As promised we resume our analysis of Sami’s
debate points.
As far as Muhammad initially believing that he was demon-possessed Sami responded by
appealing to the fact that Muhammad grew up in a different environment that was completely
pagan, and therefore didn’t know any better. This shows that he is either ignorant of
what his own religious texts teach or he is simply lying.
This claim is blatantly false in light of what the Islamic sources themselves say. For
instance, Muslim records state that Ishmael settled in Mecca where both he and Abraham
built the Kabah.
The Quran even says that Ishmael was given a book by revelation and commanded his
people in the way of true religion:
We have revealed to thee as We revealed to Noah, and the Prophets after him, and We
revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, Jesus and Job,
Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave to David Psalms, S. 4:163
And We gave to him Isaac and Jacob -- each one We guided, And Noah We guided before;
and of his seed David and Solomon, Job and Joseph, Moses and Aaron -- even so We
recompense the good-doers -- Zachariah and John, Jesus and Elias; each was of the
righteous; Ishmael and Elisha, Jonah and Lot-each one We preferred above all
beings; and of their fathers, and of their seed, and of their brethren; and We elected
them, and We guided them to a straight path. That is God's guidance; He guides by it whom
He will of His servants; had they been idolaters, it would have failed them, the things
they did. Those are they to whom We gave the Book, the Judgment, the Prophethood;
so if these disbelieve in it, We have already entrusted it to a people who do not
disbelieve in it. S. 6:84-89
And mention in the Book Ishmael; he was true to his promise, and he was a
Messenger, a Prophet. He bade his people to pray and to give the alms, and he was
pleasing to his Lord… These are they whom God has blessed among the Prophets of the
seed of Adam, and of those We bore with Noah, and of the seed of Abraham and Israel, and
of those We guided and chose. When the signs of the All-merciful were recited to them,
they fell down prostrate, weeping. S. 19:54-55, 58
Since the Muslims believe that the Quran is historically accurate they must therefore
accept that Muhammad wasn’t ignorant concerning the religion of Allah and must have
known that his ancestor Ishmael was a prophet who enjoined upon his progeny Tawhid
(Islamic unity) and specific religious practices such as the rites of the pilgrimage (Hajj).
If this is so then Muhammad must have been aware of the prophets and would have an idea
of the nature of revelation.
This is especially true when we realize that Muhammad met some of the so-called hanifs,
or those who had abandoned paganism for the worship of the one true God:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet met Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley of) Baldah before
any Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal was presented to the Prophet but he
refused to eat from it. (Then it was presented to Zaid) who said, "I do not eat
anything which you slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things
on which Allah's Name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering." Zaid bin
'Amr used to criticize the way Quraish used to slaughter their animals, and used to say,
"Allah has created the sheep and He has sent the water for it from the sky, and He
has grown the grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in other than the Name of
Allah." He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and considered it as
something abominable.
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail went to Sham, inquiring about a true
religion to follow. He met a Jewish religious scholar and asked him about their religion.
He said, "I intend to embrace your religion, so tell me something about it." The
Jew said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you receive your share of Allah's
Anger." Zaid said, "I do not run except from Allah's Anger, and I will never
bear a bit of it if I have the power to avoid it. Can you tell me of some other
religion?" He said, "I do not know any other religion except the Hanif."
Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He said, "Hanif is the religion of (the
prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, and he used to worship none but
Allah (Alone)." Then Zaid went out and met a Christian religious scholar and told him
the same as before. The Christian said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you
get a share of Allah's Curse." Zaid replied, "I do not run except from Allah's
Curse, and I will never bear any of Allah's Curse and His Anger if I have the power to
avoid them. Will you tell me of some other religion?" He replied, "I do not know
any other religion except Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He
replied, "Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a
Christian and he used to worship none but Allah (Alone)." When Zaid heard their
Statement about (the religion of) Abraham, he left that place, and when he came out, he
raised both his hands and said, "O Allah! I make You my Witness that I am on the
religion of Abraham."
Narrated Asma bint Abi Bakr: I saw Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail standing with his back
against the Ka'ba and saying, "O people of Quraish! By Allah, none amongst you is on
the religion of Abraham except me." He used to preserve the lives of little girls: If
somebody wanted to kill his daughter he would say to him, "Do not kill her for I will
feed her on your behalf." So he would take her, and when she grew up nicely, he would
say to her father, "Now if you want her, I will give her to you, and if you wish, I
will feed her on your behalf." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58,
Number 169)
The same Islamic sources also report that while traveling with his uncle to Syria,
Muhammad met a monk named Bahira who claimed that he was the prophet predicted in the Holy
Bible. Furthermore, after Muhammad’s encounters with a spirit his wife took him to
her relative Waraqa b. Naufal who was a Christian priest. This shows that he would have
had some idea concerning the Biblical teaching on prophets and revelation.
