Here we have it folks. Pastor Joseph and Brother Hamoudy claiming Islam allows and even encourages homosexuality!
This, of course, is blatantly untrue; these two Christians on the 'News and Views' show (via the Aramaic Broadcasting Network)) were obviously wrong; everybody and their dog KNOWS Islam does NOT allow homosexuality and is in fact very striclty against the homosexual act.
I guess the axiomatic truth is no obstacle for Pastor Joseph and Brother Hamoudy - these two Christians make it quite apparent they have no regard for accuracy and truth. They are shown to be the charlatans they clearly are in this embarrassing and spectacular video. Enjoy :)
The scholars at Islamonline discuss homosexuality:
The Qur’an tells us the story of the people of Lut (Lot), who deviated from the natural way and got involved in this abnormality, refusing every word of advice from their Prophet Lut. Thus, their destiny was destruction and punishment. Almighty Allah says: “And Lo! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk. And the answer of his people was only that they said (one to another): Turn them out of your township. They are folk, forsooth, who keep pure. And We rescued him and his household, save his wife, who was of those who stayed behind. And We rained a rain upon them. See now the nature of the consequence for evil doers!” (Al-A`raf: 80-84)
The eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:
“Almighty Allah has prohibited illegal sexual intercourse and homosexuality and all means that lead to either of them. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man’s sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females.
The spread of this depraved practice in a society disrupts its natural life pattern and makes those who practice it slaves to their lusts, depriving them of decent taste, decent morals, and a decent manner of living. The story of the people of Prophet Lut as narrated in the Qur’an should be sufficient for us. Lut’s people were addicted to this shameless depravity, abandoning natural, pure, lawful relations with women in the pursuit of this unnatural, foul and illicit practice. That is why their prophet, Lut (peace be upon him) told them: “What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing (all limits)!” (Ash-Shu`araa: 165-166)
The strangest expression of these peoples’ perversity of nature, lack of guidance, depravity of morals, and aberration of taste was their attitude toward the guests of Prophet Lut (peace be on him), who were angels of punishment in human form sent by Allah to try these people and to expose their perversity.
The Qur’an narrates the story: “And when Our messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account and did not know how to protect them. He said, ‘This is a day of distress.’ And his people, who had long since been practicing abominations, came rushing toward him. He said, ‘O my people, here are my daughters. They are purer for you, so fear Allah and do not disgrace me in front of my guests. Is there not a single upright man among you?’ They said, ‘Thou knowest well that we have no right to thy daughters, and certainly thou knowest what we want.’ He said, ‘If only I had strength to resist you or had some powerful support!’ Said (the angels) ‘O Lut, truly, we are messengers of thy Lord; they shall not reach thee….’”(Hud: 77-81)
Muslim jurists hold different opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.”
Moreover, Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid, a prominent Saudi scholar and lecturer, adds:
“Islam emphatically forbids this deed [homosexual sex] and prescribes a severe punishment for it in this world and the next. How could it be otherwise, when the Prophet of Islam (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ‘Whoever you find committing the sin of the people of Lut, kill them, both the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.’ (At-Tirmidhi: 1376) That is, if it is done with consent.”
The scholars of Islam, such as Malik, Ash-Shafi`i, Ahmad and Ishaaq said that (the person guilty of this crime) should be stoned, whether he is married or unmarried.
There is no doubt that this act, which goes against the pure human nature created by Allah, by making men content with men and women with women, destroying families, adversely affecting the birth rate, causing the spread of killer diseases, harming the innocent when children are raped, and generally spreading corruption on earth, should be uprooted and stamped out.”
Thinking of the wisdom behind prohibiting homosexuality and lesbianism, the following can be said:
First, such acts lead to the spread of passivity among the young generation and destroy their morality, since they cannot practice such perversion except after taking some drugs to create for themselves a virtual atmosphere where they feel fake joy. Sufficient unto any person to feel that his manhood is lost.
Second, it destroys the lives of women whose husbands leave them in pursuit of this perversion and they, in turn, try to find a way to satisfy their sexual needs. In such case, the whole society will be no more than chaos.
Third, it is a fierce attack on progeny and pregnancy, which increases the human race.
Fourth, the dangerous diseases that are caused by it are unavoidable and fatal. Topping these illnesses is HIV/AIDS.
Lesbianism
As for lesbianism, it is also no more than a perversion and an attack against the natural relation between a man and a woman.
There is no certain punishment for lesbianism. Still, disciplinary punishment is there for any perverted person who commits it. The Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Islamic Jurisprudence states:
“Muslim jurists agree that there is no certain hadd (punishment) for lesbianism. However, they agree that disciplinary punishment should be administered since it is a sin.”
Such an act spoils the doer’s character and make her testimony unacceptable, as stated in the above named encyclopedia:
“Muslim Jurists agree that a witness should be morally sound. A pervert cannot be taken as a witness. Since lesbianism is an act of perversion, a lesbian cannot be a witness. Even with the jurists not declaring this openly, it can still be understood from their words and conditions.”
Almighty Allah knows best.
Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503547102#ixzz0xXgbehNg
Have you spotted any other crazy Christian missionary claims? If so please forward to yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Thanks
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Tuesday, 31 August 2010
The Thighing Lie
The Mufakhathat (Thighing) Claim is a Deception
It is wise to make people aware of a fabrication (falsification) traversing the internet which states Islam allows Muslim men to gratify themselves sexually with pre-pubescent girls (even as young as 3 years of age) via a method known as mufakhafat (thighing).
This claim of theirs is errant nonsense. The early classical scholar, Hasan al-Basri (642 - 728 or 737 AD), has already made it known Islam does NOT allow Muslim men to approach prepubescent girls in a sexual fashion. [1]
As for the fabrication (falsified fatwa) on the internet; Ebrahim Saifuddin confirms the thighing claims are erroneous (“a fabricated lie”) and points out Christian missionaries made this malicious, untrue and vile allegation up. [2] Moreover Muhaddith.org inform us the falsified fatwa has ALREADY been commented upon by Saudi scholars and they have denounced it as a lie as well as informing us Islam does not allow such a sick practice. The Saudi scholars also confirm the Prophet Muhammad NEVER took part in such a practice, thus further denouncing and disproving the Christian missionary lies. [1]
I have appended a typical sample of the false claim to this article (see appendix 1).
Looking Stupid
I have recently come across two people parroting the false claims and using these fabrications in order to satisfy their anti-Muslim agenda – one of these individuals is a Christian tele-evangelist of ill-repute whilst the other is a member (Kevin Carroll) of a far right group named “English Defence League” (EDL). These people do not realise how unscholarly and silly they look when repeating such nonsense even though it does not take much in the way of research to realise the material they use is a fabrication (false).
Another Fabrication?
Alongside the “fatwa” fabrication there seems to be another fabrication of this nature attributed to Khomeini which is being circulated on the internet. I would like to state Khomeini is NOT seen as an authority and is seen as a deviant by recognised scholarly authorities. Nevertheless the quotes attributed to Khomeini are thought to be fabrications too.
The “book” where the alleged Komeini’s quotes were taken from ("Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990) does not seem to even exist! [3]. Alongside the alleged quotes of approving child-sex there are alleged quotes approving sex with animals [4]. Both are outrageously false allegations; Islam does not allow these depraved actions
Summary
Essentially, somebody/group of bodies made a malicious lie up about Islam and other Islamophobes have been propagating (spreading) it without checking for accuracy and truth.
The fact remains, Islam does not allow thighing (mufakhafat) of prepubescent girls. There are forgeries on the internet which are being used in a smear campaign against Muslims - be alert to these false and nasty claims.
Any feedback: send it to Yahya Snow at yahyasnow@hotmail.com
References
[1] http://www.muhaddith.org/islam_answers/earlymarriage-part2.doc
[2] http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/mufakhathat-or-thighing/
[3] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22934-kohmeinis-alleged-pedophile-qoute/
[4] http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/is-sex-with-animals-allowed-in-islam/
Appendix 1
Here is a typical sample of the falsehood we have discussed in this article (increase screen size to read it, it was shrunk for compaction purposes):
Regarding the practice of "thighing", the masterbating between the legs of a female infant or actually sodomizing her, Islamic clerics have this to say:
Pedophilia decrees from www.islamic-fatwa.net
Question 1809
After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question forwarded by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/5/1453 and 7/5/1421 (Islamic calendar)
Question: ‘It has become widespread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa’khathat of the children. (mufa’khathat - literally translated, it means “placing between the thighs” which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child).
What is the opinion of scholars, knowing full well that the prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her ?
Answer: After studying the issue, the committee has answered as follows:
As for the prophet, his thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship was due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:
"A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."
Khomeini, "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990
“It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”
Ayatu Allah Al Khumaini's "Tahrir Al wasila" p. 241, issue number 12
"Young boys or girls in full sexual effervescence are kept from getting married before they reach the legal age of majority. This is against the intention of divine laws. Why should the marriage of pubescent girls and boys be forbidden because they are still minors, when they are allowed to listen to the radio and to sexually arousing music?"
"The Little Green Book" "Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini", Bantam Books
Appendix 2
Ebrahim Saifuddin of IqraProductions exposes the thighing (mufa’khathat) lie:
More info can be obtained here:
http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/mufakhathat-or-thighing/
It is wise to make people aware of a fabrication (falsification) traversing the internet which states Islam allows Muslim men to gratify themselves sexually with pre-pubescent girls (even as young as 3 years of age) via a method known as mufakhafat (thighing).
