him Salam, then they would go to their homes. So when the expedition arrived, they gave Salam to the Prophet, and one of the four stood saying: “O Messenger of Allah! Do you see that ‘Ali bin Abi Talib did such and such.” The Messenger of Allah turned away from him. Then the second one stood and said as he said, and he turned away from him. Then the third stood before him, and said as he said, and he turned away from him. Then the fourth stood and said as they had said. The Messenger of Allah faced him, and the anger was visible on his face, he said: “What do you want from ‘Ali?! What do you want from ‘Ali?! What do you want from ‘Ali?! Indeed ‘Ali is from me, and I am from him, and he is the ally of every believer after me.” (Hasan)

    [Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan Gharib, and we do not know of it except as a narration of Ja‘far bin Sulaiman. (Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi, Volume 6, From Hadith No. 3291 to 3956, pp. 386-387)

    How unfortunate that Muhammad didn’t rebuke Ali for sleeping with a captive before the spoils had been divided but actually got more upset at the Muslims who complained about what he did!

    Shockingly, Muslims will continue to take female captives even in paradise!

    4337. It was narrated from Abu Umamah that the Messenger of Allah said: “There is no one whom Allah will admit to Paradise but Allah will marry him to seventy-two wives, two from houris and seventy from his inheritance from the people of Hell, all of whom will have desirable front passages and he will have a male member that never becomes flaccid (i.e., soft and limp).” (Da‘if)

    Hisham bin Khalid said: “From his inheritance from the people of Hell” means: “Men who enter Hell, and the people of Paradise will inherit their wives, just as the wife of Pharaoh will be inherited.” English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah – Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith No. 3657 to 4341, 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 5, Chapter 39. Description Of Paradise, pp. 423-424; underline emphasis ours)

    Notice that Muhammad taught that Muslims will have seventy-two wives, that seventy of these wives will be taken from “the people of Hell” (i.e. from pagan, Jewish, and Christian husbands who have gone to hell), and that Muslims in Paradise will have eternal erections!

    More to come.

    Thus, Muhammad and his deity condoned and encouraged men to sleep with captive women even if such women were married! Therefore, unless Zawadi wants us to believe that women whose husbands were still alive and whose families had just been murdered would have actually consented and have been all too eager to have sex with their captors then it should be obvious even to him that this is nothing more than rape and adultery.

  164. Sam Shamoun says:

    Islamic Prostitution

    As if Islam’s teachings couldn’t get any more reprehensible Muhammad at one time allowed his followers to pay women to marry them temporarily for the sole purpose of gratifying their sexual cravings:

    Narrated Abdullah:
    We used to participate in the holy wars carried on by the Prophet and we had no women (wives) with us. So we said (to the Prophet). “Shall we castrate ourselves?” But the Prophet forbade us to do that and thenceforth he allowed us to marry a woman (temporarily) by giving her even a garment, and then he recited: “O you who believe! Do not make unlawful the good things which Allah has made lawful for you.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 139)

    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)

    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)

    There were some instances where women even 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.

    In order to help Muslims like Zawadi see just how immoral this practice truly is we would like to ask them the following questions.

    How would any of the Muslims feel if a fellow believer came up to them and asked to marry one of their womenfolk, i.e. sister, daughter, cousin, aunt, divorced mother etc., for a short period of time?

    Would any of them have a problem with this or would they be all too eager to hand over their women to such a person?

    How would the Muslims feel if this happened more than once, i.e. on more than one occasion your womenfolk married men for a sum of money and for a short period?

    Do the Muslims really want us to believe that they would have absolutely no problem with such marriages? (It is a shame and insult to even call this marriage since this is nothing more than prostitution.)

    Unfortunately, Shiite Muslims continue to observe this practice till this day and claim that even Sunni sources acknowledge that this morally reprehensible form of marriage/prostitution is still permitted since Muhammad and his followers never abrogated it. For the details and arguments we recommend the following online booklet.

    Still not done with humiliating williams.

  165. Sam Shamoun says:

    Islamic Child Abuse

    There is another vile and horrendous aspect of Islam which has caused untold physical harm and psychological damage to women, particularly young minors. The Quran actually sanctions and permits grown men to marry, sleep with and also divorce young immature girls who haven’t even had their periods!

    And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair. S. 65:4 Shakir

    The waiting period for divorced women who haven’t even menstruated is three months. This means that these women aren’t even women (they haven’t attained womanhood) but are in fact young minors who haven’t reached puberty!

    Now women are expected to observe a waiting period only in cases where they have actually had sexual intercourse with their former spouses, since the Quran expressly teaches that there is no waiting period for marriages where the couple haven’t had sex:

    O you who believe: When you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, no period of idda (waiting) have you to count in respect of them: so give them a present and set them free in a graceful manner. S. 33:49

    This indicates that the waiting period only applies in cases where a prepubescent minor has actually slept with her husband!

    So it is clear that Q. 65:4 assumes that young girls can be married, divorced and remarried before they reach puberty.

    Even more, the purpose of this waiting period is to ensure that the wife who is about to be divorced is not pregnant or, if she is, to make sure that the true father is known, i.e. that the child is from the current husband, and not a next husband that she may marry afterwards. Thus, this further proves that the Muslim men who are married to prepubescent girls are having sexual intercourse with them. To put it simply, the Quran is allowing men to sleep with minors.

    Just in case Zawadi wants to squirm his way out of having to admit that this is what his false god is instructing his followers notice how some of Islam’s greatest expositors explained Q. 65:4

    (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months. Another man asked: “what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?” (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs; bold and underline emphasis ours)

    And [as for] those of your women who (read alla’i or alla’i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months – both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; bold and underline emphasis ours)

    The renowned Muslim exegete Abu-Ala’ Maududi, in his six volume commentary on the Quran, confirms this by stating the following:

    *13 They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced.

    Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur’an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible. (Maududi, volume 5, p. 620, note 13: *; *; bold emphasis added)

    The noted Muslim expositor Ibn Kathir writes:

    The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses

    Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, WHO HAVE NOT REACHED THE YEARS OF MENSTRUATION. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying…

    Supporting this view is what is reported from Ubay bin Ka`b that he said, “O Allah’s Messenger! Some women were not mentioned in the Qur’an, THE YOUNG, the old and the pregnant.”‘ Allah the Exalted and Most Honored sent down this Ayah…

    Ibn Abi Hatim recorded a simpler narration than this one from Ubay bin Ka`b who said, “O Allah’s Messenger! When the Ayah in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the `Iddah of divorce, some people in Al-Madinah said, `There are still some women whose `Iddah has not been mentioned in the Qur’an. There are THE YOUNG, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant.’ Later on, this Ayah was revealed …

    ” … (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    What makes this even more despicable is that Muhammad set the precedence for his followers to have sex with minors by marrying a girl when she was 6 and then sleeping with her when she 9 while he was 54 years old!

    XXXIX. A man giving his YOUNG CHILDREN in marriage

    By the words of Allah, “that also applies to those who have not yet menstruated” (65:4) and He made the ‘idda of a girl BEFORE PUBERTY three months.

    4840. It is related from ‘A’isha that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, married her when she was six years old and consummated it when she was nine, and she was his wife for nine years. (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 70. Book of Marriage; capital emphasis ours)

    Here is another version of this same section of al-Bukhari:

    (39) CHAPTER. Giving one’s YOUNG CHILDREN in marriage (is permissible).

    By virtue of the Statement of Allah: “…and for those who have no (monthly) courses (i.e. THEY ARE STILL IMMATURE) …” (v. 65:4)

    And the ‘Idda for the girl BEFORE PUBERTY is three months (in the above Verse).

    5133. Narrated ‘Aishah that the Prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death). (The Translation of the Meanings of Sahih Al-Bukhari, translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh – Saudi Arabia, July 1997], Volume 7, Ahadith 5063 to 5969, 67 – Book of An-Nikah (The Wedlock), p. 57; capital emphasis ours)

    Nor was al-Bukhari the only hadith compiler to refer to Muhammad’s marriage with Aisha as an example of a man marrying a prepubescent minor:

    Chapter 13. Marriage OF MINOR GIRLS Arranged By Their Fathers.

    1876. It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Messenger of Allah married me when I was six years old. Then we came to Al-Madinah and settled among Banu Harith bin Khazraj. I became ill and my hair fell out, then it grew back and became abundant. My mother Umm Ruman came to me while I was on an Urjuhah with some of my friends, and called for me. When I got my breath back, she took some water and wiped my face and head, and led me into the house. There were some of women of the Ansar inside the house, and they said: ‘With the blessings and good fortune (from Allah).’ (My mother) handed me over to them and they tidied me up. And suddenly I saw the Messenger of Allah in the morning. And she handed me over to him, and I was at that time, nine years old.” (Sahih)

    Comments:

    a. The marriage bond of a girl who is not yet adult (HAS NOT REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY) IS PERFECTLY VALID IN ISLAM.

    b. Urjuhah refers to both, a swing and a seesaw; it is a long piece of wood, its middle is placed at a high place and the children sit on both ends, when its one side goes down the other side goes up; it is called seesaw in English. (Sunan Ibn Majah – Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith No. 1783 to 2718, 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 3, The Chapters on Marriage, pp. 76-77; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    To say that this is despicable and reprehensible would be a wild understatement!

    SOURCE: The Inconsistency of Bassam Zawadi Part 2 (http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zawadi/inconsistent2.html)

  166. Sam Shamoun says:

    The Old Testament and Rape

    Some Muslims claim that the following passage from the Holy Bible condones rape:

    “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated (anah) her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

    There are two points to note here. First, even though the verse may seem to be instructing the rapist to marry the victim the passage nowhere sanctions, condones or even approves of rape. This is simply a gross misreading of the text. The injunction is intended to instruct the Israelites on how to deal with and address a rape situation if and when it occurs.

    Second, by taking a careful look at the context and consulting the original languages of the Scriptures a strong case can be made that this citation isn’t even addressing a rape case at all. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it being written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author’s intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction that a rapist marry his victim.

    With this just said, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. Here are the meanings listed by the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon in reference to these two words:

    taphas –

    # 08610
    1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

    a) (Qal)
    1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
    2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
    b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
    c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

    AV – take 27, taken 12, handle 8, hold 8, catch 4, surprised 2, misc 4; 65
    (Source: Blue Letter Bible)
    Here is one example of how this word is used:

    “The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal (taphas) with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols.” Jeremiah 2:8

    shakab –

    # 07901
    1) to lie down

    a) (Qal)
    1) to lie, lie down, lie on
    2) to lodge
    3) to lie (of sexual relations)
    4) to lie down (in death)
    5) to rest, relax (fig)
    b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
    c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
    d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
    e) (Hophal) to be laid

    AV – lie 106, sleep 48, lie down 43, rest 3, lien 2, misc 10; 212
    (Source: Blue Letter Bible)
    As Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates, the word can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well as for other things. The following examples help demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply a forced sexual act:

    “And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—” Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV

    Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn’t forced into having sex. Again:

    “If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.” Leviticus 15:18

    These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms do not in and of themselves necessarily imply that rape is in view. This is reflected in the way Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the following translations:

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

    If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

    If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

    When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

    When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

    “If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

    If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

    If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

    If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

    If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

    If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

    If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

    Suppose a woman isn’t engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

    Now someone may want to argue that the preceding examples do not combine the two words together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:

    “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.” Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

    Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. “and THEY ARE found out.” This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

    Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn’t use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29.

    This is supported by other OT passages. In the places where rape is mentioned none of them use the word taphas with anah. Rather, the authors use the word chazaq (or some similar word) with anah to convey this notion:

    “Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized (laqach) her and lay (shakab) with her and humiliated (anah) her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this girl for my wife.’ Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing (n’balah) in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, for such a thing must not be done.” Genesis 34:1-7 ESV

    And:

    “Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food into the chamber, that I may eat from your hand.’ And Tamar took the cakes she had made and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother. But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, ‘Come, lie with me, my sister.’ She answered him, ‘No, my brother, do not violate (anah) me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing (n’balah). As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.’ But he would not listen to her, and being stronger (chazaq) than she, he violated (anah) her and lay (shakab) with her. Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, ‘Get up! Go!’ But she said to him, ‘No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.’ But he would not listen to her. He called the young man who served him and said, “Put this woman out of my presence and bolt the door after her.’ Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves, for thus were the virgin daughters of the king dressed. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the long robe that she wore. And she laid her hand on her head and went away, crying aloud as she went. And her brother Absalom said to her, ‘Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this to heart.’ So Tamar lived, a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom’s house. When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated (anah) his sister Tamar … But Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David’s brother, said, ‘Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men the king’s sons, for Amnon alone is dead. For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day he violated (anah) his sister Tamar.’” 2 Samuel 13:10-22, 32 ESV

    Notice that neither passage uses the word taphas, providing additional support that this word in of itself doesn’t necessarily imply the use of force. It also demonstrates our point that if the inspired author had rape in view he could have simply used chazaq, or even laqach, since these are the very words he used elsewhere to indicate that a rape had occurred.(1)

    The final line of evidence demonstrating that Deuteronomy 22:28 does not condone rape comes from Exodus:

    “If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.” Exodus 22:16-17

    Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines pathah as:

    # 06601
    1) to be spacious, be open, be wide

    a) (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
    b) (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open
    2) to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade
    a) (Qal)
    1) to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
    2) to be enticed, be deceived
    b) (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
    c) (Piel)
    1) to persuade, seduce
    2) to deceive
    d) (Pual)
    1) to be persuaded
    2) to be deceived

    AV – entice 10, deceive 8, persuade 4, flatter 2, allure 1, enlarge 1, silly one 1, silly 1; 28
    (Source: Blue Letter Bible)
    As can be seen, the word can mean entice, persuade, deceive etc. The following passage uses the word in a slightly similar fashion to that of Exodus, namely how God will allure or draw Israel back to his love:

    “‘Therefore I am now going to allure (pathath) her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt. In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘you will call me “my husband”; you will no longer call me “my master.” I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.’” Hosea 2:14-20

    It is clear from the context that Exodus is referring to a man persuading or enticing a woman into having sex. Hence, this passage lends support to the fact that the woman in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 consented to the sexual act, and wasn’t forced into having sex. In other words, there was no rape involved between the man and the woman.

    As the following Study Bible puts it:

    22:28-29 Preceding legislation dealt with cases of rape involving a woman already married or engaged. The ruling outlined here is addressed in cases of seduction IN WHICH IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN WAS, OR MAY HAVE BEEN, CONSENTING TO THE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP. The fact that such a relationship had taken place was nevertheless regarded as of vital concern to the community and therefore required that a requisite sum of money be paid to the woman’s father. It is assumed that the bride’s father’s rights have been violated by what had taken place and that appropriate compensation was necessary to offset the loss of the expected bride-price. A further stipulation required that the couple should then marry and that no subsequent divorce was to be permitted. In Exodus 22:16-17 the closely comparable law allows that the father need not consent to giving his daughter to the man, in which case the compensation was still to be paid to the father. Fifty shekels was a significantly large amount and may be assumed to have been equivalent to the average bride-price. (The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha [Abingdon Press, Nashville TN 2003], pp. 278-279; underline and capital emphasis ours)

    Or, as the late renowned Bible expositor John Gill explained it long ago:

    If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed…
    That is, meets with one in a field, which is not espoused to a man; and the man is supposed to be an unmarried man, as appears by what follows:

    and lay hold on her, and lie with her,
    she yielding to it, and so is not expressive of a rape, as (Deuteronomy 22:25) WHERE A DIFFERENT WORD FROM THIS IS THERE USED; which signifies taking strong hold of her, and ravishing her by force; yet this, though owing to his first violent seizure of her, and so different from what was obtained by enticing words, professions of love, and promises of marriage, and the like, as in (Exodus 22:16,17) but not without her consent:

    and they be found;
    in the field together, and in the fact; or however there are witnesses of it, or they themselves have confessed, it, and perhaps betrayed by her pregnancy. (The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible; online source; capital and underline emphasis ours)

    And this is what the late great Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen wrote concerning this issue:

    … “If a man finds a girl who is an unbetrothed virgin, an he lays hold of her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man lying down with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty pieces of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.” [Deuteronomy 22:28-29]

    This is the literal translation of the Hebrew. Unfortunately, some commentators and Bible translations … make the mistake of interpreting these words as referring to the use of force and thus to raping a virgin. Such a view is quite unacceptable, for a number of reasons. (1) This would lay a burden and penalty on the woman who had no part or consent in the act, which is as unfair and senseless as punishing the victim of attempted murder.