Moreover, even if it were true that Muhammad had no prophetic tradition to fall upon
this still wouldn’t justify the manner of his experiences and the suicidal tendencies
which resulted from them. Abraham also had no prophetic tradition to fall upon when God
called him to be his friend. The Holy Bible shows that Abraham’s family members were
idolators:
"Joshua said to all the people, ‘This is what the LORD, the God of Israel,
says: "Long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor,
lived beyond the River and worshiped other gods."’" Joshua 24:2
The Bible describes the call of Abraham:
"The LORD had said to Abram, ‘Leave your country, your people and your
father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will
bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.’ So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot
went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Haran. He took
his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people
they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived
there. Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at
Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. The LORD appeared to Abram and
said, ‘To your offspring I will give this land.’ So he built an altar there
to the LORD, who had appeared to him. From there he went on toward the hills east of
Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built
an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD." Genesis 12:1-8
Unlike Muhammad, Abraham experienced no fears, no doubts, and no suicidal tendencies
when encountering God for the first time. Now if Sami claims that Abraham would have had
an idea of prophecy from his ancestors since he was a descendant of Noah who had spoken
with God, then we would simply repeat what we stated above. If we are to accept the Quran
and the Islamic traditions at face value then Muhammad also knew of Biblical prophecy and
should therefore not have had the doubts and fears that he did. That he did have such
doubts as a result of the violent experiences he had with a spirit that were completely
unlike what God’s true prophets had ever encountered only serves to further confirm
that the true God didn’t speak to him.
Speaking of Waraqa, Sami claimed that since he knew the Holy Bible he would be in a
better position to determine whether what Muhammad encountered was from God or not. And
yet Waraqa testified that Muhammad had seen Gabriel.
The problem with this argument is that Waraqa didn’t have any real reason to
disbelieve Muhammad’s initial fears that a spirit had possessed him. In fact, neither
Waraqa nor Muhammad’s wife provided Muhammad with any legitimate Biblical basis to
deny that the spirit that had appeared to him was either Satan or one of his demons.
Notice what Al-Bukhari records:
Narrated 'Aisha:
(the mother of the faithful believers) The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to
Allah's Apostle was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright day light, and
then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave
of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his
desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then
come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again till suddenly the Truth
descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him
to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read."
The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard
that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read
and I replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ Thereupon he caught me again
and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released
me and again asked me to read but again I replied, ‘I do not know how to read (or
what shall I read)?’ Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me,
and then released me and said, ‘Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all
that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most
Generous.’" (96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allah’s Apostle returned with the
Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija
bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his
fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I
fear that something may happen to me." Khadija replied, "Never! By
Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your kith and
kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the
deserving calamity-afflicted ones."
Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin ‘Abdul
‘Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the
writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah
wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa,
"Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my
nephew! What have you seen?" Allah’s Apostle described whatever he had seen.
Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah
had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people
would turn you out." Allah’s Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?"
Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something
similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive
till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly."
But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1,
Number 3)
The reasons that Khadijah gave to convince Muhammad that he wasn’t possessed are
unconvincing since even relatively good people can come under satanic possession.
More importantly, for a person who was supposed to be reading the Gospel Waraqa was
rather too hasty in assuming that God had sent to Muhammad the same entity that had also
appeared to Moses. Waraqa must have known that no genuine Biblical prophet had ever been
violated and demoralized by God’s Spirit or holy angels. Besides, Waraqa should have
known to test the message brought by this spirit to see if it was in complete agreement
with the Gospel that he was reading and had access to. After all, the New Testament
expressly says not to believe every entity but to test them so as to see whether they
confess the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ:
"I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as
a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his
cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For
if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if
you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept
a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough…
For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of
Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness.