This claim of theirs is errant nonsense. The early classical scholar, Hasan al-Basri (642 - 728 or 737 AD), has already made it known Islam does NOT allow Muslim men to approach prepubescent girls in a sexual fashion. [1]
As for the fabrication (falsified fatwa) on the internet; Ebrahim Saifuddin confirms the thighing claims are erroneous (“a fabricated lie”) and points out Christian missionaries made this malicious, untrue and vile allegation up. [2] Moreover Muhaddith.org inform us the falsified fatwa has ALREADY been commented upon by Saudi scholars and they have denounced it as a lie as well as informing us Islam does not allow such a sick practice. The Saudi scholars also confirm the Prophet Muhammad NEVER took part in such a practice, thus further denouncing and disproving the Christian missionary lies. [1]
I have appended a typical sample of the false claim to this article (see appendix 1).
Looking Stupid
I have recently come across two people parroting the false claims and using these fabrications in order to satisfy their anti-Muslim agenda – one of these individuals is a Christian tele-evangelist of ill-repute whilst the other is a member (Kevin Carroll) of a far right group named “English Defence League” (EDL). These people do not realise how unscholarly and silly they look when repeating such nonsense even though it does not take much in the way of research to realise the material they use is a fabrication (false).
Another Fabrication?
Alongside the “fatwa” fabrication there seems to be another fabrication of this nature attributed to Khomeini which is being circulated on the internet. I would like to state Khomeini is NOT seen as an authority and is seen as a deviant by recognised scholarly authorities. Nevertheless the quotes attributed to Khomeini are thought to be fabrications too.
The “book” where the alleged Komeini’s quotes were taken from ("Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990) does not seem to even exist! [3]. Alongside the alleged quotes of approving child-sex there are alleged quotes approving sex with animals [4]. Both are outrageously false allegations; Islam does not allow these depraved actions
Summary
Essentially, somebody/group of bodies made a malicious lie up about Islam and other Islamophobes have been propagating (spreading) it without checking for accuracy and truth.
The fact remains, Islam does not allow thighing (mufakhafat) of prepubescent girls. There are forgeries on the internet which are being used in a smear campaign against Muslims - be alert to these false and nasty claims.
Any feedback: send it to Yahya Snow at yahyasnow@hotmail.com
References
[1] http://www.muhaddith.org/islam_answers/earlymarriage-part2.doc
[2] http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/mufakhathat-or-thighing/
[3] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22934-kohmeinis-alleged-pedophile-qoute/
[4] http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/is-sex-with-animals-allowed-in-islam/
Appendix 1
Here is a typical sample of the falsehood we have discussed in this article (increase screen size to read it, it was shrunk for compaction purposes):
Regarding the practice of "thighing", the masterbating between the legs of a female infant or actually sodomizing her, Islamic clerics have this to say:
Pedophilia decrees from www.islamic-fatwa.net
Question 1809
After the permanent committee for the scientific research and fatwahs (religious decrees) reviewed the question forwarded by the grand scholar of the committee with reference number 1809 issued on 3/5/1453 and 7/5/1421 (Islamic calendar)
Question: ‘It has become widespread these days, and especially during weddings, the habit of mufa’khathat of the children. (mufa’khathat - literally translated, it means “placing between the thighs” which means placing the male member between the thighs of a child).
What is the opinion of scholars, knowing full well that the prophet, the peace of Allah be upon him, also practiced the “thighing” of Aisha - the mother of believers - may Allah be pleased with her ?
Answer: After studying the issue, the committee has answered as follows:
As for the prophet, his thighing his fiancée Aisha when she was six years of age and not able to consummate the relationship was due to her small age. That is why the Prophet used to place his male member between her thighs and massage it, as the prophet had control of his male member not like other men.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:
"A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."
Khomeini, "Tahrirolvasyleh" fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990
“It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her.”
Ayatu Allah Al Khumaini's "Tahrir Al wasila" p. 241, issue number 12
"Young boys or girls in full sexual effervescence are kept from getting married before they reach the legal age of majority. This is against the intention of divine laws. Why should the marriage of pubescent girls and boys be forbidden because they are still minors, when they are allowed to listen to the radio and to sexually arousing music?"
"The Little Green Book" "Sayings of the Ayatollah Khomeini", Bantam Books
Appendix 2
Ebrahim Saifuddin of IqraProductions exposes the thighing (mufa’khathat) lie:
More info can be obtained here:
http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/mufakhathat-or-thighing/
Monday, 2 August 2010
Fake "Ex-Muslim" Stories?
Pinar's Testimony (Does Pinar Exist? Is it a Missionary Forgery/Hoax?)
I came across this testimony of an ex-muslim converting Christianity on a missionary website; the chief architect of this website is well known to me and characterized by dishonesty and sensationalism
As I was reading through this testimony I could not help asking myself whether it was genuine, a hoax or simply a product of the website owners mind.
The “testimony” begins with the lady’s background and is written in the first person. The lady is named “Pinar”
My Muslim Background
She goes on to describe a secular background, a background which has very little mention of Islam or Islamic practices yet she is presented as an ex-Muslim; this is a little curious.
I was born in a big city in Turkey, to a modern family, who lived their Muslim faith in a secular way. They advised me not to worry too much about God and religion but just know that God loves me and that I love him and He will protect me and everything will be great.
Now she is questioned as to the existence of God. Does she answer utilizing the Quran or mention prayer? No, why not? It seems a little odd.
I had a lot of atheist and agnostic friends, and when they asked me how I know God exists, I told them I could feel His presence. My life was a bundle of love and blessings…
She reaches 18 and decides to read the Quran, this is odd. Why had she not read the Quran prior to this? After all she was born into a Muslim family. Curious.
Up until I decided to really check what it means to be a Muslim and what does the Kur’an say. I was 18 years old
When I decided to read the Kur’an and see what my wonderful God, full of love, has to say in the Holy Book. As you can imagine I was disappointed.
Why was she disappointed? God is al Wadood (the Most Loving) S85:14. How can you be disappointed at that? Perhaps she did not read all the Quran?
However, it now becomes apparent why her “testimony” is on an anti-Muslim site (the chief architect of the site is well renowned for hatred), she has a sensational pop:
The book was the worst horror book I have ever read. Every night my heart was racing and I was filled with terror. I said to myself, if that is what God is, I am an atheist. And I rejected the Lord of the universe just like my atheist friends.
Wow this lady wants us to believe she stopped believing in God all because of the Quran which she thought to be a “horror book”. She is even more sensationalistic as she claimed she was “filled with terror” and “every night” her “heart was racing”
Now do you really expect us to believe that?
The Quranic descriptions of Hell are balanced with descriptions of Paradise.
Furthermore, the passages concerning disbelievers have a context; did she not read the Quran with some sort of Tafsir?
Did she read the Quran at all or is she simply making things up for effect? The Quran is full of glorious teachings of mercy, kindness and wisdom. Did she not read the FIRST chapter of the Quran (Surah Al-Fatiha), the English translation (S1:1) describes Allah as:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most MERCIFUL
Note: This lady accepts the Bible despite the violent passages within the Bible. This is perplexing and suspicious to say the least!
Fishy
In my view this story sounds a little fishy. It gets fishier and I begin to think it is a hoax or the product of the mind of one of the anti-Muslim brigade from the website in question.
However, this story does mention something interesting, as she stopped “believing” in Islam this happened:
Then my life changed, I lost my peace, joy, and love, my relationships started to shatter; even though I managed to look successful on the outside, I was a huge mess
Just to get another dig in she writes:
But I did not want anything to do with the God of the Kur’an. I could not lie to people and claim, I am a Muslim when I did not believe in more than half of the Holy Book.
What half would that be? You believed in half of the Book but disbelieved in the other half. That is odd. Care to explain?
Was it simply a case of this lady being unwilling to believe in Hell and the separation of believers and disbelievers?
Getting Interesting
It gets even more interesting as the lady is willing to believe in Christianity which also has teachings of Hell as well as a separation of believers and unbelievers. The Quran and the Bible have similar themes. Somebody needs to tell Pinar this, or at least give her copies of both Books so she can realise it herself.
Getting MORE Unbelievable
OK, now it gets even more unbelievable. A friend takes her to church, she likes it and continues going BUT does not convert to Christianity:
After that day, I kept on going to churches. I have gone to house churches, catholic, protestant, etc, you name it I went. But I was not a Christian, I just liked the experience since every time when I was feeling heavily burdened, I went to church and each time God touched my heart.
Does she bother to read the Bible? NO!
At least 30 friends witnessed to me in Turkey alone but none of them could convince me of following Jesus
Despite enjoying church and all these people trying to convert her she does not convert or read the Bible. Perhaps the Old Testament would have filled her with terror?
A vision of Jesus (why do all these "conversion" stories contain "visions"?)
She then claims to have seen a vision of Jesus in a dream. After this she converted to Christianity. She did not EVEN read the Bible but converted based on feelings. Even her dream of Jesus does not instruct her to follow Christianity:
I slept and immediately Jesus was there. I was praying in a circle of believers and Jesus was amidst of us. He was covered with a prayer shawl but we were in Him
OK, Jesus had a prayer shawl over him; perhaps this indicates he prays to God and therefore has a God. Muslims believe Jesus prayed to God. This is even confirmed in the Bible!
One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12) NIV
I (a Muslim) have SEEN Jesus (pbuh) in a dream too!!!
I have seen Jesus in a dream too. I did not convert to Christianity. In my dream Jesus was PRAYING (supplicating) to God. Thus Jesus has a God so cannot possibly be God.