    (2) The Hebrew word tapas (“lay hold of her,” emphasized above) simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). It is likewise used for “taking” God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8). Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. I Kings 11:30), even as Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17). People are “caught” (I Kings 20:18), even as cities are “captured” (Deut. 20:19; Isa. 36:1). An adulterous wife may not have been “caught” in the act (Num. 5:13). In all of these instances it is clear that, while force may come into the picture from further description, the Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force.

    This verb used in Deuteronomy 22:28 is different from the verb used in verse 25 (chazak, from the root meaning “to be strong, firm”) which can mean “to seize” a bear and kill it (I Sam. 17:35; cf. 2 Sam. 2:16; Zech. 14:13), “to prevail” (2 Sam. 24:4; Dan. 11:7), “to be strong” (Deut. 31:6; 2 Sam. 2:7), etc. Deuteronomy 22:25 thus speaks of a man finding a woman and “forcing her.” Just three verses later (Deut. 25:28), the verb is changed to simply “take hold of” her – indicating an action less intense and violent than the action dealt with in verse 25 (viz., rape).

    (3) The Hebrew word anah (“humble, afflict,” emphasized above) used in Deuteronomy 22:29 can sometimes be used for forcing a woman (Gen. 34:2; Jud. 20:5; 2 Sam. 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Lam. 5:11) but need not indicate a forcible rape, which is clear from the Deuteronomy passage itself at verse 24. It can simply mean to dishonor, mistreat, or afflict (e.g., Ex. 1:11; Gen. 16:6; Ex. 22:22; Deut. 8:2; Ps. 119:67), and in sexual settings can denote other kinds of sin than rape (Ezek. 22:10, 11).

    We can agree with the reasoning of James Jordan: “At first sight, this seems to allow for rape of an unbetrothed girl. In Hebrew, however, the verb ‘seize’ is a weaker verb than the verb for ‘force’ used in the same passage (v. 25) to describe rape. This stronger verb is also used for the rape of Tamar (2 Sam. 13:11). Implied here is a notion of catching the girl, but not a notion that she fought back with anything more than a token resistance. Modern random rape would not be excusable under this law, and would have to come under the death penalty of Deuteronomy 22:25-27” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 149).

    Accordingly, one will find that many competent authorities in Biblical interpretation understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to apply to cases of seduction, not forcible rape. For instance:

    Meredith Kline: “The seducer of an unbetrothed virgin was obliged to take her as wife, paying the customary bride price and forfeiting the right of divorce” (Treaty of the Great King: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy, p. 111).

    Matthew Henry: “… if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry her, and never to divorce her, how much soever she was below him and how unpleasing soever she might afterwards be to him” (Commentary on the Whole Bible, ad loc.).

    J. A. Thompson: “Seduction of a young girl. Where the girl was not betrothed and no legal obligations had been entered into, the man was forced to pay the normal bride-price and marry the girl. He was not allowed, subsequently, to send her away (Deuteronomy: Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 237).

    In Israel’s Laws and legal Precedents (1907), Charles Foster Kent (professor of Biblical Literature at Yale University) clearly distinguished between the law pertaining to rape in Dt. 22:25-27 and the law pertaining to seduction in Dt. 22:28-29 (pp. 117-118).

    Keil and Delitzsch classify Deuteronomy 22:28-29 under the category of “Seduction of a virgin,” comment that the crime involved was ‘their deed” – implying consent of the part of both parties – and liken this law to that found in Exodus 22:16-17 (Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 3, p. 412).

    Even if one has some question about the applicability of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the clear and decisive command from God when a man has seduced a virgin is found in Exodus 22:16-17: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall surely pay her dowry to make her his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out money according to the dowry for virgins.”

    In this text there is no question whatsoever of forcible rape. The Hebrew verb used to describe the sin (italicized in the quotation above) is patah, used elsewhere for “coaxing” (Jud. 14:15), “luring” (Jud. 16:5; Hos. 2:14), and “enticing” (Prov. 1:10; 16:29). When a man gets a virgin to consent to have sexual relations with him, he is morally obligated to marry her – as the following commentators indicate:

    John Calvin: “The remedy is, that he who has corrupted the girl should be compelled to marry her, and also to give her a dowry from his own property, lest, if he should afterwards cast her off, she should go away from her bed penniless” (Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, vol. 3, pp. 83-84.

    J. C. Connell: “Although she consented, it was still his responsibility to protect her from lifelong shame resulting from the sin of the moment by marrying her, not without payment of the regular dowry” (“Exodus,” New bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson, p. 122).

    Adam Clarke: “This was an exceedingly wise and humane law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the person who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, and give her a dowry, if her parents consented” (The Holy Bible … with a Commentary and Critical Notes, vol. 1, p. 414).

    Alan Cole: “If a man seduces a virgin: … he must acknowledge her as his wife, unless her father refuses” (Exodus: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Series, p. 173).

    James Jordan: “the punishment for the seducer is that he must marry the girl, unless her father objects, and that he may never divorce her (according to Dt. 22:29)” (The Law of the Covenant, p. 148).

    Walter C. Kaiser, Jr.: “Exodus 22:16-17 takes up the problem of the seduction of a maiden who was not engaged …. Here the seducer must pay the ‘bride-price’ and agree to marry her” (Toward Old Testament Ethics, p. 107).

    (Bahnsen, Pre-Marital Sexual Relations: What is the Moral Obligation When Repeated Incidents are Confessed?, PE152, Covenant Media Foundation, 1992)

    This concludes our exegesis of Deuteronomy 22:28-29. We prayerfully hope that by the grace of our risen Lord and eternal Savior Jesus Christ, this short paper will be of great help to those Christians who have been confronted by Muslims with the accusation that the Holy Bible condones the raping of women. Hopefully, both Christians and Muslims will see that the Holy Bible nowhere condones rape.

    In the service of our great and eternal triune God forever and ever. Amen. Come Lord Jesus, come. We will always love you, risen Lord of eternal Glory.

    Endnote

    (1) The word anah is used elsewhere without any notion of rape being attached to it:

    “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored (anah) her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NIV

    The man didn’t humble the captive by raping her since he had to lawfully marry her before he could touch her sexually. Rather, he dishonored her by taking her captive or for letting her go either before marrying her or by divorcing her since all of this would imply that the man found something unbecoming or unfavorable about the woman in question.

    Similarly, in the context of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 anah is being used to convey the idea that the man has brought humiliation to the maiden because he slept with her without marrying her first, something which would have been considered shameful to do.

    SOURCE: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm

  167. Paul Williams says:

    Sam you have already been comprehensively refuted, but you can rant on at Paul’s expense if you wish.

    Now to a matter that concerns many people. And i insist on an answer before you write anything else:

    How do you respond to the documented evidence that is cataloged here of your disgraceful behaviour?

    Sam Shamoun: A Disgrace To Christians

    By

    Bassam Zawadi

    I am writing this brief note to simply let Muslims know that not all Christians have filthy manners like Sam Shamoun. Sam Shamoun does not exhibit the character of a true Christian believer. I have to be honest and admit this, for it won’t be fair to portray a wrong image of Christians based on this ill mannered man.

    Visit the links below and see for your self the evidence for Shamoun’s lowly character…

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/pussy_cat_threats.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_pornographic_manners.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/examining_sam_shamouns_character_5.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/why_we_expose_shamoun.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_foul_insults_exposed.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_ludicrous_response.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamoun_foul_mouth_2.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/examining_sam_shamoun_4.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/bassam_zawadi/Shamouns_bad_character.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/bassam_zawadi/shamoun_s_character_2.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/more_shamoun_foul_language.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sam_shamoun_is_despised.htm

    This shameless missionary gets too emotional when he defends his religion. When I used to use Paltalk and I released some new articles Shamoun always used to private message me and tell me that my articles are stupid and that he would destroy them. How narrow minded and childish can one be? Even one time, I spoke to him via audio on Paltalk and I asked him why he had such bad manners. He apologised to me for being rude and then told me that he was from the Middle East and that people from the Middle East have bad tempers, thus they can break down at times! What a foolish response. I am from the Middle East as well and I don’t have that lowly character. (wasn’t Jesus from the Middle East as well?) Perhaps Shamoun is using his false God (Biblical Jesus) as a role model and thinks that its okay to insult non Christians since the Biblical Jesus did the same thing (see Matthew 23:33 & Luke 11:40). Well, if that is the case then Shamoun should not be allowed to practice this certain aspect of his religion (assuming Christianity does make it permissible) with others since its offensive to others.

    Even after the conversation in which Shamoun apologised to me, he continued to be rude and started his insulting spree all over again.

    There are also many other Christian missionaries who have filthy manners such as Sam Shamoun, however I urge all Muslims to not commit the same fallacy that people these days commit against Muslims and start stereotyping. For if we do we won’t ever be encouraged to have reasonable interfaith dialogues with any Christians then. So judge these Christians individually, not collectively.

    The verdict that is passed on Sam Shamoun is that he is ill mannered and hates Islam with all his heart and soul and is too narrow minded to have a proper discussion with. Nevertheless, we will continue to refute Shamoun’ articles here from time to time so that we won’t allow him to brainwash the innocent public.

  168. Sam Shamoun says:

    Now contrast the filth of Islam with the beauty of the Holy Bible:

    Islam Condones Adultery, Rape and Pedophilia

    Islam not only condoned a form of prostitution in the guise of marriage, it also permits other perverted sexual acts such as sex with minors and the rape of prisoners of war. We begin with the Quran’s teaching regarding marrying and divorcing prepubescent girls:

    O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them when they have reached their period. Count the period, and fear God your Lord. Do not expel them from their houses, nor let them go forth, except when they commit a flagrant indecency. Those are God’s bounds; whosoever trespasses the bounds of God has done wrong to himself. Thou knowest not, perchance after that God will bring something new to pass… As for your women who have despaired of further menstruating, if you are in doubt, their period shall be three months; and those who have not menstruated as yet. And those who are with child, their term is when they bring forth their burden. Whoso fears God, God will appoint for him, of His command, easiness. S. 65:1, 4 Arberry

    The waiting period for the divorcing of women who haven’t even menstruated is three months. This means that these women aren’t even women (they haven’t attained womanhood) but are in fact young girls who haven’t even attained puberty! Now a woman can only be divorced if she was first married, so it is clear that this injunction assumes that young girls can be married and divorced and remarry before they reach puberty. Even more, the purpose of this waiting period is to ensure that the wife who is about to be divorced is not pregnant, or if she is to make sure that the true father is known, i.e. that the child is from the current husband, and not a next husband that she may marry afterwards. Thus, this verse presupposes that the Muslim men who are married to prepubescent girls have sexual intercourse with them.

    The renowned Muslim commentator Abu-Ala’ Maududi, in his six volume commentary on the Quran, confirms this by stating the following regarding this passage:

    “Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible.” (Maududi, volume 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

    The collector of the so-called sound narrations, Imam al-Bukahri narrated:

    Narrated Sahl bin Sad:
    While we were sitting in the company of the Prophet a woman came to him and presented herself (for marriage) to him. The Prophet looked at her, lowering his eyes and raising them, but did not give a reply. One of his companions said, “Marry her to me O Allah’s Apostle!” The Prophet asked (him), “Have you got anything?” He said, “I have got nothing.” The Prophet said, “Not even an iron ring?” He said, “Not even an iron ring, but I will tear my garment into two halves and give her one half and keep the other half.” The Prophet; said, “No. Do you know some of the Quran (by heart)?” He said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “Go, I have agreed to marry her to you with what you know of the Qur’an (as her Mahr).” ‘And for those who have no courses (i.e. they are still immature). (65.4) And the ‘Iddat for the girl BEFORE PUBERTY is three months (in the above Verse). (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 63; emphasis ours)

    It is important to note that the Quran teaches that there is no waiting period for marriages that have not been consummated:

    O you who believe: When you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, no period of idda (waiting) have you to count in respect of them: so give them a present and set them free in a graceful manner. S. 33:49

    What this shows is that the waiting period only applies in the case of a prepubescent if her husband has actually slept with her. In other words, Islam is allowing men to have sex with minors, legally sanctioning pedophilia!

    For further, detailed discussion of this issue, see An Examination of Muhammad’s Marriage to a Prepubescent Girl And Its Moral Implications.

    Here is a reference permitting to rape captive women:

    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

    The above passage emphatically allows for the raping of women that are taken captive, even if these captives happened to be married!

    It did not remain an abstract theoretical right, but was readily put into practice by the Muslim jihadists:

    Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him), 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 (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) 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)

    Ibn Kathir wrote:

    except those women whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant.

    Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed…

    .

    Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.” This is the wording collected by AT-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5 (Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First edition, March 2000], p. 422; bold emphasis ours)

    The Holy Bible, however, prohibits the raping of captive women and condemns adultery completely. Note what God’s true Word says about the treatment of captive women:

    “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.” Deuteronomy 21:10-14

    M.G. Kline, considered one of the leading Old Testament theologians of the last century, wrote regarding God’s ruling in Deuteronomy 21:10-14:

    This first of three stipulations concerned with the authority of the head of the household (cf. vv. 15-21) deals with the limits of the husband’s authority over his wife. The case of a captive woman (vv. 10,11; cf. 20:14; contrast 7:3) is used as a case in point for establishing the rights of the wife, perhaps because the principle would obviously apply, a fortiori in the case of an Israelite wife. On the purificatory acts of verses 12b, 13a, which signified removal from captive-slave status, compare Lev. 14:8; Num. 8:7.

    On the month’s mourning, see Num 20:29 and Deut 34:8. This period would provide for the achieving of inward composure for beginning a new life, as well as for an appropriate expression of filial piety. 14. Thou shalt not sell her. A wife might not be reduced to slave status, not even the wife who had been raised from slave status… then thou shalt let her go whither she will. The severance of the marriage relationship is mention here only incidentally to the statement of the main principle that a man’s authority did not extend to the right of reducing his wife to a slave. This dissolution of the marriage would have to be accomplished according to the laws of divorce in the theocracy (cf. Deut. 24:1-4). Not the divorce was mandatory, but the granting of freedom in case the man should determine to divorce his wife according to the permission granted by Moses because of the hardness of their hearts (cf. Matt 19:8). (Wycliffe Bible Commentary [Oliphants Ltd.: London, 1963), p. 184)

    The late chief rabbi of the British Empire, Chief Rabbi J. H. Hertz noted regarding this passage:

    "A female war-captive was not to be made a concubine till after an interval of a month. The bitter moments of the captive's first grief had to be respected. She must not subsequently be sold or treated as a slave. 12. bring her home. This law inculcates thoughtfulness and forbearance under circumstances in which the warrior, elated by victory, might deem himself at liberty to act as he pleased (Driver). ‘After the countless rapes of conquered women with which recent history has made us so painfully familiar, it is like hearing soft music to read of the warrior's duty to the enemy woman, of the necessary marriage with its set ritual and its due delay. And the Legislator proceeds to trace the course of the husband's duty in the event of the conquered alien woman failing to bring him the expected delight. ‘Then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her'" (Zangwill)… 13. she shall be thy wife. And enjoy the full rights and duties of a Jewish wife; Exodus xxi, 10.14. no delight in her, i.e. no longer any delight in her. The Rabbis deemed such a marriage a concession to human weakness, as a preventive against worse manifestations of the unbridled passions of man...humbled her. Dishonored her." (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J H Hertz [The Soncino Press Limited: London, 1960], p. 840)

    Thus, we can clearly see that the Holy Bible even dignified captive gentile women by elevating them to the same status as that of married Israelite women.

    SOURCE: http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/women_in_islam3.htm

  169. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, you have already been thoroughly humiliated and disgraced, along with Zawadi and your prophet, so keep ranting.

    Now let me expose all the emails where you filthy, wicked Muhammadans use the most foul and obscene language against each other. Enjoy it, you black stone smoocher! ;-)

  170. Sam Shamoun says:

    Setting the Record Straight: Exposing the Deliberate Lies and Slanders of Muslim Dawagandists

    This is a reply to Bassam Zawadi’s attempt of salvaging his false prophet’s reputation for sleeping with a minor (*).