Their end will correspond to their deeds." 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, 13-15
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see
whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that
Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not
acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have
heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and
have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the
world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and
the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but
whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of
truth and the spirit of falsehood. Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes
from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love
does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He
sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is
love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning
sacrifice for our sins." 1 John 4:1-10; cf. 2:22-23; Galatians 1:8-9
In the context, what John means by Christ coming in the flesh is that the prehuman Son
of God came down from heaven and become a man. In other words, John is referring to the
Incarnation, e.g. all true prophets who speak by God’s Spirit must testify that Jesus
is God’s preexistent Son who became flesh, became a man, in order to save us from our
sins. Since Muhammad denied this he is one of those false prophets that came into the
world.
Interestingly, Waraqa himself wasn’t completely certain at first that the spirit
who appeared to Muhammad was Gabriel since he suspected that it might have been Satan
or a demon:
"Waraqa was dumbfounded at this, and said, ‘If Gabriel has actually placed
his feet upon the earth, he has done so for the best of people thereupon. And he never
came down for anyone except a prophet. For he is the companion of all the prophets and
messengers, the one whom God sends down to them. I believe what you tell me of him. Send
for ‘Abd Allah’s son, so that I may question him, hear what he says and talk to
him. I am afraid it may be someone other than Gabriel, for certain devils imitate
him and by so doing can mislead and corrupt some men. This can result in a man
becoming confused and even crazy whereas before he had been of sound mind.’"
(Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume I,
translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing
Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim
Contribution to Civilization, 1998], pp. 296-297; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Finally, pay attention to the statement of the hadith that Waraqa died shortly after
Muhammad started having these experiences and never got to hear the message that Muhammad
would eventually bring. Had he continued to live and actually learned what Muhammad would
later preach about Jesus Christ and his Cross, Waraqa may not have been so keen to support
him and may have come to the realization that his fears concerning that it was one of the
devils who appeared to Muhammad was correct.
Thus, Sami’s appeal to Waraqa’s testimony is quite suspect.
For more on Muhammad’s initial fears we suggest the following articles:
When Wood mentioned Muhammad and his thugs raping captive women Sami denied this
and claimed that this was consensual sex. He even had the audacity to say that Islam
doesn’t allow raping slaves!
Here is what the Quran actually says:
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 adultery since it is permitting Muslims
to rape captives who are 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)
Noted Sunni expositor Ibn Kathir wrote:
<except those whom your right hands possess>
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…
<Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands
possess>.
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)
Zaatari wants his audience to really believe that these women, whose land had been
pillaged, their people murdered, and whose captive husbands were right there before them,
actually consented to having sex with their captors! In fact, these women couldn’t
wait to sleep with their Muslim overlords!
As if he couldn’t get any more desperate Zaatari misapplies the following hadith:
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.’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2,
Number 29)
By appealing to this narrative Sami has now caused himself a major problem. If his
eisegesis is correct then this means that the men whom the Muslims took captive were also
to be treated as their brothers. This being the case why does Muhammad and his Quran allow
the Muslims to sleep with these men’s wives? Is this how Muslims are to love their
slaves as their brothers? Would Sami’s father allow his fellow Muslim to sleep with
Sami’s mom? Wouldn’t this be adultery? And if Sami did have a Muslim slave who
was married would it be lawful for him to sleep with his slave’s wife as an act of
brotherly love?
It is apparent that what Muhammad meant here is that a Muslim is not to mistreat his
Muslim slave. This doesn’t apply to the disbelievers who have been taken captive
since the Quran disavows and disallows loving unbelievers even if they happen to be family
members:
O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitanah (advisors, consultants,
protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians,
and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to
harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts
conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayat (proofs, evidences,
verses) if you understand. Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and
you believe in all the Scriptures [i.e. you believe in the Taurat (Torah) and
the Injeel (Gospel), while they disbelieve in your Book, the Qur'an]. And when
they meet you, they say, "We believe". But when they are alone, they bite
the tips of their fingers at you in rage. Say: "Perish in your rage. Certainly,
Allah knows what is in the breasts (all the secrets)." If a good befalls you,
it grieves them, but if some evil overtakes you, they rejoice at it. But if you remain
patient and become Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2), not the least harm will
their cunning do to you. Surely, Allah surrounds all that they do. S. 3:118-120 Hilali-Khan
O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to
offer God an open proof against yourselves? S. 4:144 Pickthall
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other.
Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. God guides not the
people of the evildoers. Yet thou seest those in whose hearts is sickness vying with one
another to come to them, saying, 'We fear lest a turn of fortune should smite us.' But it
may be that God will bring the victory, or some commandment from Him, and then they will
find themselves, for that they kept secret within them, remorseful, and the believers will
say, 'What, are these the ones who swore by God most earnest oaths that they were with
you? Their works have failed now they are losers.' O believers, whosoever of you turns
from his religion, God will assuredly bring a people He loves, and who love Him,
humble towards the believers, disdainful towards the unbelievers, men who struggle in the
path of God (yujahidoona fee sabeel Allah), not fearing the reproach of any
reproacher. That is God's bounty; He gives it unto whom He will; and God is All-embracing,
All-knowing. Your friend is only God, and His Messenger, and the believers who
perform the prayer and pay the alms, and bow them down. Whoso makes God his friend, and
His Messenger, and the believers -- the party of God (hizba Allah), they are the victors.
O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you,
and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport -- and fear God, if
you are believers -- S. 5:51-57 Arberry
O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they
take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for
friends, such are wrong-doers. Say: If your fathers, and your sons, and your brethren, and
your wives, and your tribe, and the wealth ye have acquired, and merchandise for which ye
fear that there will no sale, and dwellings ye desire are dearer to you than Allah and His
messenger and striving in His way: then wait till Allah bringeth His command to pass.
Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. S. 9:23-24 Pickthall
Thou wilt not find any people who believe in God and the Last Day, loving those
who resist God and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or
their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts,
and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens
beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). God will be well pleased with
them, and they with Him. They are the Party of God. Truly it is the Party of God that will
achieve Felicity. S. 58:22 Y. Ali
He further stated that the Bible doesn’t forbid consensual sex with slaves
(or captives, since this is what Wood was talking about). This exposes his ignorance
of Biblical theology since the Holy Scriptures forbid raping captives and commands
the Israelites to marry them in the case they find one of them attractive:
"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
What makes this injunction truly amazing is that Yahweh expressly forbids the husband
from selling her in the case he divorces the wife, and commands him to send her away as
a free woman to wherever she chooses!
M.G. Kline, considered one of the leading Old Testament theologians of the last
century, wrote concerning this ruling:
"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 mentioned
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 that 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. This is unlike
Muhammad who devalued women by raping and treating them as chattel.
In the debate Sami mentioned my article where I say that the Holy Bible sets the age
for marriage at puberty (*) in order to defend
Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. This, once again, shows that Sami is either ignorant
or was lying since he failed to mention that according to his own sources Aisha hadn’t
reached puberty when Muhammad married her:
‘A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be
upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a
bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet)
died she was eighteen years old. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008,
Number 3311)
The Muslim scholars state that the reason for Aisha being permitted to keep her dolls
after marriage is because she was a prepubertal girl!
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also
used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to
hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing
with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that
time, as she was a little girl, NOT YET REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY.) (Fateh-al-Bari
page 143, Vol.13) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73,
Number 151)
He also failed to mention that the Quran allows Muslims to marry young girls that
haven’t menstruated yet:
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 a woman can only be divorced if she is married and had her marriage consummated,
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 shows that the waiting period only applies in the case of a prepubescent when
her husband has actually slept with her. So it is clear that this injunction 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 have sexual intercourse with them. To put it simply, the Quran is allowing men to
have sex with minors.
And just in case Zaatari squirms his way from admitting that this is what his book
teaches here is how some of Islam’s greatest expositors interpreted 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;
source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
And:
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;
source;
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; sources 1,
2; bold emphasis added)
Interestingly, al-Bukhari mentioned Aisha’s marriage as an example of a married
prepubescent girl per Q. 65:4:
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; source)
This provides additional corroboration that Muhammad married his child bride before
she reached maidenhood. Thus, according to the Holy Bible Muhammad stands condemned for
marrying a minor and for allowing others to sleep with prepubertal girls.
Sami also stated that Aisha’s parents didn’t have a problem with Muhammad
marrying their daughter, which is another lie since this is how Aisha’s father
reacted:
Narrated Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am
your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion
and His Book, but she ('Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62,
Number 18)
Doesn’t Abu Bakr’s reaction refute such a claim? Was he not clearly objecting
to Muhammad’s proposal, in fact perturbed and shocked that his prophet would do such
a thing?
For more on this point we recommend the following:
Wood mentioned the fact that Muhammad failed to apply his rules fairly since he had
more wives than what he allowed for his followers. Sami again sourced the OT to show
that prophets like David had three hundred wives (sic). He then said that the Bible
doesn’t say to marry only one woman!