In a different dream I was wandering the streets of Damascus and looking for Jesus whilst calling “Isa Ibn Maryam”. “Isa Ibn Maryam” is translated as “Jesus son of Mary”, thus through this dream, too, I realise Jesus is not the son of God. The significance of Damascus is that Jesus will descend upon the White minaret of Damascus in his second coming (Muslim belief).
Therefore, my dreams were in accordance with the Muslim beliefs of Jesus (pbuh).
Dissection + personal commentary was by Yahya Snow
Is “Pinar’s” story genuine?
Her story sounds far-fetched. Perhaps it was made up by somebody from the anti-Muslim website. Here are a few more fake “convert” stories; Mohammad Khan’s YouTube channel explores what are perceived to be fake “converts” (famously this channel helped bring the Christian evangelist Ergun Caner to account for his deception :
http://www.youtube.com/user/mokhan247
(Ironically Ergun Caner looks uncannily like the owner of the website (Sam Shamoun) which featured “Pinar’s conversion story” )
Here is a real convert (ex Christian Deacon Jerald Dirks):
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOZSrPF5GNo
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQFXuZRLMTY
Those who want to convert to Islam or learn more about Islam may visit:
http://www.bilalphilips.com/bilal_pages.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=243
Useful site:
http://www.islamqa.com/en
Appendix
Jesus (pbuh) praying to God in the Bible:
So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. (Mt 26:44) NIV
Jesus praying to his God in the gospel of Luke:
One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12)
Another one:
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39)
I came across this testimony of an ex-muslim converting Christianity on a missionary website; the chief architect of this website is well known to me and characterized by dishonesty and sensationalism
As I was reading through this testimony I could not help asking myself whether it was genuine, a hoax or simply a product of the website owners mind.
The “testimony” begins with the lady’s background and is written in the first person. The lady is named “Pinar”
My Muslim Background
She goes on to describe a secular background, a background which has very little mention of Islam or Islamic practices yet she is presented as an ex-Muslim; this is a little curious.
I was born in a big city in Turkey, to a modern family, who lived their Muslim faith in a secular way. They advised me not to worry too much about God and religion but just know that God loves me and that I love him and He will protect me and everything will be great.
Now she is questioned as to the existence of God. Does she answer utilizing the Quran or mention prayer? No, why not? It seems a little odd.
I had a lot of atheist and agnostic friends, and when they asked me how I know God exists, I told them I could feel His presence. My life was a bundle of love and blessings…
She reaches 18 and decides to read the Quran, this is odd. Why had she not read the Quran prior to this? After all she was born into a Muslim family. Curious.
Up until I decided to really check what it means to be a Muslim and what does the Kur’an say. I was 18 years old
When I decided to read the Kur’an and see what my wonderful God, full of love, has to say in the Holy Book. As you can imagine I was disappointed.
Why was she disappointed? God is al Wadood (the Most Loving) S85:14. How can you be disappointed at that? Perhaps she did not read all the Quran?
However, it now becomes apparent why her “testimony” is on an anti-Muslim site (the chief architect of the site is well renowned for hatred), she has a sensational pop:
The book was the worst horror book I have ever read. Every night my heart was racing and I was filled with terror. I said to myself, if that is what God is, I am an atheist. And I rejected the Lord of the universe just like my atheist friends.
Wow this lady wants us to believe she stopped believing in God all because of the Quran which she thought to be a “horror book”. She is even more sensationalistic as she claimed she was “filled with terror” and “every night” her “heart was racing”
Now do you really expect us to believe that?
The Quranic descriptions of Hell are balanced with descriptions of Paradise.
Furthermore, the passages concerning disbelievers have a context; did she not read the Quran with some sort of Tafsir?
Did she read the Quran at all or is she simply making things up for effect? The Quran is full of glorious teachings of mercy, kindness and wisdom. Did she not read the FIRST chapter of the Quran (Surah Al-Fatiha), the English translation (S1:1) describes Allah as:
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most MERCIFUL
Note: This lady accepts the Bible despite the violent passages within the Bible. This is perplexing and suspicious to say the least!
Fishy
In my view this story sounds a little fishy. It gets fishier and I begin to think it is a hoax or the product of the mind of one of the anti-Muslim brigade from the website in question.
However, this story does mention something interesting, as she stopped “believing” in Islam this happened:
Then my life changed, I lost my peace, joy, and love, my relationships started to shatter; even though I managed to look successful on the outside, I was a huge mess
Just to get another dig in she writes:
But I did not want anything to do with the God of the Kur’an. I could not lie to people and claim, I am a Muslim when I did not believe in more than half of the Holy Book.
What half would that be? You believed in half of the Book but disbelieved in the other half. That is odd. Care to explain?
Was it simply a case of this lady being unwilling to believe in Hell and the separation of believers and disbelievers?
Getting Interesting
It gets even more interesting as the lady is willing to believe in Christianity which also has teachings of Hell as well as a separation of believers and unbelievers. The Quran and the Bible have similar themes. Somebody needs to tell Pinar this, or at least give her copies of both Books so she can realise it herself.
Getting MORE Unbelievable
OK, now it gets even more unbelievable. A friend takes her to church, she likes it and continues going BUT does not convert to Christianity:
After that day, I kept on going to churches. I have gone to house churches, catholic, protestant, etc, you name it I went. But I was not a Christian, I just liked the experience since every time when I was feeling heavily burdened, I went to church and each time God touched my heart.
Does she bother to read the Bible? NO!
At least 30 friends witnessed to me in Turkey alone but none of them could convince me of following Jesus
Despite enjoying church and all these people trying to convert her she does not convert or read the Bible. Perhaps the Old Testament would have filled her with terror?
A vision of Jesus (why do all these "conversion" stories contain "visions"?)
She then claims to have seen a vision of Jesus in a dream. After this she converted to Christianity. She did not EVEN read the Bible but converted based on feelings. Even her dream of Jesus does not instruct her to follow Christianity:
I slept and immediately Jesus was there. I was praying in a circle of believers and Jesus was amidst of us. He was covered with a prayer shawl but we were in Him
OK, Jesus had a prayer shawl over him; perhaps this indicates he prays to God and therefore has a God. Muslims believe Jesus prayed to God. This is even confirmed in the Bible!
One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12) NIV
I (a Muslim) have SEEN Jesus (pbuh) in a dream too!!!
I have seen Jesus in a dream too. I did not convert to Christianity. In my dream Jesus was PRAYING (supplicating) to God. Thus Jesus has a God so cannot possibly be God.
In a different dream I was wandering the streets of Damascus and looking for Jesus whilst calling “Isa Ibn Maryam”. “Isa Ibn Maryam” is translated as “Jesus son of Mary”, thus through this dream, too, I realise Jesus is not the son of God. The significance of Damascus is that Jesus will descend upon the White minaret of Damascus in his second coming (Muslim belief).
Therefore, my dreams were in accordance with the Muslim beliefs of Jesus (pbuh).
Dissection + personal commentary was by Yahya Snow
Is “Pinar’s” story genuine?
Her story sounds far-fetched. Perhaps it was made up by somebody from the anti-Muslim website. Here are a few more fake “convert” stories; Mohammad Khan’s YouTube channel explores what are perceived to be fake “converts” (famously this channel helped bring the Christian evangelist Ergun Caner to account for his deception :
http://www.youtube.com/user/mokhan247
(Ironically Ergun Caner looks uncannily like the owner of the website (Sam Shamoun) which featured “Pinar’s conversion story” )
Here is a real convert (ex Christian Deacon Jerald Dirks):
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOZSrPF5GNo
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQFXuZRLMTY
Those who want to convert to Islam or learn more about Islam may visit:
http://www.bilalphilips.com/bilal_pages.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=243
Useful site:
http://www.islamqa.com/en
Appendix
Jesus (pbuh) praying to God in the Bible:
So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing. (Mt 26:44) NIV
Jesus praying to his God in the gospel of Luke:
One of those days Jesus went out to a mountainside to pray, and spent the night praying to God. (Luke 6:12)
Another one:
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will." (Matthew 26:39)
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Mohammad's Salavtion? (PBUH)
Yet another Christian polemicist is peddling the “Muhammad was not assured salvation” claim despite there being a plethora of material disproving their claim. Previously his colleague was admonished for such erroneous claim; unfortunately his colleague did not fill him in and thus he is looking rather red-faced indeed.
Sadly, this Christian polemicist has not been privy to the source material which proves Muhammad was guaranteed Paradise (i.e. assured of salvation). However, in an act of responsibility and altruism we will guide him into the right direction by showing him proof Muhammad was assured of salvation and then we will clear up some of his misdirected ideas within his article.
Proof Muhammad was Certain of Salvation and Paradise
It is difficult to believe people are still peddling questions regarding Muhammad’s salvation, ponder upon this Quranic verse:
Surah 9:72
Allâh 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 Allâh. That is the supreme success.
Now Muhammed is a believing man, thus according to the Quran he is to be in Paradise thus showing his salvation is certain. Those who are unsaved are not going to Paradise, only the saved enter Paradise (like Jesus and Muhammad).
Muhammad Declares he Will be in Paradise
Here is the most explicit reference I could get hold of regarding Muhammad:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 34:
Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:
The Prophet said, "I and the person who looks after an orphan and provides for him, will be in Paradise like this," putting his index and middle fingers together.
Thus Muhammad is CONFIRMING he will be IN Paradise (and those looking after orphans will be very close to him in Paradise). Anybody of a reasonable disposition will acknowledge this points to Muhammad being GUARANTEED Paradise and SALVATION!