    The Hypocrisy of Muslim Dawagandists

    Zawadi was obviously offended for me calling a spade and spade. Zawadi “warns” his readers that he is going to be offensive against the “Biblical Jesus” because I described Muhammad as a “filthy and immoral man” at the conclusion of my exposition of his marriage to a minor who was still playing with dolls and seesaws/swings. Here is what fascinates me about Zawadi and his cohorts. For years his former “employer” Osama Abdallah would write some of the most vicious, slanderous things against the Holy Bible, and yet this hypocrite continued writing for him. Abdallah wasn’t the only one since those who have listened to Ahmad Deedat throughout the years can verify how vile a person he was.

    Moreover, even up to the present time we receive emails from Zawadi’s gang of thugs such as the following:

    From: sami z
    To: Jochen Katz
    Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 10:46 PM
    Subject: hypocrite

    hello there you nazi hypocrite. you always nag and complain when Muslims insult your false satanic faith, yet your dog of a writer shamoun recently came out calling the prophet Muhammad filthy. offcourse this exposes your double standards and how vile you missionary scum truly are, you cry foul and then you start spweing insults to the other side?

    anyways since you dont like it when your faith is insulted enjoy this:

    your satanic spirit is a prostitute and is what leads so many of your christian women into fornication, as you say the fake spirit leads the people, hence it seems your satanic spirit is leading your women into whoredom which is why 1 in 4 of them have STD, all of this shows your satanic spirit is a cheap prostitute.

    This is a common pattern with this sick demented kid:

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    RE: ‘terror of the Lord’… and Shamoun won.. ooooooook.?
    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Sat 1/05/08 8:02 PM To: Nadir Ahmed (nadir@examinethetruth.com); tariqroshan@gmail.com

    Cc: ‘sam shamoun’ (sam_shmn40@hotmail.com); palmproject@hotmail.com; info@ministrytomuslims.com; info@ylfc.org; press@3xterrorists.com; saleem.kamal@yahoo.com; linden7@attglobal.net; jdavidlehman@msn.com; m2a5@netzero.net; emileh@co.kern.ca.us; thesingingcarpenter@yahoo.com; grace1732@hotmail.com; akitob_prince@yahoo.com; administrator@ministrytomuslims.com; director@ministrytomuslims.com; jwswaney@eastside.com; sabeeldawah@yahoo.com; my.choice.islam@gmail.com; adeel.invitationtotruth@gmail.com; adeenenator@gmail.com; ahmederee@yahoo.com; bklimas@hotmail.com; exposelies@yahoo.com; islam_defender@hotmail.com; islamttd786@yahoo.com; just_flow11@hotmail.com; kzaheeralmawrid@hotmail.com; menj1980@hotmail.com; kmdhn@hotmail.com; mrdebatethehate@earthlink.net; mucahit@islamonline.net; munir0728@yahoo.com; muzjid.al.aziz@hotmail.com; nadermusa@hotmail.com; quransearchcom@yahoo.com; aimoo992000@yahoo.com; sendarticle@faithfreedom.com; umarhassan_63@yahoo.com; islam_the_true_deen786@hotmail.com; ghanmy@gmail.com; yahya-ahmed_@hotmail.com; ipo@muslimphilosophy.com; kzaheer_lums@hotmail.com; zaatari@hotmail.com; admin@thetruereligion.net; b_zawadi@hotmail.com

    hey shamoun why is that on a pc you always act hard and talk crap? yet face to face you become this little B and
    start begging nadir to be your friend and ending the past beef? i dont understand this………..i hope someone else on this list could explain that? is that a peace-loving Christian trait you guys have or what????????

    well paul did sanction lying when you go face to face so i guess you are actually following your bible…..

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    debate
    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Tue 9/04/07 11:27 PM
    To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com

    hey there loser, you had any donuts today? did you feed some to your satanic
    holy spirit too? lol

    anyways u loser, i havent stopped thinking of smashing ur backside in a
    debate, so here i am again challening you for a debate. infact 2 debates:

    Is Muhammad a true Prophet

    Terrorism in the Bible or the Quran

    plz just say yes so i can give you a nice beat down, we can set the time
    sometime next month, i already have 2 debates planned for the next 2 months,
    making u the 3rd would be very nice.

    so what do you say you silly demon possed loser? do you want to a good
    beating by me? dont be a chicken like the apostles in the bible. Plz

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    (No Subject)
    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Wed 9/05/07 11:06 PM
    To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com

    hey fat boy dont go crying to brother anas about me, if you wanna cry come
    cry to me, i sent you the email, why do you go crying to him you stupid
    obease cross worshiper?

    he will smash you in a debate when you guys get it on, which is all good,
    and i also want to debate you too, to make it a double sized beating, you
    like that too dont you? double sized? double size holy spirit burger right?

    so next time you and ur drunk spirit email me, instead of emailing the
    brother who has nothing to do with it, stupid boy you are stop acting tough
    and a bully cause ill smack you over the net and in real life got it? you
    dont scare anyone you stupid cross worshiping ASSyrian, infact some of my
    muslim friends once gave a good beat down to stupid ASSyrian christians who
    were messing with them and pushing them around, so better know your place
    fat boy.

    so again, do you accept to debate me you fat drunk missionary style loser?

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    What makes this truly astonishing is that this young lad had turned to me for assistance in dealing with Jalal Abualrub and Nadir Ahmed:

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    i come in peace?

    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Fri 6/16/06 10:43 PM
    To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com
    hi, i come in peace.

    hey man, i am just here to ask you if you are willing to debate one of
    jalal’s writers, omar al habeshi, you already wrote an article refuting him.
    just want to know if you would have a debate with him on paltalk, i know you
    will say yes but just want confirmation.

    the reason im asking this, is because omar- al habeshi is claiming osama is
    terrible in debating and so on, and since he seems to be big headed and so
    on, i told him since hes so qualified to come and debate you, and i told him
    i would be telling you about it, and asking you if want to debate him.

    the guy will most likely back down, but i just need a yes from you, and i
    will make sure all our readers know you are willing to debate the guy, and
    if he backs out all will see jalals men running as cowards.

    thanks.

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Here is his answer to my response:

    RE: i come in peace
    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Sat 6/17/06 2:51 AM To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com

    look, i know we had and will still have alot of problems, both of us commit
    blasphemies against each other from our prespective.

    plus, this gives you a good opportunity for a good easy debate. i told him
    to debate your topic, is Muhammad a prophet, 4 minutes each like we did so
    he doesnt make an excuse of saying its to broad.

    and this is me alone, i came out with the idea of you debating the guy since
    he is saying osama did terrible, then maybe he is qualifiedto debate you,
    plus the guy uses paltalk. but he WONT debate, i just want you to say yes,
    and when he backs down, i will expose him for it for backing down against
    you.

    we have made lots of problems for each other, but i do think we have some
    respect for each other, which is why i specifically said to debate you, not
    some other christian, but you specifically.

    >From: “sam shamoun”
    >To: sami-zaatari@hotmail.com
    >Subject: RE: i come in peace
    >Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:01:10 +0000
    >
    >Sami,
    >
    >After all the insults, blasphemies against the God of the Bible, along with
    >the false accusations against me, and you still ask me to help you guys
    >expose Jalal?
    >

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    More in the next post.

  171. Paul Williams says:

    Sam also needs to distance himself from his violent religion:

    Jesus Loves His Enemies…and Then Kills Them All
    Posted on 23 April 2011 by Danios