So we won’t say much concerning them apart from correcting his ignorance since it
wasn’t David who had three hundred wives, but his son Solomon who fell away from the
faith as a result of his polygynous marriages:
"King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's
daughter—Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from
nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, ‘You must not intermarry with
them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods.’ Nevertheless,
Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three
hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned
his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as
the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the
Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes
of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done. On a
hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab,
and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign
wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods. The LORD became angry with
Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had
appeared to him twice. Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did
not keep the LORD’s command. So the LORD said to Solomon, ‘Since this is your
attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will
most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates.
Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I
will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him,
but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of
Jerusalem, which I have chosen.’" 1 Kings 11:1-13
What we want to do here is to see what happens when we hold Sami’s feet to the
fire by showing how Muhammad’s commands contradict the instructions found in the
Hebrew Bible.
God’s true Law condemns anyone who would remarry a divorcee that went on to marry
someone else:
"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds
something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her
and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of
another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce,
gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who
divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would
be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your
God is giving you as an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:1-4
The Quran, however, says that the only way that a man can remarry his former spouse is
if she has married and had sex with someone else!
"A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold
together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (men),
to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they
would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that
they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of
them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah. So do
not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong
(themselves as well as others). So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he
cannot, after that, re- marry her until after she has married another husband and he
has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite,
provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. Such are the limits
ordained by Allah, which He makes plain to those who understand." S. 2:229-230
God’s Law also commands that his people Israel observe Sabbath, and whoever failed
to do so was to be put to death:
"Then the LORD said to Moses, ‘Say to the Israelites, ‘You must
observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to
come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Observe the Sabbath, because
it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work
on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the
seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the
Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath,
celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign
between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and
the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed."’" Exodus 31:12-17
Muhammad, however, set it aside for Friday out of spite for the Jews and Christians.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "We (Muslims) are the last (to come) but (will be)
the foremost on the Day of Resurrection though the former nations were given the Holy
Scriptures before us. And this was their day (Friday) the celebration of which was made
compulsory for them but they differed about it. So Allah gave us the guidance for it
(Friday) and all the other people are behind us in this respect: the Jews’ (holy day
is) tomorrow (i.e. Saturday) and the Christians’ (is) the day after tomorrow (i.e.
Sunday)." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 13,
Number 1;
see also Number 21)
Finally, recall that earlier we saw how God’s true Word forbids the Israelites
from raping their captive women and presupposes puberty as the starting age for marriage.
Muhammad goes against this by permitting his men to have sex with minors and to rape their
captive women.
So if Zaatari keeps appealing to the Law to vindicate Muhammad then he must
consistently apply this same standard to condemn his prophet as a fraud and deceiver for
breaking it.
For more on Muhammad breaking God’s true Law we recommend the following article:
The final point we will address is Sami’s claim in his debate with Nabeel that
the word for "just as" in John 5:23 is the Greek word kathos, which can
mean that Jesus is telling people to honor him exactly like the Father or in a similar
proportion to the honor that the Father receives. He then appeals to the Lord’s
Prayer (cf. Matthew 6:9-13) to show that Jesus told people to pray to the Father which
somehow proves that Christ wasn’t saying to give him the same exact honor.
First, here is how one lexical source defines the term:
This particular lexicon doesn’t list "in a similar proportion to" but
rather "in proportion as." The latter would mean that the proportion of honor
that Jesus receives is as the honor that the Father receives, refuting Zaatari’s
case. In fact, saying that Jesus receives honor in a similar proportion to the honor that
the Father receives basically says the same thing. After all, what honor does the Father
receive which the Son doesn’t?
It can’t be worship since Jesus is worshiped by all creation just as the Father is:
"And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
‘Let all God's angels worship him.’" Hebrews 1:6
"After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven.
And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, ‘Come up here,
and I will show you what must take place after this.’ At once I was in the Spirit,
and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who
sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald,
encircled the throne. Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on
them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their
heads. From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before
the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. Also before the
throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around
the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in
back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had
a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. Each of the four living creatures
had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night
they never stop saying: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is,
and is to come.’ Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him
who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down
before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay
their crowns before the throne and say: ‘You are worthy, our Lord and God, to
receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will
they were created and have their being.’" Revelation 4:1-11
"And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders
fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full
of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song: ‘You are
worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your
blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You
have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the
earth.’ Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon
thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living
creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they sang: ‘Worthy is the Lamb, who
was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and
praise!’ Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and
under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: ‘To him who
sits on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and
ever!’ The four living creatures said, ‘Amen,’ and the elders fell
down and worshiped." Revelation 5:8-14
It can’t be prayer since Jesus tells his followers that once he returns to
the Father they can then pray to him and he will answer all of their invocations:
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.