Here is another quick one:
“No one will enter Paradise except a Muslim” ((Reported by al-Bukhaari, 6047).
Muhammad is a Muslim therefore Paradise is guaranteed for him. However knowing Shamoun’s fertile imagination and obstinacy he will claim Muhammad to be a non-Muslim in order to maintain his bizarre claim
We have already seen Muhammad is going to Paradise and therefore is guaranteed salvation. But let us cut through some of the now obsolete points Sam Shamoun has been making in the interest of thoroughness and in the hope Sam will drop his invalid claims.
Cutting Through Sam Shamoun’s Dubious Rhetoric
In typical zealous style our Sam Shamoun begins his outrageous claim which is symptomatic of his misunderstanding of basic Islamic principles and practices; within his title he proclaims:
“Praying for Muhammad’s Peace and Security”
A quick interjection to correct him; Muslims don’t pray for Muhammad’s “security” we simply ask God to send His Peace and Blessings upon the Prophet. The more times we do this the more goodness God showers upon the Prophet. Would you not do this for a Prophet you love? I actually do this for Prophet Jesus too as I love him as well. By Shamoun’s warped understanding this means we are praying for the “security” of Jesus.
I think Sam can see the erroneous nature of his claim. Unsurprisingly the rest of his lengthy article is a dire attempt in propping this already refuted claim.
Does this mean we can end the article and toddle off to the gym and avoid inflicting further refutation upon Shamoun’s outrageous material?
Not so fast Sam, stay right where you are!
There are a few other points of contention which I want to bring to your attention. I will get the most embarrassing one out of the way.
PROOF: Sam you have NEVER read the WHOLE Bible
Shamoun wrote this:
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
Firstly Sam, we have already taught you that Muslims do not pray for Muhammad’s “salvation” so you can go back and expunge such fanciful claims. However it gets more interesting as our Sam Shamoun appears to have never read the Bible. God is speaking to Abram (Abraham) in this verse:
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:3 NIV)
Now, that is undisputable. It clearly encourages people to pray for blessings on Abraham. This is all too similar to what Muslims do to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Indeed Muslims would be considered uncouth not to say peace be upon Abraham after mentioning his name. Muslims do this prayer for ALL prophets when mentioned.
Thus two points are proven here:
1. Muslims are blessed by God according to Genesis 12:3 as we Muslims ask God to bless Abraham with peace (alayhissalam)
2. Sam Shamoun is unfamiliar with the Bible
Sam may be hiding behind the sofa right now, hold on Sam is American so I guess he will use the word “couch” as opposed to “sofa”. Nevertheless he is finding it rather embarrassing.
Before the embarrassment can subside, Sam let’s get the appended claim out of the way:
“Muhammad is utterly unique in this respect.”
I’m sure you have realised Muhammad is not alone in this respect as Genesis 12:3 encouraged people to send blessings upon Abraham just like Muslims do for the last Prophet, Muhammad.
Sam, before we move on please join us in this supplication:
O Lord of all that exists, please send your peace and blessings on Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad and upon all the other Prophets. Ameen.
Sam Shamoun also states:
If Muhammad who is the founder of Islam needed and continues to need individuals to pray for his salvation
It is getting a little repetitive, Sam. I’m sure having read up to this point in the article a man of comprehension will realise Muslims are not praying for “salvation” as Muhammad had salvation guaranteed. May I remind you he told us he will be in Heaven, that sounds like guaranteed salvation, thus he does not require anybody to pray for his salvation. Muhammad has already attained salvation he will be in the same place as Abraham and the other Prophets.
Worry about your own salvation, Sam. Prophets are more than fine when it comes to salvation.
I think we have had our fill of Shamoun’s wild and spurious claims for today
God willing Sam will realise the error in his ways.
I know I have been having some fun with Sam Shamoun throughout the course of this article but it is all for effect in order to help him and others see the truth. God willing it will be of use to people of a sincere disposition.
May Allah send His peace and blessings upon all his Prophets. Ameen.
Any files or information should be sent to: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Appendix 1:
Sam Shamoun latest outright lie of Muslims being” black stone lickers it is refuted here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Black%20Stone
Appendix 2:
Interesting article by Jonathon Dupree which could further the truth-seeker’s understanding, God willing:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-was-religion-of-abraham.html
Appendix 3:
Here is a typical Muslim prayer asking for further blessings upon the Prophet they love:
Translation (2) O Allah, Lord of this lasting call and this beneficial prayer, confer blessings upon Muhammad and become pleased with me so that You are never displeased with me thereafter.
Here’s one in which ABRAHAM is mentioned:
Translation (4) O Allah, confer blessings upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, and bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, and shower Your mercy upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, in the manner You conferred blessings, blessed and showered mercy upon Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim. Verily, You are the Praiseworthy, the Majestic.
Here’s one asking for blessings for ALL believers (obviously that includes Jesus and Abraham, right?):
Translation (3) O Allah, confer blessings upon Muhammad, Your bondsman and Your messenger and confer blessings upon the believing men and women, and the Muslim men and women.
http://www.inter-islam.org/DuroodSalaam/Salat-Salam.html
Sadly, this Christian polemicist has not been privy to the source material which proves Muhammad was guaranteed Paradise (i.e. assured of salvation). However, in an act of responsibility and altruism we will guide him into the right direction by showing him proof Muhammad was assured of salvation and then we will clear up some of his misdirected ideas within his article.
Proof Muhammad was Certain of Salvation and Paradise
It is difficult to believe people are still peddling questions regarding Muhammad’s salvation, ponder upon this Quranic verse:
Surah 9:72
Allâh 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 Allâh. That is the supreme success.
Now Muhammed is a believing man, thus according to the Quran he is to be in Paradise thus showing his salvation is certain. Those who are unsaved are not going to Paradise, only the saved enter Paradise (like Jesus and Muhammad).
Muhammad Declares he Will be in Paradise
Here is the most explicit reference I could get hold of regarding Muhammad:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 34:
Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:
The Prophet said, "I and the person who looks after an orphan and provides for him, will be in Paradise like this," putting his index and middle fingers together.
Thus Muhammad is CONFIRMING he will be IN Paradise (and those looking after orphans will be very close to him in Paradise). Anybody of a reasonable disposition will acknowledge this points to Muhammad being GUARANTEED Paradise and SALVATION!
Here is another quick one:
“No one will enter Paradise except a Muslim” ((Reported by al-Bukhaari, 6047).
Muhammad is a Muslim therefore Paradise is guaranteed for him. However knowing Shamoun’s fertile imagination and obstinacy he will claim Muhammad to be a non-Muslim in order to maintain his bizarre claim
We have already seen Muhammad is going to Paradise and therefore is guaranteed salvation. But let us cut through some of the now obsolete points Sam Shamoun has been making in the interest of thoroughness and in the hope Sam will drop his invalid claims.
Cutting Through Sam Shamoun’s Dubious Rhetoric
In typical zealous style our Sam Shamoun begins his outrageous claim which is symptomatic of his misunderstanding of basic Islamic principles and practices; within his title he proclaims:
“Praying for Muhammad’s Peace and Security”
A quick interjection to correct him; Muslims don’t pray for Muhammad’s “security” we simply ask God to send His Peace and Blessings upon the Prophet. The more times we do this the more goodness God showers upon the Prophet. Would you not do this for a Prophet you love? I actually do this for Prophet Jesus too as I love him as well. By Shamoun’s warped understanding this means we are praying for the “security” of Jesus.
I think Sam can see the erroneous nature of his claim. Unsurprisingly the rest of his lengthy article is a dire attempt in propping this already refuted claim.
Does this mean we can end the article and toddle off to the gym and avoid inflicting further refutation upon Shamoun’s outrageous material?
Not so fast Sam, stay right where you are!
There are a few other points of contention which I want to bring to your attention. I will get the most embarrassing one out of the way.
PROOF: Sam you have NEVER read the WHOLE Bible
Shamoun wrote this:
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
Firstly Sam, we have already taught you that Muslims do not pray for Muhammad’s “salvation” so you can go back and expunge such fanciful claims. However it gets more interesting as our Sam Shamoun appears to have never read the Bible. God is speaking to Abram (Abraham) in this verse:
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you." (Genesis 12:3 NIV)
Now, that is undisputable. It clearly encourages people to pray for blessings on Abraham. This is all too similar to what Muslims do to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Indeed Muslims would be considered uncouth not to say peace be upon Abraham after mentioning his name. Muslims do this prayer for ALL prophets when mentioned.
Thus two points are proven here:
1. Muslims are blessed by God according to Genesis 12:3 as we Muslims ask God to bless Abraham with peace (alayhissalam)
2. Sam Shamoun is unfamiliar with the Bible
Sam may be hiding behind the sofa right now, hold on Sam is American so I guess he will use the word “couch” as opposed to “sofa”. Nevertheless he is finding it rather embarrassing.
Before the embarrassment can subside, Sam let’s get the appended claim out of the way:
“Muhammad is utterly unique in this respect.”
I’m sure you have realised Muhammad is not alone in this respect as Genesis 12:3 encouraged people to send blessings upon Abraham just like Muslims do for the last Prophet, Muhammad.
Sam, before we move on please join us in this supplication:
O Lord of all that exists, please send your peace and blessings on Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad and upon all the other Prophets. Ameen.
Sam Shamoun also states:
If Muhammad who is the founder of Islam needed and continues to need individuals to pray for his salvation
It is getting a little repetitive, Sam. I’m sure having read up to this point in the article a man of comprehension will realise Muslims are not praying for “salvation” as Muhammad had salvation guaranteed. May I remind you he told us he will be in Heaven, that sounds like guaranteed salvation, thus he does not require anybody to pray for his salvation. Muhammad has already attained salvation he will be in the same place as Abraham and the other Prophets.