    This article is part 5 of LoonWatch’s Understanding Jihad Series. Please read my “disclaimer”, which explains my intentions behind writing this article: The Understanding Jihad Series: Is Islam More Likely Than Other Religions to Encourage Violence?
    Anti-Muslim demagoguery relies on the demonization of the Prophet Muhammad, who is characterized as being especially violent and warlike. This idea has certainly gained currency in the “Judeo-Christian West”. When it is pointed out that the Biblical prophets–including Moses, Joshua, Samson, Saul, David, among many others–were far more violent and warlike (and even engaged in religiously sanctioned genocide), anti-Muslim pro-Christian ideologues will respond by disregarding or downplaying the Old Testament and will instead focus on the personality of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.
    Didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”? The anti-Muslim ideologues use this idea to assault the religion of Islam with. For example, the Catholic apologist Robert Spencer compares Islam to Christianity by juxtaposing carefully selected quotes from Jesus to Islamic texts. In his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Spencer includes a “Muhammad vs Jesus” section. He cites the following sayings of Jesus in the Bible:
    “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you”
    “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also”
    “Blessed are the peacemakers”
    “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy”
    “But love your enemies, and do good”
    These “peaceful” verses of the Bible are compared to select violent-sounding Quranic verses. The violent verses of the Bible “don’t count” and are craftily excluded from the comparison (“that’s just the Old Testament!”). To tighten the noose, peaceful verses of the Quran are also excluded from the heavily biased analysis: these “don’t count” since they are supposedly from when Muhammad was still in Mecca.
    To understand the last point, one needs to have a basic understanding of the Prophet Muhammad’s biography: he first declared his prophethood in the city of Mecca. Only a very small segment of society accepted him (mostly the weak and poor), whereas the masses–especially the powerful leaders of the city–not only rejected him but actively persecuted him. The chapters of the Quran that were revealed during this period are known as the Meccan chapters. Eventually, Muhammad fled to the city of Medina, whose people accepted him as their ruler. He went from persecuted prophet to ruler and commander-in-chief of a fledgling city-state.
    The anti-Muslim ideologues claim that the peaceful and tolerant verses of the Quran come from when Muhammad was weak and persecuted in Mecca. These verses are “canceled”, they argue, by the violent-sounding verses in the Medinan chapters. Robert Spencer writes in his book:
    Islamic theology divides the Qur’an into “Meccan” and “Medinan” suras [chapters]. The Meccan ones come from the first segment of Muhammad’s career as a prophet, when he simply called the Meccans to Islam. Later, after he fled to Medina, his positions hardened. The Medinan suras [are]…filled with matters of law and ritual–and exhortations to jihad warfare against unbelievers. The relatively tolerant verses quoted above and others like them generally date from the Meccan period, while those with a more violent and intolerant edge are mostly from Medina. [1]
    The Islamophobes portray Muhammad as opportunistic: when he was weak and under the rule of the pagans, he called for peace. Without being in a position of authority, Muhammad was hardly in a position to do otherwise. As soon as he came to power, however, he waged “jihad warfare” (what a strange phrase!) against them. This is why, they argue, the peaceful verses of the Quran simply “don’t count”.
    The merits of Spencer’s claims about the Prophet Muhammad will be critiqued in a future article of this Series. For now, however, we will demonstrate that, using such logic, it is equally possible to invalidate the “peaceful” sayings of Jesus Christ. While he was a persecuted prophet, Jesus advocated nonviolence and peaceful resistance. He was hardly in a position to do otherwise, right? Once in power, however, this changes dramatically and violent warfare becomes the new modus operandi.
    The Messiah
    Just as Muhammad’s biography can be divided into a Meccan and Medinan period, so too can Jesus’s lifestory be divided into a First and Second Coming. (Likewise can Moses’ lifestory be divided into pre- and post-Exodus: prior to Exodus, Moses was largely peaceful, but after Exodus, Moses became the leader of the emerging Jewish state–and subsequently engaged in holy wars and even genocide against other nations.) In the First Coming of Christ, only a small segment of society (mostly from the weak and poor) accepted Jesus, whereas the leaders and authorities persecuted him. During this time period, Jesus advised his followers to engage in nonviolent resistance only, perhaps even pacifism. Jesus advised his followers to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” According to the Bible, this didn’t stop his Jewish and Roman persecutors from crucifying him.
    Yet, the Second Coming of Christ is a central theological belief of Christianity. When Jesus returns to earth, the gloves will be off: no longer will he practice nonviolence or pacifism. Enemies will be mercilessly killed, not loved. In this manner, Jesus will fulfill the messianic prophecies found in the Bible–both in the Old and New Testaments. To Christians, Jesus is the Messiah (the Greek word “Christ” has the same meaning as the Hebrew word “Messiah”)–the same Messiah that the Jews had been in anticipation of.
    It is important to understand how the concept of Messiah developed. According to the Bible, Moses and his followers fled persecution in Egypt to find refuge in the land of Canaan. They believed that God had bequeathed this land to them, which would come to be known as Israel. Unfortunately, there were already peoples who lived in Canaan, a problem that Moses and his followers rectified via military might. The native Canaanites were subsequently occupied, exterminated, or run off their ancestral lands. When the natives fought back, the Israelites attributed this to their innate and infernal hatred of the Jewish people.
    After ruling the “promised land” for a time, the Israelites were themselves conquered by outsiders. The Babylonian Empire captured the Kingdom of Judah and expelled the Jews. Though the Israelites felt no remorse over occupying, slaughtering, and running off the native inhabitants of Canaan, they were mortified when they received similar (albeit milder) treatment. In exile, the Jews prayed for vengeance, as recorded in a divine prayer in the Bible:
    Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
    137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.
    (We can hardly imagine the glee that an Islamophobe would feel had such a violent passage, one that blesses those who smash infidel babies against rocks, been found in the Quran instead of the Bible.)
    It was during the time of exile that the Jewish concept of Messiah was first born. Dutch historian Jona Lendering writes:
    The word Messiah renders the Aramaic word mešîhâ’, which in turn renders the Hebrew mâšîah. In Antiquity, these words were usually translated into Greek as Christos and into Latin as Christus, hence the English word Christ. All these words mean simply ‘anointed one’, anointment being a way to show that a Jewish leader had received God’s personal help.
    It was believed that the Messiah (the Anointed One) would receive God’s personal help against the enemies of Israel; the Messiah would defeat the Babylonians and reestablish the Jewish state of Israel. Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, fulfilled this role by conquering Babylon and releasing the Jews from exile. Israel Smith Clare writes:
    After Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, had conquered Babylon, he issued an edict permitting the Jews to return to their own country and to rebuild the city and Temple of Jerusalem. [2]
    Prof. Martin Bernal of Cornell University writes:
    The first Messiah in the Bible was Cyrus, the king of Persia who released the Jews–at least those who wanted to leave–from Exile in Babylon. [3]
    As for this passage in the Bible:
    Psalm 137:8 O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us.
    137:9 Blessed is the one who grabs your babies and smashes them against a rock.
    Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible comments on this verse:
    This was Cyrus, who was chosen of God to do this work, and is therefore called happy, as being God’s agent in its destruction.
    The Jews thereby returned to the promised land and rebuilt their nation. According to Jewish tradition, however, this did not last long: the Roman Empire conquered the land, destroyed the Temple, and exiled the Jews once again. As a result, as Lendering puts it, “the old prophecies [about Messiah] became relevant again.” Although in Jewish tradition there is a messiah for each generation, there is also the Messiah, which is what is commonly thought of when we hear the word. The Messiah would fulfill the task of destroying all of Israel’s enemies.
    JewFaq.org says of the Messiah, which they spell as mashiach (emphasis is ours):
    The mashiach will be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 23:5). The mashiach is often referred to as “mashiach ben David” (mashiach, son of David). He will be well-versed in Jewish law, and observant of its commandments (Isaiah 11:2-5). He will be a charismatic leader, inspiring others to follow his example. He will be a great military leader, who will win battles for Israel. He will be a great judge, who makes righteous decisions (Jeremiah 33:15).
    KosherJudaism.org states:
    The Messiah will defeat and conquer the enemies surrounding Israel.
    The Second Coming of Christ
    Around 4 B.C., a prophet by the name of Jesus was born. He claimed to be the Messiah, and some Jews followed him. The followers of Christ eventually split into numerous sects, and eventually one triumphed over all others. These became what are today known as Christians. As for the majority of Jews, they rejected Jesus. Why? The Jews rejected (and continue to reject) Jesus because he did not fulfill the prophecies pertaining to the Messiah. How could Jesus be the Messiah when he not only did not defeat or conquer Israel’s enemies, but he never even led an army into a single war? On the contrary, didn’t Jesus preach nonviolence and “loving one’s enemies”?
    Instead of rejecting these militaristic aspects of the Messiah, Christians attribute them to Jesus during his Second Coming. No longer will Jesus be a weak and persecuted prophet. Instead, he will hold governmental authority, and is depicted as powerful and mighty. This Jesus will certainly not love his enemies or turn the other cheek to them. In fact, the Bible tells us that Jesus will wage violent warfare against his enemies, and he will mercilessly kill them all.
    Many Christians talk about how Jesus Christ will bring peace to the world, once and for all. But they often neglect to mention how this world “peace” is obtained. It is only after slaughtering his opponents and subduing “the nations” (the entire world?) under the foot of the global Christian empire that the world will have “peace”. Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible explains:
    There shall be no more war; horses and chariots shall be no more used in a hostile way; but there shall be perfect peace, all enemies being destroyed, which agrees with Micah 2:3 Zechariah 9:10.
    In other words, there will be peace for the simple reason that there will be nobody left to fight, all opponents having been slaughtered or subdued. This world “peace” is the same “peace” that any conqueror dreams of: after utterly defeating and conquering all of one’s neighbors and enemies, what is there left but “peace”, insofar as the non-existence of violence? In the accidentally insightful words of the Evangelist Wayne Blank: “Put another way, humans aren’t going to have anything left to fight about.” Following conquest, a foreign occupier would obviously want the occupied peoples to be peaceful, as this would eliminate the nuisance of having to fight off freedom-fighters. The absence of violence would allow the conquering force to effortlessly sustain its occupation.
    The events of the Second Coming of Christ are found in the Bible, including the Book of Revelation–which is the last book in the New Testament. Jesus will “judge and wage war” (Rev. 19:11), his robe will be “dipped in blood” (19:13), and he will be accompanied by “armies” (19:14) with which he will “strike down the nations” (19:15), including “the Gentiles” in general and “the nations that were opposed to him” in specific. This will result in the “utter destruction of all his enemies”. Furthermore: “in his second coming[,] he will complete their destruction, when he shall put down all opposing rule, principality, and power.”
    Once he conquers the infidels, Jesus “will rule them with an iron rod” (19:15). Wayne Blank writes:
    The good news is that The Return Of Jesus Christ is going to happen. The even better news is that this time He’s not coming to be sacrificed by the world, but to rule it, along with those who have been faithful and obedient to Him. The world is going to know true peace, and genuine justice, in a way that it has never known before…
    How Will World Peace Happen?
    …[This will] not [be] by pleading and debate, but with a rod of iron. Those who choose to love and obey Him will be loved, while those who choose to rebel and hate Him will know His wrath.
    Jesus will “will release the fierce wrath of God” (19:15) on them, and “he shall execute the severest judgment on the opposers of his truth”. Because of this, “every tribe on earth will mourn because of him” (Rev. 1:7), and they will “express the inward terror and horror of their minds, at his appearing; they will fear his resentment”. Just as the people of Canaan were terrified by the Israelite war machine, so too would the unbelievers “look with trembling upon [Jesus]”. This is repeated in the Gospels, that “the Son of man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn” (Matthew 24:30). “All the nations of the world shall wail when he comes to judgment” and the enemies of Jesus “shall mourn at the great calamities coming upon them”.
    Far from the meek prophet of the First Coming, Jesus on his return will command a very strong military force that will “destroy[] every ruler, authority, and power”. Not only is this consistent with the legacy of conquests by the Biblical prophets, it is actually a fulfillment or completion of the task that Moses initiated: holy war and conquest in the name of God. In First Corinthians (part of the New Testament) it is prophesied that instead of loving his enemies, Christ will subdue and humble them under his feet:
    1 Corinthians 15:24 [Jesus] will turn the Kingdom over to God the Father, having destroyed every ruler and authority and power.
    15:25 For Christ must reign until he humbles all his enemies beneath his feet.
    Pastor and Biblical scholar Ron Teed explains that Jesus Christ brought “comfort and salvation at His first coming” but will bring “vengeance on God’s enemies” during his Second Coming. There are thus “two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge”–yet in debates with Muslims it seems that Christians play up the First Coming and completely ignore the Second. The popular Teed Commentaries explains how “vengeance” is for Christ’s enemies (the “unbelievers”) and “comfort” only for his followers (the believers):
    The Messiah will bring both comfort and vengeance. He will take vengeance on God’s enemies and bring comfort to His people. This is a summary of the mission of Christ. He brought comfort and salvation at His first coming during His earthly ministry according to Luke…
    However, He said nothing of taking vengeance on God’s enemies at that time, for that part of his mission will not be fulfilled till He returns triumphant…
    [There are] two comings of Christ, the first to save, the second to judge.
    In His First coming He did the things mentioned in Isaiah 61:1-2; in His Second Coming He will do the things in verses 2-3. When He returns He will bring judgment on unbelievers. This will be the day of God’s “vengeance.”
    The ever popular Evangelical site GotQuestions.org sums it up nicely:
    Jesus’ second coming will be exceedingly violent. Revelation 19:11-21 describes the ultimate war with Christ, the conquering commander who judges and makes war “with justice” (v. 11). It’s going to be bloody (v. 13) and gory. The birds will eat the flesh of all those who oppose Him (v. 17-18). He has no compassion upon His enemies, whom He will conquer completely and consign to a “fiery lake of burning sulfur” (v. 20).
    It is an error to say that God never supports a war. Jesus is not a pacifist.
    Will the Real Messiah Please Stand Up?
    Whereas the Second Coming of Christ is curiously forgotten in debates with Muslims, it is conveniently remembered during debates with Jews. One of the primary (if not the primary) functions of the promised messiah in the Judeo-Christian tradition is, after all, vengeance against Israel’s enemies and global dominance. Indeed, the entire concept of Messiah emerged following the conquest of Jewish lands with the subjugation and exile of its inhabitants. The Messiah stood as hope for the redemption of Israel as well as revenge against her enemies.
    Jewish polemical tracts against Christians reveal to us how militarism is a fundamental characteristic of the Messiah. The Christian response in turn reveal how Jesus Christ will indeed be militaristic (during his Second Coming). David Klinghoffer, an Orthodox Jewish author, writes in his book Why the Jews Rejected Jesus:
    There were certainly those among [Jesus'] followers who saw him as the promised Messiah. This was natural. The first century produced messiahs the way our own time produces movie stars. There was always a hot new candidate for the role emerging from obscurity, whose glory faded either as he was slaughtered by the Romans or as his followers lost interest when he failed to produce the goods promised by the prophets. [4]
    “The goods” refer to the military conquest of Israel’s enemies and world domination. The fact that Jesus failed to produce these “goods” proves that he is not the promised messiah. Klinghoffer continues:
    Let him do what the “son of man,” the promised Messiah, had been advertised as being destined to do from Daniel back through Ezekiel and Isaiah and the rest of the prophets. Let him rule as a monarch, his kingship extending over “all peoples, nations, and languages.” Let him return the exiles and build the Temple and defeat the oppressors and establish universal peace, as the prophets also said…
    Let Jesus come up with the real messianic goods–visible to all rather than requiring us to accept someone’s assurance that, for example, he was born in Bethlehem–and then we’ll take him seriously. [5]
    This point is reiterated in his book numerous times:
    Hearing Jesus preach, a Jew might reasonably have crossed his arms upon his chest and muttered, “Hm, intriguing, but let’s see what happens.” After all, the scriptures themselves common-sensically defined a false prophet as someone whose prophecies fail to come true. According to Deuteronomy, this was the chief test of a prophet. [6]
    Klinghoffer writes elsewhere:
    The Hebrew prophets describe the elements of a messianic scenario that could not easily be overlooked: an ingathering of the Jewish exiles, the reign of a messianic king, a new covenant with the Jews based on a restored commitment to observance of the commandments, a new Temple, the recognition of God by the world’s peoples. The future Davidic king was expected to radically change the world. [7]
    The “radical change” involves the “subjugation” of the nations:
    The Messiah would be a military and political leader. Philo, whose views have sometimes been taken as foreshadowing Christian teachings, is clear on this: “For ‘there shall come forth a man’ (Num. 24:7), says the oracle, and leading his host of war he will subdue great and populous nations.”
    The Gospel writers thus faced the challenge that Jesus never raised an army, fought the Romans, returned any Jewish exiles, ruled over any population, or did anything else a king messiah would do. [8]
    The subjugated nations would then “prostrate” themselves to the Messiah and “serve” him (perpetual servitude?):
    The promised royal scion of David, the Messiah, would surely inspire veneration and awe beyond that accorded even to David himself…The nations will “prostrate” themselves before God, says one psalm; but so will they “prostrate” themselves (same Hebrew verb) before the Davidic king, says another psalm…As Daniel puts it…“[The Messiah] was given dominion, honor, kingship, so that all peoples, nations, and languages would serve him.” [9]
    Klinghoffer defines the Messiah as he “who conquers and rules the nations and liberates the Jews” and describes him as “a mighty warrior”. He rhetorically asks:
    Was there in Jewish tradition any room for a dead Messiah? Didn’t Jesus’s death tend to cast doubt on his ability to accomplish all the world-transforming things the Messiah was supposed to do? [10]
    Again, the “world-transforming things” include violent holy war against the heathen nations and their subjugation under his rule. Klinghoffer answers his own question:
    But was Jesus a ruler over Israel? On the contrary, the younger Kimchi pointed out, “He did not govern Israel but they governed him.” [11]
    Christians reply by arguing that Jesus will fulfill these prophecies, just during his Second Coming. The Good News, a Christian magazine with a readership of nearly half a million subscribers, responds to the Jewish criticism by arguing that Jesus returns “a second time” as a “conquering King” who will “slay the great armies of those who opposed Him”. Jesus will be “the promised Messiah whom the prophets claimed would rule all nations ‘with a rod of iron’” and “all nations would come under His rule”.
    Klinghoffer, our Orthodox Jewish interlocutor, cries foul:
    Christians respond by saying that “the famously unfulfilled prophecies (for instance, that the messianic era will be one of peace) apply to the second and final act in Jesus’s career, when he returns to earth. This is a convenient and necessary dodge: The Bible itself never speaks of a two-act messianic drama. [11]
    The interesting dynamic is thus established: Jews accuse Jesus of not being militaristic enough, and Christian apologists respond by eagerly proving the militaristic nature of Jesus during his Second Coming.
    Christians Affirm Militant Old Testament Prophecies
    Far from saying “it’s just the Old Testament!”, Christians routinely–and as a matter of accepted fundamental theology–use the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah to validate their belief in Jesus–prophecies that have militaristic overtones. The Book of Isaiah, for example, has numerous prophecies in it that Christians routinely attribute to Jesus Christ. For example:
    Isaiah 35:4 Say to those with fearful hearts, “Be strong, do not fear; your God will come, he will come with vengeance; with divine retribution he will come to save you.”
    Matthew Henry’s commentary of this verse says:
    Assurance is given of the approach of Messiah, to take vengeance on the powers of darkness, to recompense with abundant comforts those that mourn in Zion; He will come and save. He will come again at the end of time, to punish those who have troubled his people; and to give those who were troubled such rest as will be a full reward for all their troubles.
    This will be “a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion’s cause” (34:8) against the “nations at enmity with the church” and “those found opposing the church of Christ”, which will result in “the destruction of [the church's] enemies.” Likewise do Christians claim that the Book of Micah foretells the Second Coming of Christ:
    Micah 15:5 I will execute vengeance in anger and fury on the heathen, such as they have not heard.
    One Biblical commentary helpfully explains this verse:
    Christ will give his Son either the hearts or necks of his enemies, and make them either his friends or his footstool.
    [NassirH, a reader of our website, astutely commented: I suppose this is what JihadWatch writer Roland Shirk meant when he said “Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat.”]
    Another Biblical commentary notes: “Here no mention is made of Mercy, but only of executing vengeance; and that, with wrath and fury.” Yet another states that this is “a prophecy of the final overthrow of all the enemies of pure and undefiled religion” and that this is “a threatening of vengeance to the Heathens”.
    When we published articles comparing the Judeo-Christian prophets of the Hebrew Bible to the Prophet Muhammad, an anti-Muslim bigot by the name of Percey (formerly known as Cassidy) claimed that the genocides of the Old Testament were “not supported by Christ’s teachings.” This hardly seems the case, however, when we consider that Jesus will bring to a climax the holy war first initiated by Moses against the enemies of Israel. Jesus will fulfill, not repudiate, Old Testament holy wars against Israel’s foes. In fact, the war will be expanded to heathen nations in general, or at least those that reject Jesus.
    Conclusion
    We could reproduce violent Christian texts ad nauseum…What is clear is that the Christian conception of Jesus can very easily be characterized as violent. Prof. Melancthon W. Jacobus writes in A Standard Bible Dictionary:
    [Jesus] excluded from the Messiah’s character the main elements of the popular ideal, i.e. that of a conquering hero, who would exalt Israel above the heathen, and through such exclusion He seemed to fail to realize the older Scriptural conception. The failure, however, was only apparent and temporary. For in the second coming in glory He was to achieve this work. Accordingly, His disciples recognized a twofoldness in His Messiahship: (1) They saw realized in His past life the ideal Servant of Jehovah, the spiritual Messiah, the Christ who teaches and suffers for the people, and (2) they looked forward to the realization of the Davidic and conquering Messiah in His second coming in power and glory to conquer the nations and reign over them. [12]
    How then do we reconcile the seemingly peaceful and pacifist sayings of Jesus with the violent and warlike Second Coming of Christ? There are numerous ways to do this, but perhaps the most convincing is that Jesus’ peaceful and pacifist sayings were directed towards a resident’s personal and local enemies–usually (but not always) referring to fellow co-religionists. It did not refer to a government’s foreign adversaries, certainly not to heathen nations. Prof. Richard A. Horsley of the University of Massachusetts argues:
    The cluster of sayings keynoted by “love your enemies” pertains neither to external, political enemies nor to the question of nonviolence or nonresistance…The content of nearly all the sayings indicates a context of local interaction with personal enemies, not of relations with foreign or political foes…
    “Love your enemies” and the related sayings apparently were understood by [Jesus'] followers…to refer to local social-economic relations, largely within the village community, which was still probably coextensive with the religious community in most cases…[although sometimes referring] to persecutors outside the religious community but still in the local residential community—and certainly not the national or political enemies. [13]
    This is consistent with the ruling given by the Evangelical site GotQuestions.org, which permits governments to wage war whilst forbidding individuals from “personal vendettas”:
    God has allowed for just wars throughout the history of His people. From Abraham to Deborah to David, God’s people have fought as instruments of judgment from a righteous and holy God. Romans 13:1-4 tells us to submit ourselves to government authorities and that nations have the right to bear the sword against evildoers, both foreign and domestic.
    Violence occurs, but we must recognize the difference between holy judgment on sin and our own personal vendettas against those we dislike, which is the inevitable outcome of pride (Psalm 73:6).
    As for the “turning the other cheek” passage, it is known that the slap on the cheek that was being referred to here was in that particular culture understood as an insult, not as assault. The passage itself has to do with a person responding to a personal insult, and has nothing to do with pacifism. In any case, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary clarifies: “Of course, He applied this to personal insults, not to groups or nations.” [14]
    Some Christians maintain that fighting the enemies on the battlefield does not exclude loving them. This begs the question: how absolutely irrelevant is this strange form of “love” for enemies that does not proscribe killing them?
    Whatever the reason for the contradiction between loving enemies on the one hand and killing them on the other, the point is that the comparison between a supposedly peaceful Jesus and violent Muhammad is not just a vapid oversimplification but pure falsity. It is only through a very selective and biased analysis–a carefully crafted comparison between the most peaceful sounding verses of the New Testament (a handful of quotes from Jesus that constitute a small fraction of the Bible overall) with the most violent sounding verses of the Quran (those too out of context, as we shall see in future parts of this Series).
    Anything that doesn’t fit this agenda simply “doesn’t count” (and indeed, the anti-Muslim pro-Christian readers will furiously rack their brains to figure out ways to make the violent Jesus verses “not count”). The Islamophobic logic is thus: If we exclude all violent verses from the Bible and all the peaceful verses from the Quran, then aha! See how much more violent the Quran is compared to the Bible! Anti-Muslim Christians scoff at Islam and exalt their religion by informing Muslims of how Jesus, unlike Muhammad, loved his enemies. Let the Muslims reply back ever so wryly: Jesus loved them so much that he kills them.
    Addendum I:
    Anti-Muslim Christians often chant “Muhammad was a prophet of war, whereas Jesus was the Prince of Peace”. A few points about this are worthy of being mentioned: first, Muhammad never used the title “prophet of war” nor is this mentioned in the Quran or anywhere else. In fact, one of the most common epithets used for Muhammad, one found in the Quran no less, was “A Mercy to All Humanity”. (More on this in a later part of the Series.) Jesus, on the other hand, will be a “Warrior King” and a “Conquering King.” Should it then be “Muhammad is A Mercy to All Humanity, whereas Jesus is the Warrior King”?
    As for Jesus being the Prince of Peace, this epithet comes from Isaiah 9:6:
    Isaiah 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
    9:7 There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace. He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity. The passionate commitment of the LORD of Heaven’s Armies will make this happen.
    One Christian website paraphrases this succinctly: “Israel’s enemies will be destroyed. Peace will flow to the four corners of the earth, as the Prince of Peace rules and reigns.” Again, this is the “peace” that conquerers dream of. Jesus is the Prince of Peace because he declares war, slaughters and subjugates all possible enemies to the point where nobody is left to fight, and voila! there is peace!
    This brings us to the commonly quoted (and oft-debated) verse of the Bible, in which Jesus says:
    Matthew 10:34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
    Most debates focus on whether or not the word “sword” here is metaphorical or not. Leaving aside the fact that even if this is a metaphor it is certainly a very violent sounding one, it would actually behoove us to focus on the word “peace” in this verse. Jesus told the Jews: “do not think I have come to bring peace on earth” as a way to explain his failure to produce “the goods”: “the Jews believed that when the Messiah comes, there would be a time of world peace.” Naturally, this world “peace” would be brought about through war. Of course, in his Second Coming will Jesus bring this “peace on earth” (and by “peace”, what is meant is war, slaughter, and subjugation). As we can see, this verse confirms the militant nature of the Messiah (and thus Jesus), regardless of if it is metaphorical or not.
    Addendum II:
    Here is another hotly debated verse, in which Jesus says:
    Luke 19:27 But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence.
    Robert Spencer dismisses this verse, saying: “These are the words of a king in a parable.” Yes, this was a parable that Jesus told his disciples. But what was his intention in narrating this parable? Gill’s Explanation to the Entire Bible explains that it was to explain what will happen to the Jews “when Christ shall come a second time”: Jesus will “destroy the Jewish nation” for rejecting him “and then all other enemies will be slain and destroyed” as well. Death and destruction will be the fate of whoever does not accept Jesus’ reign as Warrior King.
    This was hardly an innocuous story. It reminds us of a scene in the movie Gladiator when the evil Roman emperor Commodus tells his nephew a story about an “emperor” who was betrayed by his sister (“his own blood”) and how he “struck down” her son as revenge. (Watch it here.) The story was a thinly veiled threat, as was Jesus’ parable.
    One can only hardly imagine how Islamophobes like Robert Spencer would react had it been the Prophet Muhammad who had used such a violent parable, threatening to return to earth in order to “slay” anyone who “did not want me to reign over them”! This would certainly “count” since all violence in the Quran “counts” whereas whatever is peaceful in the Quran “doesn’t count”, and whatever is violent in the Bible “doesn’t count” and whatever is peaceful in the Bible “counts”. Heads I win, tails you lose.
    Footnotes
    refer back to article 1. Spencer, Robert. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Washington, DC: Regnery Pub., 2005. 24. Print.
    refer back to article 2. Clare, Israel S. The Centennial Universal History: A Clear and Concise History of All Nations. P. W. Ziegler, 1876. 33. Print.
    refer back to article 3. Bernal, Martin. Black Athena. Vol. 1. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ., 1996. 125. Print.
    refer back to article 4. Klinghoffer, David. Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: the Turning Point in Western History. New York: Three Leaves/Doubleday, 2006. 61. Print.
    refer back to article 5. Ibid., p.71
    refer back to article 6. Ibid., p.64
    refer back to article 7. Ibid., p.62
    refer back to article 8. Ibid., p.63
    refer back to article 9. Ibid., p.69
    refer back to article 10. Ibid., p.161
    refer back to article 11. Ibid., p.204
    refer back to article 12. Jacobus, Melancthon Williams., Edward E. Nourse, and Andrew C. Zenos. A Standard Bible Dictionary. New York & London, 1909. 543. Print.
    refer back to article 13. Swartley, Willard M. “Ethics and Exegesis: ‘Love Your Enemies’ and the Doctrine of Nonviolence.” The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the New Testament. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992. Print.
    refer back to article 14. Wiersbe, Warren W. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary. Colorado Springs: David C Cook, 2007. 21. Print.