He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And
I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the
Father. You may ask ME for anything in my name, and I will do it."
John 14:12-14
This also addresses Sami’s assertion that by commanding his followers to pray to
the Father this somehow proves that Jesus doesn’t receive the same honor or that we
are not to pray to him since Christ clearly said to his followers that they can and will
pray directly to him and he will personally answer all of these prayers. Now had Jesus
told his followers that they should pray to the Father alone then Zaatari may have
had a case against Christ receiving the same exact honor. Yet unfortunately for Sami that
is not what Christ said.
Other examples of prayers being offered to Jesus include:
"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 7:59-60
"To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called
to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours:" 1 Corinthians 1:2; cf. Acts 9:14, 21
It can’t be reverence since Jesus receives that as well:
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."
Ephesians 5:21
Moreover, in his blatant ignorance or attempt to deceive Zaatari failed to inform the
audience that kathos in the context can only mean that Jesus is to be honored JUST
AS the Father since he personally claims to have the same power that the Father has
and can do whatever the Father does:
"Jesus gave them this answer: ‘I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing
by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because WHATEVER the
Father does THE SON ALSO DOES. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he
does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. For
JUST AS the Father raises the dead and gives them life, EVEN SO the Son gives life to whom
he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted
all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father.
He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. I tell you the
truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be
condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming
and has now come when the dead will hear THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and
those who hear will live. For AS the Father has life in himself, so he has
granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to
judge because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is
coming when all who are in their graves will hear HIS VOICE and come
out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will
rise to be condemned." John 5:19-29
Although Jesus states that he cannot act independently since he can only work in
perfect union with the Father, he qualifies what he means by saying that he is able to do
everything that the Father does, a rather astonishing claim! Jesus, just like the Father,
has life within himself, gives life to whomever he wants, raises the dead both spiritually
and physically, and judges everyone.
Someone who can do whatever God does must be God and therefore proves that Jesus is
to be honored JUST AS the Father is.
For more on Jesus’ perfect union and essential equality with the Father, and
regarding the worship which he receives, we recommend the following material:
Even though Sami raised other issues such as the justification of Muhammad murdering
Kab ibn al-Ahsraf and others, and again appealed to the Bible to show that the Law
condemns blasphemers to death, we will address those points in a separate rebuttal (Lord
Jesus willing).
Hopefully, this will help keep Sami honest in future debates otherwise he will be
exposing himself to further ridicule and shame. One thing for sure, we will not let him
get away with lying or deceiving people since we will be here to expose him whenever he
does by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is too bad that Sami doesn’t see how he keeps digging himself in a bigger hole
every time he opens his mouth to defend his false prophet. We hopefully pray that the Lord
Jesus will give this young man the grace to see clearly and to enable him to break away
from following a false prophet and turn to Christ who is the only hope anyone has of being
saved from the wrath of God which is to come upon the world.
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has
eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."
John 5:24
"The Lord's message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your
faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about
it, 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 1:8-10
"For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation
through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thessalonians 5:9
Addendum
Bassam Zawadi recently produced a series of "replies" to us and even boasted
about it:
March 22, 2008: Today we wish the Anwering [sic] Islam team a happy
'you are being refuted badly' day. (Source)
Zawadi lives under the mistaken impression that just because a person writes tons
of articles this somehow means that s/he has provided a meaningful response, a solid
refutation of the opposing view. In order to help Zawadi see reality more clearly we
need to remind him that it is not the number of articles one produces, but the level
of argumentation that one provides which will determine whether the person is really
addressing the issues. Sadly for Zawadi, his "rebuttals" do far more damage
to Islam than good and only prove that he has no business defending his religion or
criticizing ours.
To give you an example of the quality of arguments produced by Zawadi notice what he
says regarding the contradiction within the Quran concerning Muhammad being nothing more
than a warner:
This is a result of Shamoun taking things TOO LITERALLY
[sic] as we will show. (Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article
"Quran Contradiction: Is Muhammad Only A Warner or a Prophet/Messenger?;
Capital emphasis ours;
source)
And this is supposed to be a convincing argument against our article, the response
which ‘refutes us badly’!