Worry about your own salvation, Sam. Prophets are more than fine when it comes to salvation.
I think we have had our fill of Shamoun’s wild and spurious claims for today
God willing Sam will realise the error in his ways.
I know I have been having some fun with Sam Shamoun throughout the course of this article but it is all for effect in order to help him and others see the truth. God willing it will be of use to people of a sincere disposition.
May Allah send His peace and blessings upon all his Prophets. Ameen.
Any files or information should be sent to: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Appendix 1:
Sam Shamoun latest outright lie of Muslims being” black stone lickers it is refuted here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Black%20Stone
Appendix 2:
Interesting article by Jonathon Dupree which could further the truth-seeker’s understanding, God willing:
http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-was-religion-of-abraham.html
Appendix 3:
Here is a typical Muslim prayer asking for further blessings upon the Prophet they love:
Translation (2) O Allah, Lord of this lasting call and this beneficial prayer, confer blessings upon Muhammad and become pleased with me so that You are never displeased with me thereafter.
Here’s one in which ABRAHAM is mentioned:
Translation (4) O Allah, confer blessings upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, and bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, and shower Your mercy upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, in the manner You conferred blessings, blessed and showered mercy upon Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim. Verily, You are the Praiseworthy, the Majestic.
Here’s one asking for blessings for ALL believers (obviously that includes Jesus and Abraham, right?):
Translation (3) O Allah, confer blessings upon Muhammad, Your bondsman and Your messenger and confer blessings upon the believing men and women, and the Muslim men and women.
http://www.inter-islam.org/DuroodSalaam/Salat-Salam.html
Friday, 23 July 2010
Refuting False Allegations Against Prophet Muhammad's Parentage
An Ignorant, Malicious and False Claim has been made against the Parentage of the Prophet Muhammad
An erroneous allegation (by an Islamophobe) has been which claims Muhammad’s father is unknown as his mother had an affair with “somebody” after the death of her husband (Abdullah), the claimant also alleges Muhammed was born four years after the death of Abdullah.
In an act of responsibility it would be wise to state this article is not written due to dispute concerning the parentage of the Prophet Muhammed. It is agreed upon by historians, genealogists and theologians alike that the parents of Muhammad were Amina and Abdullah. It is consensus amongst all authorities, there has never been dispute, controversy or any complexity related to this subject amongst authorities
Then, Why Produce an Article proving the Parentage of Muhammad?
It is a pre-emptive article to make ensure false claims do not gain credence on the internet, after all, the internet is a place where malicious and misinformed claims flourish if good people sit on their hands.
ALL scholarly authority agree upon Amina and Abdullah being the parents of Muhammad, thus a claim on the contrary would be inaccurate and odd, to say the least. So this article proving the parentage of Muhammad is simply written in order to prevent false information being spread by Islamophobes on the internet
NOTE: Abdullah can be written as “Abd’Allah” and Amina can be written as Aminah
Authority tells us Abdullah (Abd’Allah) was the Father of Muhammad
The quickest way to show the Islamophobe’s claim to be false is to prove Muhammad’s father was Abdullah
Let us look at scholarly authority, Ibn Kathir confirms Muhammad’s father to be Abdullah
Ibn Kathir states “he (Muhammad) was the son of Abd’Allah who was in turn the son of his father Abd’al Muttalib” [1]
So Ibn Kathir, a classical expert in the life of Muhammad, states Muhammad’s father was Abdullah
What do the Genealogies tell us?
To further point to expertise and the unanimous agreement amongst scholars concerning Muhammad being the son of Abdullah and Amina we can look to the genealogies.
Ibn Hisham and al Tabari both confirm Muhammad as the “son of Abdullah” whilst giving a list of his genealogy [2] [3]
The genealogy in A Chronology of Islamic History confirms Abdullah as the father of Muhammad and Amina as Muhammad’s mother. [4]
Other Biographers Confirm Abdullah and Amina to be the Parents of Muhammad
Al Mubarakpuri mentions the accepted fact of Abdullah being “the father of Muhammad”. [5]
Karen Armstrong names Muhammad’s father as Abdullah [6] [7]
Quite simply there has never been a dispute related to the parentage of Muhammad in scholarly circles as all the authorities have always been in agreement on Abdullah being the father of Muhammad. This clearly illustrates the Islamophobe claiming otherwise is wrong, badly wrong.
Did Abdullah Marry Amina? Yes.
Al Mubarakpuri confirms this by telling us the grandfather of Muhammad (Abdul Muttalib) chose Aminah, daughter of Wahb bin Abd Manaf bin Zuhra bin Kilab as a wife for his son, Abdullah. [8]
He goes further and informs us “they were married in Makkah, and soon after Abdullah was sent by his father” on a trade journey to either Madina or Syria (two versions) [8]
Another biographer, Yahiya Emerick, informs us of Amina telling of signs of pregnancy after Abdullah left for the trade journey. [9]
Abdullah Passed Away Whilst on a Trade Journey
On the way back from this trade journey, Muhammad’s father passed away [10]. Karen Armstrong writes “Muhammad’s father Abdullah died before Muhammad was born”.
“Most historians state his (Abdullah’s) death was two months before the birth of Muhammad. Some others state his death was two or more months after the Prophet’s birth” [10]
Muhammad also told us his father was Abdullah (Abd’Allah)
Muhammad told us who his father was Abdullah (Abd’Allah) whilst giving his genealogy to us:
“I am Muhammad son of Abd’Allah bin Abd’Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd’Manaf…"(he went on to give mention to his forefathers all the way up to and including bin Nizar) [11]
In the same narration Muhammad tells us: “I was the product of true marriage, not fornication, right down from Adam to my father and mother”. [12]
Ibn Kathir lists other supporting narrations saying the same thing [13]
So what we have here is Muhammad confirming his parentage; i.e. his father is Abdullah and he was a product of true marriage thus any claims of him being born four years after the death of his father (Abdullah) are erroneous (false) and any claims of his mother (Amina) having an affair which bore Muhammed is shown to be erroneous too.
All Muhammad’s contemporaries considered him to be the son of Abdullah
Muhammad’s mother passed away whilst he was a young boy and he then “lived with his grandfather Abdul Muttalib” [14]. Thus everybody saw Abd al Muttalib as Muhammad’s grandfather and therefore considered Abdullah as the father of Muhammad as Abdullah was the son of Abdul Muttalib.
After the passing on of his grandfather; “Muhammad went to live with his uncle Abu Talib” [15]. Abu Talib was the brother of Abdullah. Once again, this shows us the community and the family of Muhammad considered Muhammad to be the son of Abdullah.
Muhammad’s Enemies Confirm Abdullah to be his Father
Whilst agreeing the contract/treaty of Hudaibiyah the Prophet initially wanted his name signed as “Muhammad, the messenger of Allah” but his enemies disagreed and wanted him to use his own name and the name of his father and thus the treaty was signed with the name “Muhammad, the son of Abdullah” [16]. Thus showing even the enemies of Muhammad considered Abdullah to be the father of Muhammad.
I merely mention these extra points to further illustrate there was no disagreement concerning the parentage of Muhammad, everybody knew his mother to be Aminah and his father to be Abdullah.
Looking at the False Claim
Having presented all the incontrovertible evidence we can look at the false claim made by ONE dubious missionary/Islamophobe. Before doing so it is worth noting this “missionary” has a history of falsehood and is infamous for making up his own Biblical verses, such is his lack of regard for accuracy and honesty!
The Islamophobe wants us to believe Muhammad’s father is not Abdullah
We have already seen Abdullah being confirmed as the father of Muhammad by authorities such as al Mubarakpuri, Ibn Hisham and Ibn Kathir
Ibn Kathir states “he (Muhammad) was the son of Abd’Allah who was in turn the son of his father Abd’ al Muttalib”.
So the missionary/Islamophobe is simply making stuff up.
The Islamophobe claims Muhammad was born four years after the death of Abdullah
Well, we have already stated:
"Most historians state his (Abdullah’s) death was two months before the birth of Muhammad (p). Some others state his death was two or more months after the Prophet’s birth." [10]
So the missionary is making stuff up. NOBODY believes he was born four years after the death of his father, Abdullah.
The Islamophobe claims Muhammad was born due to an affair on the part of Aminah
It is depressing to note this “man” (the Islamophobe) would make such a claim against a lady’s honour without any regard for truth or decency. Such is this “man’s” nature
As we have seen every authority recognises Abdullah (the husband of Amina) to be the father of Muhammad and thus proves Amina is free from wrong doing. However, the defence of Amina also comes through Al Kalbi who studied Muhammad’s maternal ancestors (including Amina). Al Kalbi confirms Amina did not have an affair
Al Kalbi who investigated the maternal genealogy of Muhammad (including Amina) found no fornication in any one of them:
Muhammad bin Sa’d said, Hisham bin Muhammad al Kalbi informed us from his father who said “ I wrote out some 500 maternal ancestors for the Prophet(p) and found fornication in NOT one of them nor anything related to “the evil ways) of the Jahaliyya” [17]
So the Islamophobe is making claims without any investigation. If he had looked into matters before making his malicious and ignorant claims he would have noted Muhammad’s confirmation of being from a “true marriage” [12] as well as the other evidence presented such as the findings from Al Kalbi’s investigations
I would advise this Islamophobe to stop in his attempts to malign the good name of past personalities. Wrongly accusing a lady of adultery is not a matter to be taken lightly; this Islamophobe should rethink his ways and incorporate integrity into his reason d’être
The Islamophobe’s Strange Mind
The Islamophobe makes other bizarre and unsupported claims.