  172. Sam Shamoun says:

    This is the 2nd part of my reply.

    And now watch him take my side against his fellow Muslims:

    RE: silencing the barking dog?
    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Fri 8/25/06 2:50 AM
    To: nadir@examinethetruth.com; sam_shmn40@hotmail.com; quransearch_com@yahoo.com; faruuk19@yahoo.com; ahsen@amalik.com; b_zawadi@hotmail.com; orthodox786@hotmail.com; islamlife@gmail.com

    on a side note, what is so funny about this, is that nadir came to me saying
    he wants to work with us, answering-christianity.com. now when all of a
    sudden he sees something he doesnt like, he immidietly says he is ignoring
    me and denying all contact with me. whats up with that? osama, plz dont
    delay your articles on nadir, he is such a hypocrite and these actions prove
    it, all he wanted to do is use us, since we are a popular site, but the
    second we do something he doesnt like (which i have no idea) he immidietly
    breaks all contacts.

    for 15 days we have been waiting for nadir to give his debate topic, and he
    has stalled. he is running away from this debate, enough with the nonsense
    talk that shamoun always runs away, thats BS. shamoun has accepted the
    debate since day one, and has given his debate topic, nadir is stalling and
    its obvious he is running from the debate since he sees that sam is very
    serious to go through with it.

    infact, nadir is also trying to make this debate NOT HAPPEN. how does nadir
    expect to set a debate up with shamoun when he is sending insultive emails
    to shamoun? does that make sense? would you debate someone who comes to you
    calling you a barking dog etc etc as nadir has done to sam? no you wouldnt,
    this is a smoke screen by nadir, because he knows when you bring insults and
    slurs to a debate set up the debate will not happen. when ppl set a debate
    up, you make sure both parties are respectable and kind to each other, which
    is what i made sure with sam and nadir, and it all went good. then NADIR WAS
    THE FIRST ONE TO BREAK this by sending an insulting email to sam. its
    obvious nadir is doing all this to avoid a debate, how sad.

    plz nadir, dont waste our time ever again, just to show how lame you are, it
    took me and shamoun just 10 mins to set our debate up! we set it up in 10
    mins, and met 2 hours later and did the debate. so the fact its taking you
    this long to just make a debate topic shows your stalling and you never were
    serious, you just wanted to try and make up a lie that sam ran from you and
    say hurrayyyyyy, but everyone who sees this will know that YOU HAVE STALLED
    AND RAN FROM THE DEBATE.

    to shamoun, plz dont ever waste your time on nadir.

    to osama, just write the debate reviews and ignore nadir, dont give him the
    attention he does not deserve.

    >From:
    >Reply-To: nadir@examinethetruth.com
    >To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com, quransearch_com@yahoo.com, faruuk19@yahoo.com,
    > ahsen@amalik.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, orthodox786@hotmail.com,
    > islamlife@gmail.com, sami z
    >Subject: RE: silencing the barking dog
    >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:23:18 -0400
    >
    >
    >Sami,
    > Your request to help organize this debate has been denied. I do not want
    >anything
    >to do with you. Sorry. I have ajusted my settings to send all your emails
    >to my
    >spam folder, therefore, it is pointless to respond to this email.
    >
    >PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM YOUR EMAIL LIST AT ONCE, AS WELL AS PALTALK. I WILL
    >ALSO
    >REMOVE YOU FROM MY EMAIL LIST AS WELL.
    >
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Nadir Ahmed
    >www.ExamineTheTruth.com
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 15:40 , sami z sent:
    >
    > >ok, this is getting silly now nadir. you dont know who or what i am?
    >excuse
    > >me, all this is taking place because I BROUGHT YOU AND SAM TOGETHOR IN
    >ONE
    > >ROOM, and got it under way.
    > >
    > >shamoun has AGREED TO DEBATE, and has given his topic. we are now waiting
    > >for your topic, which you have not given so far.
    > >
    > >shamoun will only open up my emails now, not yours, so quitr frankly, if
    >you
    > >want this debate to happen then i am going to arrange it, if not, then
    > >debate is over. the reason i say that is because shamoun does not trust
    >you,
    > >and thats how it is. the fact is he does trust me to a degree, so
    >therefore
    > >you cant just exclude me now from arranging this thing between you two.
    > >
    > >since i am arranging this thing, i am going to have to be neutral, and
    > >objective, and as a neutral and objective person in this, you are
    >STALLING
    > >nadir. it isnt so hard, just make a debate topic, and make your date, and
    > >debate is on. that is not asking for much, i dont understand how much
    >more
    > >you want?
    > >
    > >i think everyone on the list will even agree with me, shamoun has made
    >his
    > >debate topic: muta, he is free after september 7th, now make your debate
    > >topic, and set 2 dates up after september 7th to debate yours and his
    > >debate. and since you like to narrow topics down so you can deal with
    >each
    > >issue, you will have 5 minutes of back and forth, like me and shamoun did
    >in
    > >our debate. so nadir make your debate topic, and your date.
    > >
    > >
    > >>From: nadir@examinethetruth.com>
    > >>Reply-To: nadir@examinethetruth.com
    > >>To: sam shamoun sam_shmn40@hotmail.com>
    > >>CC: Osama Abdallah quransearch_com@yahoo.com>, sami z
    > >>sami-zaatari@hotmail.com>, nadir@examinethetruth.com,
    > >>faruuk19@yahoo.com, ahsen@amalik.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com,
    > >>orthodox786@hotmail.com, islamlife@gmail.com
    > >>Subject: silencing the barking dog
    > >>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:06:35 -0400
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>Dear Shameless Shamoun,
    > >>
    > >>look here you dirt ball, for the last time, if we are going to
    >negotiate,
    > >>it will
    > >>NOT be by email, rather it will be in public via paltalk, and then we
    >will
    > >>discuss
    > >>the terms and conditions for your humiliation. But I believe that you
    >are
    > >>to
    > >>coward to meet me face to face, especially considering how you ran with
    > >>your tail
    > >>wagging between your legs the last time we faced off. Hehehe.. that must
    > >>have been
    > >>really humilating for you :)
    > >>
    > >>http://www.examinethetruth.com/RefutingAI/SexLiesAudiotapeShamoun.htm
    > >>
    > >> You do realize, that your Christian buddies who heard that tape must
    >have
    > >>felt
    > >>really embarrassed seeing you run away like that:) But of course, they
    >wont
    > >>tell
    > >>you that.. they dont want to hurt your feelings or deflate your fragile
    > >>ego. Bless
    > >>their hearts. But make no mistake about it, all of them lost respect for
    > >>you(what
    > >>little they had) after hearing that tape.
    > >>
    > >>To add insult to injury, you even got schooled by some 19 year old kid
    >in a
    > >>debate! lol. You are a real loser.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>Well, get ready.. because their is a lot more in store for you!
    >Inshallah,
    > >>this
    > >>next round.. I am going to spank you soo bad, so much so, that evil
    >little
    > >>boy
    > >>within is going to come out of your fat body for the whole audience to
    > >>see.. and
    > >>it will be ugly. – I promise u ;)
    > >>
    > >>Therefore, be man enough and face ExamineTheTruth.com via paltalk where
    >we
    > >>will
    > >>discuss the terms of the debate in front of a live audience … or else
    >go
    > >>back
    > >>under that rock you crawled out of you fat slob.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>As for “Sami”, he does not represent ExamineTheTruth.com, nor do we have
    > >>any idea
    > >>who he is, or what he is. Therefore, Sami has nothing to do with our
    >debate
    > >>negotiations. Shameless Shamoun, you need to stop hiding behind people
    >and
    > >>face me
    > >>like a man.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>Thanks,
    > >>Nadir Ahmed
    > >>www.ExamineTheTruth.com
    > >>
    > >>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:42 , sam shamoun sam_shmn40@hotmail.com> sent:
    > >>
    > >> >Thanks Sami,
    > >> >
    > >> >I will let you arrange this. The Muta topic should take place sometime
    >in
    > >> >September, preferable anytime after the first week of that month. I
    >would
    > >>be
    > >> >also interested in creaming this gent on the topic of whether the
    >Quran
    > >> >teaches Tawheed or not, and am I actually finishing a paper refuting
    >this
    > >> >gent’s argument regarding fetal syndrome. That was really funny, that
    > >> >argument. :-)
    > >> >
    > >> >So keep me informed Sami since I won’t bother reading this guy’s
    >emails,
    > >> >only yours. He has proven that he can’t be trusted and will do
    >anything
    > >>to
    > >> >deceive people. Just ask Wood about how he changed his material for
    >the
    > >> >debate.
    > >> >Sam
    > >> >
    > >> >>ok guys, lets get back on track.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>lets just set the debates up, shamoun has given his topic, which is
    > >>muta,
    > >> >>nadir what is your topic?
    > >> >>
    > >> >>nadir, give your topic, and the date you are free to debate, shamoun,
    > >>give
    > >> >>your date of when you are free, remember you both must arrange 2 free
    > >> >>dates, since you will be having 2 debates.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>the time format for the debate can be like me and shamouns, 2 minute
    > >> >>opening statements, with 4 mins back and forth each, over a period of
    >2
    > >> >>hours, unless you 2 want 5 minutes of back and forth each.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>we will have 2 admins for each side, a muslim and christian, a
    >neutral
    > >>with
    > >> >>admin rights shared by both the muslim and christian admin, room will
    >be
    > >> >>dotted on text and mic, only the 2 admins will be allowed to type,
    > >>pasting
    > >> >>verses and info, and time limits etc.
    > >> >>
    > >> >>so nadir, what is your debate topic, and both of you give your 2 free
    > >>dates
    > >> >>of when you can do it.

    More in the third post.

  173. Paul Williams says:

    im waiting for your reply Sam!

  174. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is the third part.

    incase you all forgot
    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Sat 9/09/06 10:46 PM
    To: islamlife@gmail.com; nadir@examinethetruth.com Cc: ahsen@amalik.com; b_zawadi@hotmail.com; orthodox786@hotmail.com; faruuk19@yahoo.com; quransearch_com@yahoo.com

    just to remind you all, that nadir ahmed was supposed to be debating sam
    shamoun, im suprised how people forgot about this, as you can all see, nadir
    has been running all this time. nadir did you think we would forget?