Notice that there is no winning with these Muslim dawagandists since if we take
the Quran at face value then they attack us for reading the text too literally. If we
understand a passage a certain way then either we don’t understand the Arabic or have
not taking the reference literally enough! In either case we are in a lose-lose situation.
Just to expose how desperate this "response" truly is, we take the passages
which say that Muhammad was no more or nothing but a warner as literally as we do those
passages which use the same Arabic terms in regards to Allah being the only god there
is. Thus, if we shouldn’t take the verses which speak of Muhammad being nothing but
a warner literally than consistency demands that we shouldn’t take those statements
concerning there being no god except Allah literally either. For the details please
consult our article (*)
As a further illustration of just how utterly shallow his rebuttals truly are,
Zawadi just came out with a reply
(*)
to my article where I document Muhammad’s false prophecies, thereby exposing his
colleague Sami Zaatari (*).
Zawadi writes concerning Muhammad’s mistaken claim that the Last Hour would arrive
during the lifetime of a specific child who was living during his time:
Now when we bring all the narrations together we know that the Prophet (peace be upon
him) was speaking about the hour of the death of the individuals he was speaking to [sic].
In Islam we consider the Last Hour of someone to be his death as brother Shamul Hameed
states …
That is what the Prophet (peace be upon him) was saying [sic].
It is obvious once again that Bassam has no clue what he is talking about and that he
didn’t even bother reading the hadiths carefully. Here, once, again is the "prophecy":
'A'isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace
be upon him) they asked about THE Last Hour as to when that would come. And
he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said: If he lives he would not grow very
old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you (he would see you dying). (Sahih Muslim, Book 041,
Number 7050)
Pay close attention to the fact that the Arabs did not ask when their deaths or THEIR
Last Hour would approach, but specifically asked concerning THE Last Hour; nor did
Muhammad say that by the Last Hour he meant their deaths. That is merely Zawadi’s
desperate attempt of reading into the text something that is simply not there. This next
report again indicates that by the Last Hour Muhammad meant that the end of the world
would come upon his followers:
Anas b. Malik reported that a person asked Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him): When
would THE Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) kept
quiet for a while, then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of
Azd Shanilwa and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till THE Last
Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those
days. (Sahih Muslim, Book 41,
Number 7052)
And isn’t it obvious that when the Last Day comes this would mean that it is the
Last Hour for Muhammad’s companions as well since this would mark the end of the age?
Interestingly, the translator is actually improving on Muhammad’s speech since
he inserts words in the parentheses that are not part of Muhammad’s statements, i.e.
"he (the child) would see you dying." For one who was supposed be the master of
eloquence Muhammad sure failed to convey his point clearly (assuming of course that Zawadi
and the translator are correct in their interpretation which they aren’t).
To further substantiate that Muhammad was speaking of THE Last Hour, and not the death
of the people he was addressing, notice the subheading of this particular section of
Muslim as well as these specific narrations which follow immediately:
Chapter 25: APPROACH OF THE LAST HOUR
Abdullah reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour
would affect (most terribly) the wicked persons. (Sahih Muslim, Book 041,
Number 7043)
This hadith has been reported by Sahl b. Sa'd that he heard Allah's Messenger (may
peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour are (close to each other) like this (and
he, in order to explain it) pointed (by joining his) forefinger, (one) next to the
thumb and the middle finger (together). (Sahih Muslim, Book 041,
Number 7044)
Anas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour
have been sent like this and (he while doing it) joined the forefinger with the
middle finger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 041,
Number 7049)
The reference to Muhammad joining his middle and forefingers together implies that he
believed that only a short time would go by before the end would come. The hadiths which
follow right after these narratives give us an idea of just how short Muhammad thought
this time would be, e.g. the end would come before the child grew old which clearly
didn’t happen.
To top it off, this part of Muslim immediately precedes the following section:
Chapter 26: THE INTERVAL BETWEEN TWO BLOWINGS OF THE TRUMPET
In light of the foregoing, isn’t it obvious that Muhammad was speaking of the end of
the age, not the deaths of his immediate followers? Yet in spite of the above Zawadi would
still have us believe that Muhammad wasn’t speaking of the end of the world but only
about the approaching death of the people he was communicating to!
Finally, Zawadi just soundly refuted his own colleague Sami Zaatari since that is not
how the latter explained these hadiths. Zaatari said that the hadith means that the Last
Hour would get nearer as the child grew older since the passing of time means that the
Last Day is approaching closer and closer.