This Islamophobe also claims Muhammad made a story up about a woman being pregnant for four years and delivering the child in the fourth year which was born with teeth and hair!
The Islamophobe goes further and claims Muhammad made this story up because he was born four years after the death of Abdullah. The Islamophobe suggests Muhammad made the story up to convince people he was not the offspring of an affair.
These pronouncements are quite clearly the product of a debauched mind.
Muhammad was not born four years after the death of his father (Abdullah); this is quite clearly shown above. We do not need to repeat ourselves as we have already dealt with such an erroneous claim
Muhammad’s father has been shown to be Abdullah, thus Amina had no affair and Muhammad was not the offspring of an affair.
As for the story about a child being in a woman’s womb for four years, scholars confirm it to be a fabrication (i.e. a false or made up story). This story was made up by somebody AFTER the Prophet Muhammad passed away, so Muhammad did not make this story up. Somebody needs to pass this information onto the ignorant Islamophobe.
Yahya ibn Abi Kathir said:
“Studying Sacred Knowledge is a prayer”
May Allah's peace and blesseing be upon Muhammad and all the other Prophets
Contact: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Appendix 1
This Islamophobe is caught lying and making up his own biblical verse:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/code-of-quran-prove-christ/
References
[1] Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Ltd, 1998, Volume 1, pg 131
[2] Ibn Hisham 1/1-2
[3]`Tarikh al Tabari 2/239-271
[4] A Chronology of Islamic History, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd, 1998, pg 10-12
[5] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 68
[6] Islam: A Short History, Karen Armstrong, Phoenix Press 2001 pg3
[7] Muhammad: Prophet for our Time, Karen Armstrong, Harper Press, 2006 pg 35-36
[8] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 69-70
[9] Muhammad, Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, 2002, pg 21-22
[10] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 70
[11] Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Ltd, 1998, Volume 1, pg 135
[12] Ibid
[13] Ibid pg 135-136
[14] Muhammad: Prophet for our Time, Karen Armstrong, Harper Press, 2006 pg 36
[15] Ibid
[16] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 404
[17] Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Ltd, 1998, Volume 1, pg 136
An erroneous allegation (by an Islamophobe) has been which claims Muhammad’s father is unknown as his mother had an affair with “somebody” after the death of her husband (Abdullah), the claimant also alleges Muhammed was born four years after the death of Abdullah.
In an act of responsibility it would be wise to state this article is not written due to dispute concerning the parentage of the Prophet Muhammed. It is agreed upon by historians, genealogists and theologians alike that the parents of Muhammad were Amina and Abdullah. It is consensus amongst all authorities, there has never been dispute, controversy or any complexity related to this subject amongst authorities
Then, Why Produce an Article proving the Parentage of Muhammad?
It is a pre-emptive article to make ensure false claims do not gain credence on the internet, after all, the internet is a place where malicious and misinformed claims flourish if good people sit on their hands.
ALL scholarly authority agree upon Amina and Abdullah being the parents of Muhammad, thus a claim on the contrary would be inaccurate and odd, to say the least. So this article proving the parentage of Muhammad is simply written in order to prevent false information being spread by Islamophobes on the internet
NOTE: Abdullah can be written as “Abd’Allah” and Amina can be written as Aminah
Authority tells us Abdullah (Abd’Allah) was the Father of Muhammad
The quickest way to show the Islamophobe’s claim to be false is to prove Muhammad’s father was Abdullah
Let us look at scholarly authority, Ibn Kathir confirms Muhammad’s father to be Abdullah
Ibn Kathir states “he (Muhammad) was the son of Abd’Allah who was in turn the son of his father Abd’al Muttalib” [1]
So Ibn Kathir, a classical expert in the life of Muhammad, states Muhammad’s father was Abdullah
What do the Genealogies tell us?
To further point to expertise and the unanimous agreement amongst scholars concerning Muhammad being the son of Abdullah and Amina we can look to the genealogies.
Ibn Hisham and al Tabari both confirm Muhammad as the “son of Abdullah” whilst giving a list of his genealogy [2] [3]
The genealogy in A Chronology of Islamic History confirms Abdullah as the father of Muhammad and Amina as Muhammad’s mother. [4]
Other Biographers Confirm Abdullah and Amina to be the Parents of Muhammad
Al Mubarakpuri mentions the accepted fact of Abdullah being “the father of Muhammad”. [5]
Karen Armstrong names Muhammad’s father as Abdullah [6] [7]
Quite simply there has never been a dispute related to the parentage of Muhammad in scholarly circles as all the authorities have always been in agreement on Abdullah being the father of Muhammad. This clearly illustrates the Islamophobe claiming otherwise is wrong, badly wrong.
Did Abdullah Marry Amina? Yes.
Al Mubarakpuri confirms this by telling us the grandfather of Muhammad (Abdul Muttalib) chose Aminah, daughter of Wahb bin Abd Manaf bin Zuhra bin Kilab as a wife for his son, Abdullah. [8]
He goes further and informs us “they were married in Makkah, and soon after Abdullah was sent by his father” on a trade journey to either Madina or Syria (two versions) [8]
Another biographer, Yahiya Emerick, informs us of Amina telling of signs of pregnancy after Abdullah left for the trade journey. [9]
Abdullah Passed Away Whilst on a Trade Journey
On the way back from this trade journey, Muhammad’s father passed away [10]. Karen Armstrong writes “Muhammad’s father Abdullah died before Muhammad was born”.
“Most historians state his (Abdullah’s) death was two months before the birth of Muhammad. Some others state his death was two or more months after the Prophet’s birth” [10]
Muhammad also told us his father was Abdullah (Abd’Allah)
Muhammad told us who his father was Abdullah (Abd’Allah) whilst giving his genealogy to us:
“I am Muhammad son of Abd’Allah bin Abd’Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd’Manaf…"(he went on to give mention to his forefathers all the way up to and including bin Nizar) [11]
In the same narration Muhammad tells us: “I was the product of true marriage, not fornication, right down from Adam to my father and mother”. [12]
Ibn Kathir lists other supporting narrations saying the same thing [13]
So what we have here is Muhammad confirming his parentage; i.e. his father is Abdullah and he was a product of true marriage thus any claims of him being born four years after the death of his father (Abdullah) are erroneous (false) and any claims of his mother (Amina) having an affair which bore Muhammed is shown to be erroneous too.
All Muhammad’s contemporaries considered him to be the son of Abdullah
Muhammad’s mother passed away whilst he was a young boy and he then “lived with his grandfather Abdul Muttalib” [14]. Thus everybody saw Abd al Muttalib as Muhammad’s grandfather and therefore considered Abdullah as the father of Muhammad as Abdullah was the son of Abdul Muttalib.
After the passing on of his grandfather; “Muhammad went to live with his uncle Abu Talib” [15]. Abu Talib was the brother of Abdullah. Once again, this shows us the community and the family of Muhammad considered Muhammad to be the son of Abdullah.
Muhammad’s Enemies Confirm Abdullah to be his Father
Whilst agreeing the contract/treaty of Hudaibiyah the Prophet initially wanted his name signed as “Muhammad, the messenger of Allah” but his enemies disagreed and wanted him to use his own name and the name of his father and thus the treaty was signed with the name “Muhammad, the son of Abdullah” [16]. Thus showing even the enemies of Muhammad considered Abdullah to be the father of Muhammad.
I merely mention these extra points to further illustrate there was no disagreement concerning the parentage of Muhammad, everybody knew his mother to be Aminah and his father to be Abdullah.
Looking at the False Claim
Having presented all the incontrovertible evidence we can look at the false claim made by ONE dubious missionary/Islamophobe. Before doing so it is worth noting this “missionary” has a history of falsehood and is infamous for making up his own Biblical verses, such is his lack of regard for accuracy and honesty!
The Islamophobe wants us to believe Muhammad’s father is not Abdullah
We have already seen Abdullah being confirmed as the father of Muhammad by authorities such as al Mubarakpuri, Ibn Hisham and Ibn Kathir
Ibn Kathir states “he (Muhammad) was the son of Abd’Allah who was in turn the son of his father Abd’ al Muttalib”.
So the missionary/Islamophobe is simply making stuff up.
The Islamophobe claims Muhammad was born four years after the death of Abdullah
Well, we have already stated:
"Most historians state his (Abdullah’s) death was two months before the birth of Muhammad (p). Some others state his death was two or more months after the Prophet’s birth." [10]
So the missionary is making stuff up. NOBODY believes he was born four years after the death of his father, Abdullah.
The Islamophobe claims Muhammad was born due to an affair on the part of Aminah
It is depressing to note this “man” (the Islamophobe) would make such a claim against a lady’s honour without any regard for truth or decency. Such is this “man’s” nature
As we have seen every authority recognises Abdullah (the husband of Amina) to be the father of Muhammad and thus proves Amina is free from wrong doing. However, the defence of Amina also comes through Al Kalbi who studied Muhammad’s maternal ancestors (including Amina). Al Kalbi confirms Amina did not have an affair
Al Kalbi who investigated the maternal genealogy of Muhammad (including Amina) found no fornication in any one of them:
Muhammad bin Sa’d said, Hisham bin Muhammad al Kalbi informed us from his father who said “ I wrote out some 500 maternal ancestors for the Prophet(p) and found fornication in NOT one of them nor anything related to “the evil ways) of the Jahaliyya” [17]
So the Islamophobe is making claims without any investigation. If he had looked into matters before making his malicious and ignorant claims he would have noted Muhammad’s confirmation of being from a “true marriage” [12] as well as the other evidence presented such as the findings from Al Kalbi’s investigations
I would advise this Islamophobe to stop in his attempts to malign the good name of past personalities. Wrongly accusing a lady of adultery is not a matter to be taken lightly; this Islamophobe should rethink his ways and incorporate integrity into his reason d’être
The Islamophobe’s Strange Mind
The Islamophobe makes other bizarre and unsupported claims.