    >From: “IslamLife”
    >To:
    >CC: ,,”sami z”
    >,,”omer moh”
    >,”Osama Abdallah”
    >Subject: They are not worth it!
    >Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 10:34:43 -0400
    >
    >As-salamu alaikum warahmatullah
    >
    >Dear Brother Nadir:
    >
    > As much outrage as I feel at the little Khabeeth, Osama, and his Quffah,
    >the young fool, Sami ‘Z’, because of their ridicule of the Prophet,
    >salla-llahu `alaihi wa-sallam, lying on Allah and His Messenger and extreme
    >hatred for the Prophet’s companions and all those who love the Prophet and
    >his Sunnah, I encourage you to withdraw your threat against them, for these
    >reasons.
    >
    >1. Knowing that if you wish, you can easily physically harm these two
    >fools as easily as you can harm two showgirls at a magic show in Las Vegas,
    >they, just as the showgirls in Las Vegas are, are not worth one minute in
    >jail.
    >
    >2. We have a lot of Da`wah to make and to refute the terrible slander
    >that AnsweringChristianity has been directing at the Prophet of Islam,
    >Muhammad, salla-llahu `alaihi wa-sallam, of whom Osama and Sami are wicked
    >enemies.
    >
    >3. These two have tremendous hatred for people of the Sunnah, because
    >they hate it and hate the one who was sent with it, and will use your
    >threat to falsely accuse Salafis of violence, which I discourage. Exposing
    >these two deviants for what they truly are is worse on them than being beat
    >up.
    >
    >4. You will only be dirtying your hands with extreme filth.
    >
    >5. Allah will deal with the enemies of Muhammad, salla-llahu `alaihi
    >wa-sallam: He has promised that the enemies of Muhammad, who slander him,
    >will be cutoff from His Mercy. There is no punishment that you or I can
    >ever exert on anyone that is remotely similar to the punishment of Allah
    >against the enemies of His Messenger, salla-llahu alaihi wa-sallam. No
    >doubt, Osama is Muhammad’s enemy; Sami is Muhammad’s enemy by his
    >association with Osama and his defense of his Kufr.
    >
    >6. Instead of beating up on these two wicked enemies of Muhammad,
    >which I discourage you to do to begin with, invoke Allah to one day gather
    >Osama and Shamoun in the company of Iblis. Osama should not mind, since he
    >thinks that Iblis will end up in Jannah.
    >
    >
    >
    >Please forward this email to the same group of people to whom you emailed
    >your threat to Osama and Sami, and type the words ‘I agree’ in the subject.
    >
    >Do a cleaner job than beating up on Osama and Sami, like taking the garbage
    >out.
    >
    >As-salamu alaikum warahmatullah
    >
    >Jalal Abualrub
    >
    >

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Re: warning shots fire! round two about to begin!?
    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Mon 9/11/06 11:08 PM
    To: quransearch_com@yahoo.com; nadir@examinethetruth.com; orthodox786@hotmail.com; faruuk19@yahoo.com; ahsen@amalik.com; sam_shmn40@hotmail.com; islam_defender@hotmail.com; just_flow11@hotmail.com; Munir0728@yahoo.com; mrdebatethehate@earthlink.net; Islam_the_true_Deen786@hotmail.com; b_zawadi@hotmail.com; islamlife@gmail.com

    and nadir fans, plz dont reply back by complaing that osama is attacking
    salafis, nadir claims he is a salafi, therefore he is representing you guys,
    and you guys never correct him meaning u agree with him, so fact is nadir is
    really bringing shame to you salafis. one salafi told me nadir and his type
    are the dogs of the hell fire :)

    >From: Osama Abdallah
    >To: nadir@examinethetruth.com, orthodox786@hotmail.com, faruuk19@yahoo.com,
    > ahsen@amalik.com, sami-zaatari@hotmail.com, sam_shmn40@hotmail.com,
    >islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com, Munir0728@yahoo.com,
    >mrdebatethehate@earthlink.net, Islam_the_true_Deen786@hotmail.com,
    >b_zawadi@hotmail.com, islamlife@gmail.com
    >Subject: Re: warning shots fire! round two about to begin!
    >Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 09:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
    >
    >I just hope everyone sees how low and trash the salafies are. Spreading
    >Islam is the lowest thing on their priority list. All they’re good for is
    >mocking and arrogance.
    >
    > Well their arrogance stops here, because this is where their necks go
    >under the feet of real and couragous Muslims.
    >
    > Nadir, I can’t thank you enough for making our job a lot easier for
    >humiliating your master. It’s good that you live in your lala world and
    >you insist on advertising it, because the more you do, and the more the
    >dajjal supports you, the more you humiliate him. So keep it up.
    >
    > Osama
    >
    >
    >nadir@examinethetruth.com wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >Let me start off by saying ..that I have not included any of the
    >Anwering Islam
    >team on this email… Look you guys are fighting a loosing battle – Osama
    >and
    >Sami’s strategy is that the Muslims will forgive them for their comments
    >about
    >Prophet Muhammed(P), if they apologize.
    >
    >Well, my strategy is that I believe this will not happen. I believe cursing
    >Muhammed(P) will leave a permanant impression in the Muslim’s mind. I
    >will also
    >update my article to make sure I include osama’s apology and request
    >the Muslims
    >DO NOT ACCEPT THIS BECAUSE this is not the first time this has happened.
    >Therefore, I do not believe they can win. Coupled with the fact that OSama
    >blatanly lies about my debate only further condemns him. But, this all of
    >this
    >was only warning shots fired!
    >
    >Second round of assault will include exposing a very ugly.. and shameful
    >fact
    >about a dirty little secret both Osama and Sami share. I don’t even think
    >Br.
    >Jalal is aware of what I am about to share with you. Well, here goes:
    >
    >Both Sami and Osama have been brutally beaten in debate by Answering Islam.
    >We
    >all know about what Sam Shamoun did to Osama, but what we don’t know is
    >that
    >Christian_prince also smacked around Sami and exposed him very badly, but
    >not
    >before insulting Prophet Muhammed(P) and Islam. In fact, Sami is soo
    >ashamed of
    >what Christian_prince did to him, that he is HIDING THE DEBATE. Yes. He
    >refuses
    >to show anyone that debate!
    >
    >And as for Sami’s debate with Shamoun – Upon closer analysis, Shamoun won.
    >But
    >to Sami’s credit.. he hung in there and at least made it a close victory
    >for
    >Shamoun – Sami made Sam earn his victory. That is all the credit he gets.
    >As
    >for Muslim’s reaction to the debate… it’s a piece of garbage:
    >
    >
    >1. It is not good for dawa because it does not convince anyone about the
    >truth
    >of Islam.
    >
    >2. It is not good for refuting the lies against Islam becasue the
    >debate did not
    >cover it.
    >
    >Therefore, what is the debate good for??? Thus Muslims don’t even bother
    >mentioning it! And, no other Muslim website or message board even bother’s
    >to
    >display it! I will be sure to write a debate review.
    >
    >
    >Thus Answering Christianity has produced 3 back to back humilating losses
    >to
    >Answering Islam! AS OF YET.. THEY HAVE NEVER WON A DEBATE IN THEIR ENTIRE
    >MISERABLE HISTORY!!!
    >
    >
    >I will document all of this in my new article “Why Christians love Osama”,
    >in
    >which I show how Answering christianity goes after ignorant and stupid
    >Muslims
    >and runs away from ExamineTheTruth.com! Think about it.. the greatest
    >compliment Answering Islam could give me is that AVOID ME LIKE THE BLACK
    >PLAGUE!!! While they run to Osama!! Hmm… why do you think that is ?
    >
    >
    >And all of this Alhumdulilah, is the punishment Allah will the canines of
    >Answering christianity.. because those who insult Muhammed(P) will NEVER BE
    >SUCCESSFUL!!! And the Christians debate them because of this. To put it
    >short -
    >God is on our side…
    >
    >it’s going to be an easy win ;)
    >
    >
    >If Osama was smart, he will swallow his pride and hate… and work
    >something out
    >immediately. Some Muslims are crazy people man. God knows what they
    >might do to
    >him.
    >
    >From a tactical point of view, this entire war will gain them nothing,
    >but they
    >stand to loose ALOT. How ever , we stand to gain ALOT: we will get alot of
    >their fans to turn over and recognition for our efforts.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Nadir Ahmed
    >www.ExamineTheTruth.com

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    RE: Calling Shamoun’s bluff – who is really running??
    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Fri 1/12/07 11:02 AM
    To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com; nadir@examinethetruth.com; just_flow11@hotmail.com; islamttd786@yahoo.com; bklimas@woh.rr.com; ahmederee@yahoo.com; Muzjid.Al.Aziz@hotmail.com; Munir0728@yahoo.com; mrdebatethehate@earthlink.net; shaisahmad@yahoo.com; Islam_the_true_Deen786@hotmail.com
    Cc: b_zawadi@hotmail.com; sabeeldawah@yahoo.com; islamilife@hotmail.com;; islamlife@gmail.com; commanderdata87@hotmail.com; contact@menj.org;

    nadir u chicken stop wasting our time and get the debate ovr with, all these
    ppl are watching all u have to do is accept the challenge and debate which
    is what u say u want! so quit wasting ALL of our time and walk the walk.
    lets see if nadir is really all about what he says, or just a waste of time
    on all of us muslims and christians. set a date to debate, weekends not bad
    or whatever and debate!

    More in the fourth post.

  175. Sam Shamoun says:

    This is the fourth part.

    Zaatari even sent me emails where the Muslims admitted that I defeated them in the debates that I had against them!

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    FW: RE: warning shots fire! round two about to begin!
    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Wed 9/13/06 2:26 AM To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com

    >From: omer moh
    >To: sami z
    >CC: b_zawadi@hotmail.com, nadir@examinethetruth.com,
    >quransearch_com@yahoo.com, orthodox786@hotmail.com, faruuk19@yahoo.com,
    >ahsen@amalik.com, islam_defender@hotmail.com, just_flow11@hotmail.com,
    >Munir0728@yahoo.com, mrdebatethehate@earthlink.net,
    >Islam_the_true_Deen786@hotmail.com, islamlife@gmail.com
    >Subject: RE: warning shots fire! round two about to begin!
    >Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
    >
    >To talk honestly..here are list of loses
    > -Nadir lost his debate with shamoun…and the debate should be removed
    >from his site.
    > -Nadir’s debate with christin prince should be removed not cos Nadir
    >addmitted animal sex but since he can’t refute cp’s claim.
    > -Osama lost badly his debate with shamoun and he did well for not
    >posting it in his site.
    > -Sami..although he had certain good points(in the debate with shamoun)
    >he was just dancing around “where in the bible jesus said ‘i am a god”’.
    > -Nadir although he won the debate with wood,we can’t understand the link
    >b/n tawhid and ebla tablets.I doubt if Nadir is concerned in narrow and
    >specific debate topics.
    > The only commen character you all(whose debates are reviewed here) share
    >is ARROGANCE and SELF PRAISING.
    > ..the best debate(although its quite short) i must recommend is Jalal Vs
    >winn.
    > Best Regards
    > Omar
    >
    >sami z wrote:
    > lol he is very stupid indeed. he claims christian prince humiliated me,
    >thats why all the muslims in the room were laughing at cp for running away
    >from the debate, which was recorded.
    >
    >secondly, for the sake of argument, just say i did lose the debate to sam,
    >at least as you admit, i did go all the way, but what about your debate
    >with
    >sam? you looked like a complete idiot and you did not refute one single
    >solid argument!
    >
    >thirdly, we all know your jelous, but thats okay, bassam said it all, and
    >bassam is not bias btw, he has made his difference with osama known, so he
    >is neutral in this. but again, nadir seems to be ignoring one solid fact,
    >that his site HARDLY gets any viewers, so at the end of the day he doesnt
    >have the main weapon in this war, which is the readers, we have ALL the
    >muslim readers, so they will all read what we have to say on you monkey
    >boy,
    >put that on top of answering-islam’s pages on you. you are getting kicked
    >like a ball.
    >
    >
    > >From: “BASSAM ZAWADI”
    > >To: nadir@examinethetruth.com, quransearch_com@yahoo.com,
    > >orthodox786@hotmail.com, faruuk19@yahoo.com, ahsen@amalik.com,
    > >sami-zaatari@hotmail.com, islam_defender@hotmail.com,
    > >just_flow11@hotmail.com, Munir0728@yahoo.com,
    > >mrdebatethehate@earthlink.net, Islam_the_true_Deen786@hotmail.com,
    > >islamlife@gmail.com
    > >Subject: RE: warning shots fire! round two about to begin!
    > >Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:41:04 +0000
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >nadir you said that you did not include any of the answering islam team
    >on
    > >the email yet shamoun’s email is included. looooool

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    And yet now if you ask these same Muslims who won these debates they will tell you that they did hands down and will boast of how they utterly humiliated me! Remember Muhammad’s god was a liar and deceiver as well, and even permitted that his followers emulate him in that regard (http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_best_deceiver.htm).

    Sami coming to me for help led Nadir Ahmed to accuse him of being a traitor:

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    From: sami z (sami-zaatari@hotmail.com)
    Sent: Sat 10/07/06 12:28 AM
    To: sam_shmn40@hotmail.com

    HEY!!!!! did you forget about me???? what about our debate… man.. Sami’s
    email
    really made me laugh :)

    I mean… he is really scared for you osama, aww.. i think he loves u. that
    guy
    is trying to place all kinds of road blocks in the way of this debate! what
    is
    this crap that Jalal must debate then and only then a debate can take
    place???
    what is this? some kind of panel discussion????

    you coward… it’s time to smash u. stop hidng and let’s get this show on
    the
    road!

    and as for this lie that I am running from Shameless Shamoun, I will debunk
    this
    and expose Sami’s lies against me, and anyone who helps Shamoun against a
    Muslim
    is a *traitor* to Islam, and has committed kufur if he is not a kaffir
    already.
    BOTH points will be made in the debate.

    Remember the hadeeth of the Prophet(P)….”you are on the deen of your
    companion…” and just as Osama fell out of Islam… so did Sami!

    SAMI -
    for you information, Sam Shamoun is using your statement which supports him
    AGAINST ME. This is kufr. I would like to request you one last time to
    RETRACT
    your statement and NEVER give him any support against any Muslim. To say,
    “well, when I was writing it i never new he could use it against any
    Muslim…”
    does not work.

    Because *NOW* you do know that he is using it against Muslims therefore you
    must
    stop your support NOW for the enemy of Allah.

    Alhumdulilah, Osama and myself have both exposed Shamoun for what he is, and
    the
    only defense he has right now is your testimony against me.

    do the right thing.. and stop your support of him.

    Thanks,
    Nadir Ahmed
    http://www.ExamineTheTruth.com

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    The most amazing part about all of this is that Sami Zaatari and Bassam Zawadi have turned against their former employer Osama Abdallah and have now joined the opposing side, siding with Jalal Abualrub and Nadir Ahmed! In fact, Zawadi prays that his false god brings judgment on Osama:

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/ (This website contains the greatest number of articles on the web that refute false allegations against Islam. However, I do not agree or share the same views as the webmaster of authentic sunnah when it comes to basic Islamic doctrine. For example, the author’s stance on the issue of hadith and how he puts them on the same level as the Law found in today’s Old Testament, his approval of the september 11 attacks, his wrongful understanding of the rules behind polygamy marraige, and his wrongful understanding of the concept of execution of apostates) and other Islamic issues. Therefore, I only recommend the articles that deal with comparitive religion issues and refutations and not to learn about basic Islamic rulings and doctrine from this website. I also want to state that I previously used to write articles for this website. However, many of my old articles on the site contain errors and need much editing. I asked the author of the site, Osama Abdullah to remove my articles but he has constantly been stubborn and refused. May Allah forgive him. He knows that my articles on his site contain some errors and still continues to keep them on the site only so his site can receive higher rankings. Therefore, I declare my self innocent in the sight of Allah from the mistakes of my old articles AND ONLY ASK GOD TO JUDGE OSAMA ABDULLAH FOR HIS STUBBORNNESS in refusing to remove them. (http://call-to-monotheism.com/links; Capital emphasis ours)

    Not only does Zawadi pray God’s judgment upon his former employer these same Muslims went so far as to threaten to harm each other physically:

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    From :
    Reply-To : nadir@examinethetruth.com
    Sent : Thursday, September 7, 2006 12:50 AM
    To : Osama Abdallah , IslamLife , orthodox786@hotmail.com, omer moh , ahsen@amalik.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, sami-zaatari@hotmail.com
    Subject : osama watch your back

    Osama, you fucking kaffir.. how dare you insult our Prophet(P) by saying he has a mental disease wallahi, if I ever meet you on the street…. youre done…. and it WILL happen. watch your back. and as for your gay lover Saami, the fact that you support this piece of shit osama.. the same holds true for you. I have ways and means… I promise u. I have made a screen shot of your defamation of our Prophet(P), so you dont try to hide your kuffar. Thanks, Nadir Ahmed http://www.ExamineTheTruth.com

    And his second email:

    From :
    Reply-To : nadir@examinethetruth.com
    Sent : Thursday, September 7, 2006 3:07 AM
    To : orthodox786@hotmail.com, omer moh , ahsen@amalik.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, sami-zaatari@hotmail.com, Osama Abdallah
    Subject : Re: osama watch your back

    you fucking kaffir.. you think you can arm bar me? lol ill be the one breaking your elbow, then, I’ll triangle choke you and force you to take back your insults against Prophet Muhammed(P) …. then I’ll ground and pound your ugly face. It’s going to be great.. Ill pass your guard in matter of minutes and mount you… and Ill slamm my fist right in your eye socket, and I’ll say.. “what did you say about our Prophet(P)?” “who is old and stupid now Osama?” Let’s do it this weekend. You can come down to my ju jitzu gym. Ill arrange it with the fellas down here. or did you want me to come up to your gym ? This is JIHAD. Thanks, Nadir Ahmed http://www.ExamineTheTruth.com

    Source – http://www.answering-christianity.com/sami_zaatri/nadir_and_jalals_destruction.htm

    ______________________________________________________________________

    Another Muslim thug named Jalal Abualrub gave Nadir the following advice:

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    From: “IslamLife”
    To: nadir@******.com
    CC: “Osama Abdallah” , orthodox786@hotmail.com, “omer moh” , ahsen@amalik.com, b_zawadi@hotmail.com, “sami z”
    Subject:
    Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:41:05 -0400

    if you insist and are sure it is legal, really sure, then you should demand that the little khabeeth sign a paper promising not to take you to court when you beat him up, inshaallah, where he also promises not to bring quffah with him, the ‘z’ guy, because these two do not have any honor and they may ambush you from behind, also, why not video tape the legal match so that the khabeeth does not claim anything that did not happen.