He then says regarding Muhammad’s assertion that the world would end in 100 years:
Can't Shamoun read the hadith properly?:
Narrated Abdullah:
"One night Allah's Apostle led us in the 'Isha' prayer and that is the one called
Al-'Atma by the people. After the completion of the prayer, he faced us and said, 'Do you
know the importance of this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight
will be living after one hundred years from this night.'"
The Prophet (peace be upon him) is clearly talking about those present during his time.
He said that not a single one of them alive at that time would be alive after a hundred
years. He didn't say that after one hundred years there will be no more people!!!
And this is the gentleman who calls me foolish and my arguments garbage! The real
question is whether Zawadi can read properly. What is clear is that Zawadi misread his
prophet’s words since the latter clearly speaks of THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH:
Narrated Abdullah:
"One night Allah's Apostle led us in the 'Isha' prayer and that is the one called
Al-'Atma by the people. After the completion of the prayer, he faced us and said, 'Do you
know the importance OF THIS NIGHT? NOBODY PRESENT ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH tonight
will be living after one hundred years from this night.'"
Notice, again, how the alleged master of eloquence didn’t say that none of his companions
would live beyond a hundred years. Nor did he even say that all those living in Arabia would be
dead within that time.
In fact, the next report further supports that Muhammad wasn’t limiting this alleged
prophecy to the lifespan of his companions:
Chapter 64. ‘A Hundred Years Shall Not Pass
While A Soul Born Upon the Earth TODAY Survives…
2250. It was narrated Jabir, that the Prophet said:
There is no soul BORN upon the earth – MEANING TODAY –
upon whom will come one hundred years. (Sahih)
[He said:] There are narrations on this topic from Ibn ‘Umar, Abu Sa‘eed and Buraidah.
[Abu ‘Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan.
(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, p. 299; capital emphasis ours)
We see, once again, how the supposed master of Arabic speech didn’t limit his alleged
prediction to his immediate generation, e.g. that none of them would live a hundred years
after the time of his so-called prophecy. Rather, Muhammad expressly and emphatically says
that no single living soul that would be born on that specific day throughout the entire earth
would be alive a hundred years later – obviously because, as we noted previously, he thought
the world would come to an end at that time.
This point bears repeating since Zawadi has a habit of twisting things and attacking
straw men as well as raising red herrings. The text of the hadith is clear that by tonight
Muhammad meant that no human being living in the whole world would still be alive
a hundred years from that very moment or hour since he erroneously and mistakenly
assumed that would be the end of the age.
Interestingly, Zawadi conveniently ignored the fact that even Muhammad’s
companions thought that he was speaking of the end of the world:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet prayed one of the 'Isha' prayer in his last days and after finishing it
with Taslim, he stood up and said, "Do you realize (the importance of) this night?
Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight would be living after the completion
of one hundred years from this night."
The people made a mistake in grasping the meaning of this
statement of Allah's Apostle
and they indulged in those
things which are said about these narrators (i.e. some said
that the Day of Resurrection will be established after 100 years etc.)
But the Prophet said, "Nobody present on the surface of earth tonight would
be living after the completion of 100 years from this night"; he meant, "When
that century (people of that century) would pass away." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10,
Number 575)
And yet when the end of the world did not come a hundred years later Muslims had to
come up with desperate answers in order to cover up their prophet’s false predictions.
So much for Muhammad’s eloquence since he left his followers more confused than enlightened!
Zawadi sourced Sheikh Salih Munajjid who really doesn’t disprove anything since he,
much like Zawadi, erroneously assumes that Muhammad was only referring to his companions.
These gentlemen need to stop assuming things and start proving their case, which Muslims
like Zawadi have yet to do.
By the grace of the Lord Jesus, we will be addressing the rest of his "rebuttals"
in due course in order to further expose just how shallow and desperate his "responses"
truly are and to document how his points backfire against him and his religion. As we did here,
we will be demonstrating how Zawadi’s arguments only provide further evidence that Islam
is a false religion.
In this post I will share some of the biblical evidences, which led the first Christians to the conclusion that the one true God is Triune by nature.
One True God
The Bible is clear that there is only one uncreated God who created and sustains all creation. The name
”Accepting James White’s Challenge to Provide an Exegesis of 1 John 5:1"
The following is Dr. David W. Allen's refutation to internet reformed apologist James R. White's butchering of 1 John 5:1 for the purpose of forcing his calvinistic misreading into it.