This Islamophobe also claims Muhammad made a story up about a woman being pregnant for four years and delivering the child in the fourth year which was born with teeth and hair!
The Islamophobe goes further and claims Muhammad made this story up because he was born four years after the death of Abdullah. The Islamophobe suggests Muhammad made the story up to convince people he was not the offspring of an affair.
These pronouncements are quite clearly the product of a debauched mind.
Muhammad was not born four years after the death of his father (Abdullah); this is quite clearly shown above. We do not need to repeat ourselves as we have already dealt with such an erroneous claim
Muhammad’s father has been shown to be Abdullah, thus Amina had no affair and Muhammad was not the offspring of an affair.
As for the story about a child being in a woman’s womb for four years, scholars confirm it to be a fabrication (i.e. a false or made up story). This story was made up by somebody AFTER the Prophet Muhammad passed away, so Muhammad did not make this story up. Somebody needs to pass this information onto the ignorant Islamophobe.
Yahya ibn Abi Kathir said:
“Studying Sacred Knowledge is a prayer”
May Allah's peace and blesseing be upon Muhammad and all the other Prophets
Contact: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Appendix 1
This Islamophobe is caught lying and making up his own biblical verse:
http://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/code-of-quran-prove-christ/
References
[1] Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Ltd, 1998, Volume 1, pg 131
[2] Ibn Hisham 1/1-2
[3]`Tarikh al Tabari 2/239-271
[4] A Chronology of Islamic History, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd, 1998, pg 10-12
[5] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 68
[6] Islam: A Short History, Karen Armstrong, Phoenix Press 2001 pg3
[7] Muhammad: Prophet for our Time, Karen Armstrong, Harper Press, 2006 pg 35-36
[8] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 69-70
[9] Muhammad, Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, 2002, pg 21-22
[10] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 70
[11] Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Ltd, 1998, Volume 1, pg 135
[12] Ibid
[13] Ibid pg 135-136
[14] Muhammad: Prophet for our Time, Karen Armstrong, Harper Press, 2006 pg 36
[15] Ibid
[16] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 404
[17] Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Ltd, 1998, Volume 1, pg 136
Thursday, 24 June 2010
Does Allah Repent in the Quran?
Allah Does NOT Repent
Some Christian critics are claiming Allah repents in the Quran. This is blatantly false and dishonest on their part. This claim to my attention when a Christian critic made this claim and claimed Surah 2:37 proves it, this is utter nonsense.
The context and the translations prove these Christian “critics” to be incorrect. The context of the verse is Adam asking Allah for forgiveness and Allah forgives him. Before proving Allah does not repent in Surah 2:37, by listing various English translations of the Verse, we shall quickly look at the context
The Context Shows the Christian Critics to be Wrong
Surah 2:36 tells us of Adam’s sin:
36. Then the Shaitân (Satan) made them slip therefrom (the Paradise), and got them out from that in which they were. We said: "Get you down, all, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be a dwelling place for you and an enjoyment for a time."
The next Verse (2:37) tells us of Allah accepting Adam’s repentance.
37. Then Adam received from his Lord Words. And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the One Who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Merciful.
To add further context to this we can even mention the prayer (Words) which Adam used to beseech (beg for) forgiveness from Allah. The prayer Adam used is in Surah 7:23.
Thus it is clear ADAM is seeking REPENTENCE from God (Allah) and Allah ACCEPTS the REPENTENCE.
The Christian critic throws aside all sense of logic in making their bizarre claim. It is Adam who has sinned, he (Adam) is repenting; Allah is ACCEPTING the repentance, why cannot these unscholarly Christian critics see this?
It seems as though it is a case of rank dishonesty on the part of the Christian critics, especially when viewing the English translations as no translation is claiming Allah is repenting!
The Translations Disagree with these Christian Critics
View the translations below to realise the Christian claim is a lie.
Let us begin our translation-based refutation by highlighting Mohammad Asad’s translation of the Quran, this translation of the Quran is widely considered to be the best English translation available
فَتَلَقَّى آدَمُ مِن رَّبِّهِ كَلِمَاتٍ فَتَابَ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ (2:37)
Transliteration: Fatalaqqa adamu min rabbihi kalimatin fataba AAalayhi innahu huwa alttawwabu alrraheemu
ASAD: Thereupon Adam received words [of guidance] from his Sustainer, and He accepted his repentance: for, verily, He alone is the-Acceptor of Repentance, the Dispenser of Grace. (2:37)
Here we realise Allah FORGIVES Adam; it does NOT say Allah repented! The Christian missionaries making such claims have either lost their ability to comprehend and read or are simply being dishonest.
Other Translations Show the Christian Critics to be Incorrect
To be even thorough a number of other English translations of the Quran are presented, these translations all prove the Christian missionaries to be incorrect, and thus proving to us that Allah does NOT repent.
As you can see (below) all these translations (Quran 2:37) point out the fact that Allah ACCEPTED the repentance of Adam; none of the translations claim Allah was repenting:
YUSUFALI: Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the relenting, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: Then Adam received (some) words from his Lord, so He turned to him mercifully; surely He is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful
Hilali/Khan: Then Adam received from his Lord Words . And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the One Who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Merciful.
The “other” translations have been divided into two groups, the first group (above) contains translations by Muslims, and the second group consists of translations from non-Muslims. NO group of translators claim Allah repents.
Non-Muslim (Christian) Translations (of Quran 2:37) Prove Allah is NOT repenting in the Quran
To add further proof of the dishonesty of these Christian critics making the bizarre claim of Allah repenting in Surah 2:37 we can refer to translations by non-Muslims too, which show the Christian critics to be wrong. Amongst the non-Muslim translations we have a Christian MISSIONARY (Rodwell) who proves the Christians claiming “Allah repents in the Quran” to be incorrect.
Rodwell: And words of prayer learned Adam from his Lord: and God turned to him; for He loveth to turn, the Merciful.
As we can clearly see, Rodwell is not claiming Allah repented. Rodwell is agreeing with all the other translations by pointing out Allah accepts Adam’s repentance.
We also have AJ Arberry who is endorsed by the Christian missionary Dr Robert Morey. Arberry does not claim Allah is repenting. Arberry reflects what every other translator reflects, that is, Allah FORGIVING Adam.
AJ Arberry: Thereafter Adam received certain words from his Lord, and He turned towards him; truly He turns, and is All-compassionate.
Sale and Palmer do not claim Allah is repenting thus they also disagree with the Christian critic’s claim. Both, Sale and Palmer reflect Allah’s acceptance of Adam’s repentance.
George Sale: And Adam learned words of prayer from his Lord, and God turned unto him, for He is easy to be reconciled and merciful.
E.H Palmer: And Adam caught certain words from his Lord, and He turned towards him, for He is the compassionate one easily turned
It is quite clear the Christian critics are simply being dishonest. To take the refutation of their fallacious claim one step further we can refer to Tafsir literature
Tafsir also Proves the Christian Critics to be Lying
Tafsir literature reflects what early Muslims believed about Verses from the Quran, we can clearly note the Tafsir literature does not claim Allah repents, in fact the Tafsir literature simply reiterates that Allah ACCEPTS the repentance of Adam and forgives him.
Tafsir Jalalayn Confirms Allah is simply accepting Adam’s repentance.
Thereafter Adam received certain words from his Lord, with which He inspired him (a variant reading [of Ādamu] has accusative Ādama and nominative kalimātu), meaning they [the words] came to him, and these were [those of] the verse Lord, we have wronged ourselves [Q. 7:23], with which he supplicated, and He relented to him, that is, He accepted his repentance; truly He is the Relenting, to His servants, the Merciful, to them.
Summary
It is clear through the context, translations and Tafsir literature that Allah did NOT repent. The evidence shows Allah accepting the repentance of Adam.
The Christian critics are spreading falsehood and should be rebuked (corrected) by sincere Christians.
Some Christian critics are claiming Allah repents in the Quran. This is blatantly false and dishonest on their part. This claim to my attention when a Christian critic made this claim and claimed Surah 2:37 proves it, this is utter nonsense.
The context and the translations prove these Christian “critics” to be incorrect. The context of the verse is Adam asking Allah for forgiveness and Allah forgives him. Before proving Allah does not repent in Surah 2:37, by listing various English translations of the Verse, we shall quickly look at the context
The Context Shows the Christian Critics to be Wrong
Surah 2:36 tells us of Adam’s sin:
36. Then the Shaitân (Satan) made them slip therefrom (the Paradise), and got them out from that in which they were. We said: "Get you down, all, with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be a dwelling place for you and an enjoyment for a time."
The next Verse (2:37) tells us of Allah accepting Adam’s repentance.
37. Then Adam received from his Lord Words. And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the One Who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Merciful.
To add further context to this we can even mention the prayer (Words) which Adam used to beseech (beg for) forgiveness from Allah. The prayer Adam used is in Surah 7:23.
Thus it is clear ADAM is seeking REPENTENCE from God (Allah) and Allah ACCEPTS the REPENTENCE.