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    This led Zawadi to comment:

    From: “BASSAM ZAWADI”
    To: islamlife@gmail.com, nadir@******.com
    CC: quransearch_com@yahoo.com, orthodox786@hotmail.com, faruuk19@yahoo.com, ahsen@amalik.com, sami-zaatari@hotmail.com
    Subject: RE:
    Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 05:32:12 +0000

    what words of wisdom and scholarly advice. man Jalal if your readers just saw the advice you give. Osama why not make an article called “Jalal’s Scholarly Fatwas” and posted this beautiful piece of art.

    Source – http://www.answering-christianity.com/the_dajjals_scholarly_advise.htm

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Jalal even went so far to say that Osama deserves to be killed, to be shot!

    ______________________________________________________________________________

    From: Jalal Abualrub
    To: Osama Abdallah
    Date: Fri, 28 July 2006 08:22:47 – 0700 (PDT)

    walak ya manyak ya haqeer (rough translation – “o you fucker, you despicable”)!! wallah i know it was you who created this ridiculous petition about me. you are a very sick khabeeth and an enemy of god. may you burn in jahannam next to your friend satan o defender of queers and enemy of muhammad!!!

    stop this madness man stop it!!! you are a sick and demented khanzeer (pig) and deserve to be shot o defender of queers. go and repent before it’s too late for you. you are such a waste of time you murtad haqeer (despicable apostate). you despise salafis while you are not good enough to a servant for one of them!!!! (bold and underline emphasis ours)

    Source – http://www.answering-christianity.com/jalal_went_crazy.htm

    More in the fifth post.

  176. Sam Shamoun says:

    Here is the fifth part:

    Nor is this an isolated case. Nadir Ahmed also went on an attack against Muslim apologist Shabir Ally: http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/01/nadir-ahmed-declares-shabir-ally-is.html; http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/01/nadir-ahmeds-long-war-against-shabir.html

    Do the readers see the pattern with these individuals? Is it a coincidence that these are the very same Muslims who have tried to discredit me for supposedly starting this pattern of mocking and insulting them, which allegedly led to their doing the same? Now if I really am to blame for all this then what explains the fact that they exhibit the same kind of abusive behavior against each other? What accounts for Nadir Ahmed, Sami Zaatari, Osama Abdallah and Jalal Abualrub cursing one another and threatening to harm each other with physical violence? Let me guess, I am to blame for this too!

    In fact, it got so out of hand with these same individuals that the following Muslim had to write an open letter pleading with them to stop:

    I received a message on Sat Oct 14 20:41:58 GMT from brother Osama Abdallah of http://www.answering-christianity.com on my guestbook page (on a website I had a year ago). He asked me to remove the links to Nadir Ahmad’s website that are on my website because he alleges that Nadir’s web propagates “the SICKEST AND MOST DANGEROUS LIE ever invented about Islam and that is Islam allowing sex with animals.” I’ve invested his claim and have yet to find conclusive evidence to this effect. Brother Osama has written detailed articles about this http://www.answering-christianity.com/nadir_ahmeds_lala_world.htm. As to how true they are, I leave that with Allah the Best of Judges to decide. Interestingly, I found brother Jalal Abualrub whom I’ve also quoted in one of my article on brother Osama’s website at http://www.answering-christianity.com/jalal_went_crazy.htm . Truth be known, the articles there shocked me. Brother Osama calls Jalal Abualrub a Dajjal for reasons he explained in the respective articles. This is a very very serious allegation to make to a fellow Muslim. Calling someone a dajjal is worse than calling someone a kafir though both are derogatory remarks when made to a fellow Muslim brother. A dajjal is not only a believer but also one who strives secretly and maliciously for the destruction of Islam, na’uzubillah. How can we possibly call another brother with such a term?? Osama says that brother Jalal is a takfiri as he has called him a kafir before and he provides e-mails to substantiate this. Once again, how true these allegations are, I leave that with Allah the Best of Judges to decide. I do not intend to get into whatever qualms these brothers have with one another, but I will have to say something about it as it has been brought to my attention by Osama Abdallah himself. Had he not posted his message to my guestbook, I would not have publicised this sort of letter for the whole world to see. I would rather talk about this behind closed doors as it is exposing my fellow brothers to unnecessary shame. But Osama’s move to send the message to me in public has forced me against my own good conscience.

    My dear brothers in faith, Osama Abdallah, Jalal Abualrub and Nadir Ahmad. I am young and I will not pretend to be more knowledgeable than any of you. I am not. Please do not mistake this article as a challenge to your credibility or intelligence. It is simply a sincere effort to say that which I perceive to be the truth that ought to be shared to one and all. I am quite certain my dear brothers that you know how serious the matters of takfeer and of course gheebah are. But for the benefit of the readers I will present Islam’s position regarding the issue…

    My dear brothers and sisters, calling fellow brethren kuffar risks being kuffar ourselves. Thus, let us abstain from such a path lest we damn ourselves for it. Brother Osama, you allege that brother Jalal is a takfiri, yet you fall into the same category when you pronounced him a dajjal which in fact carries a worse connotation. Let us return to the Prophet’s path ya akhi. Brothers Osama, Jalal and Nadir…you’ve been involved with enemies of Islam for a very long time. You should know better than to quarrel with one another to the extent of declaring one another kuffar. Don’t we realise that Sam Shamoun and the likes of him hold parties whenever we indulge in such detrimental activities? (An open letter to Osama Abdallah, Nadir Ahmed and Jalal Abualrub – A message for Osama Abdallah, Jalal Abualrub and Nadir Ahmad, by Ibn Anwar: http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2007/11/14/an-open-letter-to-osama-abdallah-nadir-ahmed-and-jalal-abulalrub/)

    What this demonstrates is that these liars have no shame and respect for anyone. It is they, not I, who started mocking the true God and his Word, the Holy Bible, and yet when I returned the favor they tried to use that against me and accuse me of being the one who caused all of this. And I do know the reason why they have been trying to slander my character so viciously. They are attempting to get people to stop reading my articles or for taking my criticisms of Islam seriously, since they realize how damaging our material is in exposing the lies and deceptions of Muhammad, but unfortunately for them it is not working.

    There are a lot more emails for me to produce but since this is getting rather lengthy I will have to stop for now. Lord willing, in the near future I will produce all the emails which I received over the years from Muslims such as Osama Abdallah and the rest to see who actually started with the insults and ridicules.

    Still more to come.

  177. Sam Shamoun says:

    And now the final part:

    The Biblical Justification For Ridicule and Mockery

    What makes this rather sad is that this very hypocrite and liar, Zawadi, knows of all this and yet attacks me when I respond to these very same blasphemers in like manner, in a manner which they deserve, one which is in line with the teachings of the prophets and apostles. After all, the Bible does say that God mocks the unbelievers:

    “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. ‘Let us break their chains,’ they say, and throw off their fetters.’ The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. Psalm 2:1-4

    “but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming.” Psalm 37:13

    “Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks: ‘How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you. Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you,” Proverbs 1:20-26

    This, perhaps, explains the prophet Elijah’s mocking the false prophets of Baal, since he was only imitating Yahweh his God at this point:

    “So Ahab sent to all the people of Israel and gathered the prophets together at Mount Carmel. And Elijah came near to all the people and said, ‘How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.’ And the people did not answer him a word. Then Elijah said to the people, ‘I, even I only, am left a prophet of the LORD, but Baal’s prophets are 450 men. Let two bulls be given to us, and let them choose one bull for themselves and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. And I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood and put no fire to it. And you call upon the name of your god, and I will call upon the name of the LORD, and the God who answers by fire, he is God.’ And all the people answered, ‘It is well spoken.’ Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, ‘Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it.’ And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, ‘O Baal, answer us!’ But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah MOCKED THEM, saying, ‘Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, OR HE IS RELIEVING HIMSELF, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.’ And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.” 1 Kings 18:20-29

    Some of the prophets even called people stupid and foolish!

    “For my people are foolish; they know me not; they are stupid children; they have no understanding. They are ‘wise’—in doing evil! But how to do good they know not.” Jeremiah 4:22

    “They are both stupid and foolish; the instruction of idols is but wood! … Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols, for his images are false, and there is no breath in them.” Jeremiah 10:8, 14

    Moreover, the Lord Jesus himself and his apostles did not hesitate to insult those who deserved it:

    “When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised. Then the Lord said to him, ‘Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it.’ One of the experts in the law answered him, ‘Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.’ Jesus replied, ‘And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Because of this, God in his wisdom said, “I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.” Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all. Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.’ When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, waiting to catch him in something he might say.” Luke 11:37-54

    Even though one of the teachers of the law informed the Lord that his comments were hurtful and insulting he still went ahead to rebuke them rather harshly.

    The Apostle Paul called the Judaizers, or Jews who were preaching a false Gospel, dogs:

    “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—” Philippians 3:2-3

    Moreover, here is how this blessed Apostle treated a sorcerer who opposed and sought to hinder the spread of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ:

    “When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus. He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, ‘You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.’ Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand. Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord.” Acts 13:6-12

    And Peter likened apostate and heretical Christians to animals, dogs and swine:

    “But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish… They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.’” 2 Peter 2:12, 19-22

    In this the apostles were imitating the language of the Lord Jesus:

    “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.” Matthew 7:6

    What all of these examples prove is that it is simply not true that mocking and insulting one’s opponent is unbiblical or unchristian. Even though the Holy Bible says that Christians generally should be gracious in the way they speak, and not return insult for insult:

    “Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:17-21

    “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” Colossians 4:6

    Yet, as the above examples demonstrate, it also allows for exceptions to this general rule of Christian conduct. Otherwise we would have to believe that Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets were all acting in an unchristian manner!

    As the book of Ecclesiastes states:

    “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

    Now this deceiver, Zawadi, seeks to justify these attacks against my person by claiming that I am the one who started with the insults, which is nothing more than a lie since this tradition of mocking, blaspheming, and ridiculing God and his true messengers started long before me, even before Osama and Deedat. It began with his false prophet Muhammad who slandered and lied against God’s prophets and the Lord Jesus and for calling those who refused to believe in him dogs, pigs, swine, the worst creatures etc., solely because they didn’t buy into his false teachings:

    And recite to them the tiding of him to whom We gave Our signs, but he cast them off; and Satan followed after him, and he became one of the perverts. And had We willed, We would have raised him up thereby; but he inclined towards the earth and followed his lust. So the likeness of him is as the likeness of a dog; if thou attackest it it lolls its tongue out, or if thou leavest it, it lolls its tongue out. That is that people’s likeness who cried lies to Our signs. So relate the story; haply they will reflect. An evil likeness is the likeness of the people who cried lies to Our signs, and themselves were wronging. S. 7:175-177 Arberry

    The likeness of those who have been loaded with the Torah then they have not carried it, is as the likeness of an ass carrying books. S. 62:5 Arberry

    Evil is the likeness of the people who have cried lies to God’s signs. God guides never the people of the evildoers. The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolaters shall be in the Fire of Gehenna, therein dwelling forever; those are the worst of creatures. S. 98:6-7 Arberry

    And not only did Muhammad use filthy and vulgar language in his Quran (1, 2, 3, 4), so did his companions:

    … Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!” – al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship – “Would we flee and leave him?” … (The History of al-Tabari – The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76; bold and underline emphasis ours)

    In fact, Muhammad even encouraged his companions to bluntly tell people to bite their fathers’ penises!

    Ubayy b. Ka‘b told that he heard God’s messenger say, “If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father’s penis, AND DO NOT USE A EUPHEMISM.” It is transmitted in Sarah [sic] as-sunna. (Mishkat Al Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes By Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore, Pakistan, Reprinted 1994], Volume II, Book XXIV – General Behaviour, Chapter XIII. Boasting and Party-Spirit, p. 1021; bold and capital emphasis ours)

    {Sidenote: Sarah is a misspelling for Sharh, so that it should have read Sharh as-sunna.}

    And:

    And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to ‘Urwah: “Suck Al-Lat’s clitoris!”[2] – there is a permissibility of speaking plainly the name of the private parts if there is some benefit to be gained thereby, just as he [Muhammad] permitted a plain response to the one who made the claims of the Jahiliyyah (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), by saying: “Bite your father’s penis!”[3] And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying. (Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma’ad), by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: September 2003], Chapter. Regarding the Story of Al-Hudaibiyyah, p. 383; source; words within brackets ours)

    [3] Narrated by Ahmad, on the authority of Ubayy Ibn Ka’b. (Ibid.)

    It is about time that liars and deceivers like Zawadi got a dose of their own medicine to see first hand how it feels whenever a Muslim ridicules the blessed and holy apostles such as Paul, insult and blaspheme the Bible’s depiction of the virgin birth, mock our belief in the Incarnation (“your God wore diapers and crapped all over himself” etc.).

    With the foregoing in view our advice to Zawadi is to first practice what he preaches and inform his partners in crime to refrain from mocking and blaspheming so as to not be on the other end of the stick. In the words of his own false prophet:

    And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fairseeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do. S. 6:108 Hilali-Khan

    Finally, it is not my fault that Zawadi has been deceived into believing that Muhammad was a prophet and that there was nothing immoral and filthy about a fifty-four year old man sleeping with a minor. For those of us who have been illuminated by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we can’t help but to see how evil and filthy this is and to expose it for what it truly is:

    “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible…” Ephesians 5:11-14a

  178. Icedoutplaya says:

    Paul this kung fu pandas look alike stunt double reminds me of a clown who distracts kids at a birthday party so he can trick them. Cant shamoun read what this thread is about. So he couldnt give you a chapter and verse regarding jesus being raised on the third day. Than he couldnt answer my point regarding isaiah 29 and hosea 11. Than he couldnt get around the FACT that jacob and joshua and jesus are connected to PAGAN STONES according to shamoun. Than he took a 5minute break to chew on timothies foreskin. Than he made the claim that the Quran and talmud distort the tanach so when i ask him to challenge me to show him proof that the biblical jesus distorted the tanach he ignores me completely. Than he copies and pastes his trash articles regarding prophet Muhammad dying a cursed death when his own Bible EXPLICITLY calls a person who dies NAKED on a cross a cursed death. So shamoun once again im telling you to answer me regarding isaiah 29 and the PAGAN stones that jesus is connected with and also challenge me to prove to you that the biblical jesus distorted the old testament. Dont play silly games by posting your trash articles as they have already been refuted by bassam. Ps sam i know some people in chicago who have some bleeding genitals they told me to ask you to come “heal” them

  179. Paul Williams says:

    Sam you have already been comprehensively refuted, but you can rant on at Paul’s expense if you wish.

    Now to a matter that concerns many people. And i insist on an answer before you write anything else:

    How do you respond to the documented evidence that is cataloged here of your disgraceful behaviour?

    Sam Shamoun: A Disgrace To Christians

    By

    Bassam Zawadi

    I am writing this brief note to simply let Muslims know that not all Christians have filthy manners like Sam Shamoun. Sam Shamoun does not exhibit the character of a true Christian believer. I have to be honest and admit this, for it won’t be fair to portray a wrong image of Christians based on this ill mannered man.

    Visit the links below and see for your self the evidence for Shamoun’s lowly character…

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/pussy_cat_threats.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_pornographic_manners.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/examining_sam_shamouns_character_5.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/why_we_expose_shamoun.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_foul_insults_exposed.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamouns_ludicrous_response.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/shamoun_foul_mouth_2.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sami_zaatri/examining_sam_shamoun_4.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/bassam_zawadi/Shamouns_bad_character.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/bassam_zawadi/shamoun_s_character_2.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/more_shamoun_foul_language.htm

    http://www.authenticsunnah.org/sam_shamoun_is_despised.htm

    This shameless missionary gets too emotional when he defends his religion. When I used to use Paltalk and I released some new articles Shamoun always used to private message me and tell me that my articles are stupid and that he would destroy them. How narrow minded and childish can one be? Even one time, I spoke to him via audio on Paltalk and I asked him why he had such bad manners. He apologised to me for being rude and then told me that he was from the Middle East and that people from the Middle East have bad tempers, thus they can break down at times! What a foolish response. I am from the Middle East as well and I don’t have that lowly character. (wasn’t Jesus from the Middle East as well?) Perhaps Shamoun is using his false God (Biblical Jesus) as a role model and thinks that its okay to insult non Christians since the Biblical Jesus did the same thing (see Matthew 23:33 & Luke 11:40). Well, if that is the case then Shamoun should not be allowed to practice this certain aspect of his religion (assuming Christianity does make it permissible) with others since its offensive to others.

    Even after the conversation in which Shamoun apologised to me, he continued to be rude and started his insulting spree all over again.

    There are also many other Christian missionaries who have filthy manners such as Sam Shamoun, however I urge all Muslims to not commit the same fallacy that people these days commit against Muslims and start stereotyping. For if we do we won’t ever be encouraged to have reasonable interfaith dialogues with any Christians then. So judge these Christians individually, not collectively.

    The verdict that is passed on Sam Shamoun is that he is ill mannered and hates Islam with all his heart and soul and is too narrow minded to have a proper discussion with. Nevertheless, we will continue to refute Shamoun’ articles here from time to time so that we won’t allow him to brainwash the innocent public.

  180. Sam Shamoun says:

    Williams, I just posted all the filthy, nasty, obscene emails from your fellow Muhammadans which I have posted for all to see here: http://answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_puberty3.htm

    Yet I am waiting for badmanna to post all of them. So make sure to enjoy them since exposes what kind of wicked, filthy hypocrites you guys truly are.

    Man it must be eating you up inside!

  181. Sam Shamoun says:

    Anyway Williams, since you have been utterly humiliated the least I can do is let you get in the last cheap shot as a way of exemplifying the kind of spirit that permeates your religion. ;-)

  182. Sam Shamoun says:

    And do forgive all my typos.

  183. Sam Shamoun says:

    Badmanna, iced has got me confused with his one of his mothers, Saudah, who was the original kung fu panda that seemed to love to feast on happy meals from Mecca-donalds, which is why Muhammad chose to dump her. He was repulsed by old fat woman. ;-)

  184. Sam Shamoun says:

    Anyway brother badmanna, I do hope you enjoyed my posting all these articles exposing this false religion and its apologists. I need to get back to my work and therefore must sign off until a future time, if the Lord wills. In the meantime, keep up the great fight.

  185. Paul Williams says:

    Paul, now Sam has to go back to work, maybe you can answer the original question:

    “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures”

    Could you just refer me to the chapter and verse where it says this. It should be a very easy thing to do.

  186. madmanna says:

    Genesis 1 v 1 thru Malachi 4 v 6

  187. Sam Shamoun says:

    BTW Williams, since I said you can have the last word I won’t turn this to a response to you. Rather, I want to say that despite your inconsistencies which drives me up the wall, you do happen to be my favorite Muslim polemicist. I even like most of your presentations (not all, since in some of them you do take some cheap shots and hurl insults at Christians) better than I do anyone else’s.

    Anyway, time for me to get to those donuts that your were so kind to send me. :-)

  188. Sam Shamoun says:

    ROFL! Madmanna, that was way too funny!

  189. Paul Williams says:

    “Genesis 1 v 1 thru Malachi 4 v 6″

    OK. Genesis chapter 1 verse 1 reads

    ‘In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth’

    Now let me see:

    “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures”

    hmmm. Nope – not there. I’ve read the whole of Genesis many times and I must confess that I cannot recall any mention of the messiah dying and rising on the third day.

    Perhaps you can give me a reference – I’m still looking Paul!

  190. Icedoutplaya says:

    Im glad to know that sam cant answer simple questions so to try to avoid the issue at hand he just copies his long and worn and boring articles. Sam stop dancing around refute me on isaiah 29:12 and hosea 11 and tell me why those PAGAN STONEs are connected with jacob joshua and jesus. And challenge me to prove to you that jesus distorted the tanach.

  191. icedoutplaya says:

    sam do u know what i find even funnier than badmanna’s reference,the fact that the new testament is based on MADE UP prophecies,just like the book of mormon,and if u try to claim the Quran is based on made up prophecies than u can simply answer my original questions.so enjoy those doughnuts

  192. Sam Shamoun says:

    Hey Bro,

    Since I know Williams won’t post my comment to his garbage over here:

    I have decided to post here so you can also benefit from it. So enjoy!

    Here is a better quote:

    As We have sent down on the dividers. THE ONES WHO HAVE TAKEN THE QURAN APART. S. 15:90-91 Reformist Translation

    Here are some of the various ways that Q. 15:91 has been translated:

    Those who made the Quran INTO SHREDS. Shakir

    (So also on such) as have made Qur’an into shreds (as they please). Y. Ali

    Those who break the Qur’an into parts. Pickthall

    who dismember the Qur’an. Palmer

    who have broken the Koran into fragments. Arberry

    Who splintered the Quran into diverse parts. Tarif Khalidi

    Those who divided the Qur’an into parts. Maulana Muhammad Ali

    Those who break the Quran into separate parts. Hamid S. Aziz

    Those who have broken the Qur’an into fragments (as they please). Ali Unal

    and also divided the Quran believing in some parts and rejecting others. Muhammad Sarwar

    and who have broken the Scripture into fragments— Wahiduddin Khan

    And severed their Scripture into fragments. Muhammad Ahmed-Samira

    It is thus clear from this verse that the words of the Quran were being changed. As the late Islamic Scholar Alphonse Mingana explained:

    “Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): ‘As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,’ we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses.” (Mingana, “Three Ancient Korans”, The Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book, edited by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)

    Taken from my article: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/corruption_testimony.html

    And “Christian scholars” also admit that the Quran is filled with fables, myths, errors and contradictions.

  193. shisya says:

    It’s sad to see the comments here have turned vicious, with charges traded from both sides. These posts have done nothing to enlighten us. Being a Christian, my appeal is to Bro Sam who is one with me in the Lord. I know the lies, distortion and double standards of the Muslims apologists does pain us and gets on our nerves. But when seen from the biblical perspective, this should not surprise us. Their hearts are darkened and hardened, under the control of the devil (Ephesians 4:18). So when they distort and commit double standards they are only following the natural tendency of their hearts. They cannot do otherwise. At one time we too were like them (Titus 3:3). But God saved us because of his love and mercy and opened our heart to turn to him (Acts 16:14). Having said this, I believe God uses means to accomplish this. So we need to reason with them and respond to their writings and objections which prevent them from accepting the gospel, but we need to do so in a spirit of love and gentleness. Given the hardened heart, no amount of reasoning will convince them of the truth of the gospel. Even Pharaoh did not submit himself to God despite being shown powerful miracles which even his magicians declared to be the finger of God (Exodus 8:19). This was so because his heart was hardened. We need to pray that God will work mightily in the hearts of Muslims, to open their hearts to the gospel of Our Lord and savior Jesus. I also believe that love can penetrate the recesses of the heart where reason cannot penetrate. So let us continue to love them. We need to be calm and full of joy as we go about doing this. It’s God’s job to convince a person of the truth and open his heart. Our job is to pursue the means that God uses to bring this about. Moreover, our lives are lived before men who are watching us and it’s our duty to magnify our Lord Jesus in our lives and make him sweet before them. By showing malice, bitterness and quarrelling we fail in our endeavor to glorify him. To glorify God and exhibit his character traits in our lives is far more important than winning an argument. May the peace and the joy of our Lord Jesus be with us.

  194. Sam Shamoun says:

    Shisya, let me give you a more balanced approach taken from the Scriptures themselves, taken from one of my rebuttals:

    The Biblical Justification For Ridicule and Mockery

    What makes this rather sad is that this very hypocrite and liar, Zawadi, knows of all this and yet attacks me when I respond to these very same blasphemers in like manner, in a manner which they deserve, one which is in line with the teachings of the prophets and apostles. After all, the Bible does say that God mocks the unbelievers:

    “Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. ‘Let us break their chains,’ they say, and throw off their fetters.’ The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. Psalm 2:1-4

    “but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming.” Psalm 37:13

    “Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the markets she raises her voice; at the head of the noisy streets she cries out; at the entrance of the city gates she speaks: ‘How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple? How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing and fools hate knowledge? If you turn at my reproof, behold, I will pour out my spirit to you; I will make my words known to you. Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded, because you have ignored all my counsel and would have none of my reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when terror strikes you,” Proverbs 1:20-26

    This, perhaps, explains the prophet Elijah’s mocking the false prophets of Baal, since he was only imitating Yahweh his God at this point:

    “So Ahab sent to all the people of Israel and gathered the prophets together at Mount Carmel. And Elijah came near to all the people and said, ‘How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.’ And the people did not answer him a word. Then Elijah said to the people, ‘I, even I only, am left a prophet of the LORD, but Baal’s prophets are 450 men. Let two bulls be given to us, and let them choose one bull for themselves and cut it in pieces and lay it on the wood, but put no fire to it. And I will prepare the other bull and lay it on the wood and put no fire to it. And you call upon the name of your god, and I will call upon the name of the LORD, and the God who answers by fire, he is God.’ And all the people answered, ‘It is well spoken.’ Then Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, ‘Choose for yourselves one bull and prepare it first, for you are many, and call upon the name of your god, but put no fire to it.’ And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, ‘O Baal, answer us!’ But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah MOCKED THEM, saying, ‘Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, OR HE IS RELIEVING HIMSELF, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.’ And they cried aloud and cut themselves after their custom with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them. And as midday passed, they raved on until the time of the offering of the oblation, but there was no voice. No one answered; no one paid attention.” 1 Kings 18:20-29

    Some of the prophets even called people stupid and foolish!

    “For my people are foolish; they know me not; they are stupid children; they have no understanding. They are ‘wise’—in doing evil! But how to do good they know not.” Jeremiah 4:22

    “They are both stupid and foolish; the instruction of idols is but wood! … Every man is stupid and without knowledge; every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols, for his images are false, and there is no breath in them.” Jeremiah 10:8, 14

    Moreover, the Lord Jesus himself and his apostles did not hesitate to insult those who deserved it:

    “When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised. Then the Lord said to him, ‘Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? But give what is inside the dish to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces. Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it.’ One of the experts in the law answered him, ‘Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.’ Jesus replied, ‘And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them. Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them. So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. Because of this, God in his wisdom said, “I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.” Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all. Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.’ When Jesus left there, the Pharisees and the teachers of the law began to oppose him fiercely and to besiege him with questions, waiting to catch him in something he might say.” Luke 11:37-54

    Even though one of the teachers of the law informed the Lord that his comments were hurtful and insulting he still went ahead to rebuke them rather harshly.

    The Apostle Paul called the Judaizers, or Jews who were preaching a false Gospel, dogs:

    “Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh. For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—” Philippians 3:2-3

    Moreover, here is how this blessed Apostle treated a sorcerer who opposed and sought to hinder the spread of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ:

    “When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus. He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, ‘You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.’ Immediately mist and darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking people to lead him by the hand. Then the proconsul believed, when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished at the teaching of the Lord.” Acts 13:6-12

    And Peter likened apostate and heretical Christians to animals, dogs and swine:

    “But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish… They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: ‘A dog returns to its vomit,’ and, ‘A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud.’” 2 Peter 2:12, 19-22

    In this the apostles were imitating the language of the Lord Jesus:

    “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.” Matthew 7:6

    What all of these examples prove is that it is simply not true that mocking and insulting one’s opponent is unbiblical or unchristian. Even though the Holy Bible says that Christians generally should be gracious in the way they speak, and not return insult for insult:

    “Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Romans 12:17-21

    “Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” Colossians 4:6

    Yet, as the above examples demonstrate, it also allows for exceptions to this general rule of Christian conduct. Otherwise we would have to believe that Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets were all acting in an unchristian manner!

    As the book of Ecclesiastes states:

    “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.” Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

    Now this deceiver, Zawadi, seeks to justify these attacks against my person by claiming that I am the one who started with the insults, which is nothing more than a lie since this tradition of mocking, blaspheming, and ridiculing God and his true messengers started long before me, even before Osama and Deedat. It began with his false prophet Muhammad who slandered and lied against God’s prophets and the Lord Jesus and for calling those who refused to believe in him dogs, pigs, swine, the worst creatures etc., solely because they didn’t buy into his false teachings:

    And recite to them the tiding of him to whom We gave Our signs, but he cast them off; and Satan followed after him, and he became one of the perverts. And had We willed, We would have raised him up thereby; but he inclined towards the earth and followed his lust. So the likeness of him is as the likeness of a dog; if thou attackest it it lolls its tongue out, or if thou leavest it, it lolls its tongue out. That is that people’s likeness who cried lies to Our signs. So relate the story; haply they will reflect. An evil likeness is the likeness of the people who cried lies to Our signs, and themselves were wronging. S. 7:175-177 Arberry

    The likeness of those who have been loaded with the Torah then they have not carried it, is as the likeness of an ass carrying books. S. 62:5 Arberry

    Evil is the likeness of the people who have cried lies to God’s signs. God guides never the people of the evildoers. The unbelievers of the People of the Book and the idolaters shall be in the Fire of Gehenna, therein dwelling forever; those are the worst of creatures. S. 98:6-7 Arberry

    And not only did Muhammad use filthy and vulgar language in his Quran (1, 2, 3, 4), so did his companions:

    … Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!” – al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship – “Would we flee and leave him?” … (The History of al-Tabari – The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76; bold and underline emphasis ours)

    In fact, Muhammad even encouraged his companions to bluntly tell people to bite their fathers’ penises!

    Ubayy b. Ka‘b told that he heard God’s messenger say, “If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father’s penis, AND DO NOT USE A EUPHEMISM.” It is transmitted in Sarah [sic] as-sunna. (Mishkat Al Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes By Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore, Pakistan, Reprinted 1994], Volume II, Book XXIV – General Behaviour, Chapter XIII. Boasting and Party-Spirit, p. 1021; bold and capital emphasis ours)

    {Sidenote: Sarah is a misspelling for Sharh, so that it should have read Sharh as-sunna.}

    And:

    And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to ‘Urwah: “Suck Al-Lat’s clitoris!”[2] – there is a permissibility of speaking plainly the name of the private parts if there is some benefit to be gained thereby, just as he [Muhammad] permitted a plain response to the one who made the claims of the Jahiliyyah (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), by saying: “Bite your father’s penis!”[3] And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying. (Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma’ad), by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: September 2003], Chapter. Regarding the Story of Al-Hudaibiyyah, p. 383; source; words within brackets ours)

    [3] Narrated by Ahmad, on the authority of Ubayy Ibn Ka’b. (Ibid.)

    It is about time that liars and deceivers like Zawadi got a dose of their own medicine to see first hand how it feels whenever a Muslim ridicules the blessed and holy apostles such as Paul, insult and blaspheme the Bible’s depiction of the virgin birth, mock our belief in the Incarnation (“your God wore diapers and crapped all over himself” etc.).

    With the foregoing in view our advice to Zawadi is to first practice what he preaches and inform his partners in crime to refrain from mocking and blaspheming so as to not be on the other end of the stick. In the words of his own false prophet:

    And insult not those whom they (disbelievers) worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge. Thus We have made fairseeming to each people its own doings; then to their Lord is their return and He shall then inform them of all that they used to do. S. 6:108 Hilali-Khan

    Finally, it is not my fault that Zawadi has been deceived into believing that Muhammad was a prophet and that there was nothing immoral and filthy about a fifty-four year old man sleeping with a minor. For those of us who have been illuminated by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we can’t help but to see how evil and filthy this is and to expose it for what it truly is:

    “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible…” Ephesians 5:11-14a

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s