The Christian critic throws aside all sense of logic in making their bizarre claim. It is Adam who has sinned, he (Adam) is repenting; Allah is ACCEPTING the repentance, why cannot these unscholarly Christian critics see this?
It seems as though it is a case of rank dishonesty on the part of the Christian critics, especially when viewing the English translations as no translation is claiming Allah is repenting!
The Translations Disagree with these Christian Critics
View the translations below to realise the Christian claim is a lie.
Let us begin our translation-based refutation by highlighting Mohammad Asad’s translation of the Quran, this translation of the Quran is widely considered to be the best English translation available
فَتَلَقَّى آدَمُ مِن رَّبِّهِ كَلِمَاتٍ فَتَابَ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ التَّوَّابُ الرَّحِيمُ (2:37)
Transliteration: Fatalaqqa adamu min rabbihi kalimatin fataba AAalayhi innahu huwa alttawwabu alrraheemu
ASAD: Thereupon Adam received words [of guidance] from his Sustainer, and He accepted his repentance: for, verily, He alone is the-Acceptor of Repentance, the Dispenser of Grace. (2:37)
Here we realise Allah FORGIVES Adam; it does NOT say Allah repented! The Christian missionaries making such claims have either lost their ability to comprehend and read or are simply being dishonest.
Other Translations Show the Christian Critics to be Incorrect
To be even thorough a number of other English translations of the Quran are presented, these translations all prove the Christian missionaries to be incorrect, and thus proving to us that Allah does NOT repent.
As you can see (below) all these translations (Quran 2:37) point out the fact that Allah ACCEPTED the repentance of Adam; none of the translations claim Allah was repenting:
YUSUFALI: Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
PICKTHAL: Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the relenting, the Merciful.
SHAKIR: Then Adam received (some) words from his Lord, so He turned to him mercifully; surely He is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful
Hilali/Khan: Then Adam received from his Lord Words . And his Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily, He is the One Who forgives (accepts repentance), the Most Merciful.
The “other” translations have been divided into two groups, the first group (above) contains translations by Muslims, and the second group consists of translations from non-Muslims. NO group of translators claim Allah repents.
Non-Muslim (Christian) Translations (of Quran 2:37) Prove Allah is NOT repenting in the Quran
To add further proof of the dishonesty of these Christian critics making the bizarre claim of Allah repenting in Surah 2:37 we can refer to translations by non-Muslims too, which show the Christian critics to be wrong. Amongst the non-Muslim translations we have a Christian MISSIONARY (Rodwell) who proves the Christians claiming “Allah repents in the Quran” to be incorrect.
Rodwell: And words of prayer learned Adam from his Lord: and God turned to him; for He loveth to turn, the Merciful.
As we can clearly see, Rodwell is not claiming Allah repented. Rodwell is agreeing with all the other translations by pointing out Allah accepts Adam’s repentance.
We also have AJ Arberry who is endorsed by the Christian missionary Dr Robert Morey. Arberry does not claim Allah is repenting. Arberry reflects what every other translator reflects, that is, Allah FORGIVING Adam.
AJ Arberry: Thereafter Adam received certain words from his Lord, and He turned towards him; truly He turns, and is All-compassionate.
Sale and Palmer do not claim Allah is repenting thus they also disagree with the Christian critic’s claim. Both, Sale and Palmer reflect Allah’s acceptance of Adam’s repentance.
George Sale: And Adam learned words of prayer from his Lord, and God turned unto him, for He is easy to be reconciled and merciful.
E.H Palmer: And Adam caught certain words from his Lord, and He turned towards him, for He is the compassionate one easily turned
It is quite clear the Christian critics are simply being dishonest. To take the refutation of their fallacious claim one step further we can refer to Tafsir literature
Tafsir also Proves the Christian Critics to be Lying
Tafsir literature reflects what early Muslims believed about Verses from the Quran, we can clearly note the Tafsir literature does not claim Allah repents, in fact the Tafsir literature simply reiterates that Allah ACCEPTS the repentance of Adam and forgives him.
Tafsir Jalalayn Confirms Allah is simply accepting Adam’s repentance.
Thereafter Adam received certain words from his Lord, with which He inspired him (a variant reading [of Ādamu] has accusative Ādama and nominative kalimātu), meaning they [the words] came to him, and these were [those of] the verse Lord, we have wronged ourselves [Q. 7:23], with which he supplicated, and He relented to him, that is, He accepted his repentance; truly He is the Relenting, to His servants, the Merciful, to them.
Summary
It is clear through the context, translations and Tafsir literature that Allah did NOT repent. The evidence shows Allah accepting the repentance of Adam.
The Christian critics are spreading falsehood and should be rebuked (corrected) by sincere Christians.
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Bestiality is Not Islamic
Allegation of Bestiality against Islam is Discussed
Bestiality is not allowed in Islam but some people who are looking to demonise and degrade Muslims (and Islam) erroneously claim it is allowed in Islam.
“Bestiality” in this article refers to “Sexual relations between a human and an animal” [1]
Of course, those who have studied religion will find it inconceivable that any religion would allow this practice as religions are forces for conservatism. As a keen student of religion I would disbelieve any religion would allow a sexually depraved practice such as bestiality.
Sadly, Islam is a religion which is being targeted by mud slingers, a worrying side show is that amongst these mud slingers are serious evangelical Christians (see appendix 1)
In an effort to be thorough and treat the claim seriously we shall go through this hateful claim and show it to be false. The quickest way to show a claim to be false is to call in the experts. Let us simply ask an expert on Islam whether sex with animals is allowed or not.
Expert: Sheikh Ibn Hajar Haytami (1503-1566)
The expert we shall refer to is Ibn Hajar Haytami; he was a classical Muslim scholar who was an expert in Sacred Law (Islamic Law) and a well renowned authority.
In his list of enormities (sins) he listed bestiality (w52.1, 338-43) as a sin, thus clearly showing sex with animals is not allowed in Islam and is deemed as sinful [2]
That is unequivocally telling us those making this malicious claim against Islam are completely incorrect.
Hadith Literature Denounces Sex with Animals
In fact the experienced apologist, Bassam Zawadi, has already discussed this allegation and brought forward a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (p) which teaches us the prohibition (not allowing) sex with animals:
…Cursed is he who goes in unto (has sex with in other words in Arabic) an animal. Cursed is he who does what the people of Lot did (sodomy; the people of Sodom and Gomorah). (See appendix 1for the full Hadith which is presented by Bassam Zawadi, Sahih Al-Jami'a, page or number 5891)
Thus we see a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) warning against sex with animals and pointing it out to be a sin, thus not allowed in Islam (see appendix 1)
Summary
Here we have the classical expert on Islamic Law who teaches us sex with animals is a sin and we have a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) teaching us the same thing.
This is overwhelming evidence to show the mud-slingers to be wrong.
To be even more thorough we shall offer the reader a chance to browse through (and analyze) the prominent supporting arguments used by those who claim Islam allows sex with animals (bestiality)
The Accusers Use Anecdotal Stories of Muslims and Falsely Impute this on Islam
You will read/hear the accuser point to stories of Muslim men committing this lewd act in Muslim countries. This will be their basis for claiming Islam allows sex with animals. This type of reasoning by the accusers (mud-slingers) is long on rhetoric but extremely lacking in rational reasoning.
Well, I could give you anecdotal stories of Muslims drinking, eating pork and gambling; would this mean Islam allows such acts?
Of course not, there are many “bad” Muslims who do not practice the religion of Islam in a full capacity and these “bad” Muslims contravene (break) many Islamic rules which a sincere Muslim is meant to observe.
To highlight the fallacious nature of the reasoning on the part of the accuser we can use the examples of Christian sex scandals amongst Christian spiritual leaders or the widespread availability of pornography in “Christian” countries.
Does this mean pornography and extramarital sex is allowed in Christianity? No, certainly not. Thus it would be silly and desperate to claim Islam allows bestiality just because you heard a story of a Muslim committing the depraved act of bestiality.
The fact remains, Islam as a religion disallows this practice.
The Critics Spin Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Literature
As Muslims have to pray (perform Salah) five times a day whilst being in a state of purification there is a plethora of Fiqh (jurisprudence) literature on what mode of purification (i.e. bath or ablution) is required after a whole range of different occurrences. The critic tries to capitalise on this in order to support his/her malicious claim
You may see critics present literature of Fiqh which explains what a man must do in order to purify himself for prayer after committing the act of bestiality and append such material with lurid and sensational claims such as “ISLAMIC LAWS ON HOW TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS”. Of course, this is downright dishonest
As Fiqh is a science which covers all areas of life (and a whole load of possibilities) you will come across some Fiqh literature explaining what a person must do in order to purify himself after sex with an animal.
It is obvious to the reader that the Fiqh literature is not approving the act of bestiality but just giving rulings on purification after certain events.
To highlight a couple of examples we could look at Reliance of the Traveller (A Shafi Fiqh manual); in its purification section (e7.4) we learn a person must perform ablution if he/she touches the private parts of oneself or somebody else’s private parts. [3]
Of course, the Fiqh manual is not saying it is allowed for Muslims to touch other people’s privates but merely gives us rulings on purification if such an instance occurred.
Perhaps these rulings were initiated by questions from people who were tasked with the job of circumcising, doctors or mothers nursing young children.
From the same section we also note ablution is required (for prayer) if one touches the private parts of a deceased person [4]. Again, this does not mean we (as Muslims) are allowed to touch dead people’s privates.
It simply refers to purification IF such an event happened. You can imagine this ruling may have been initiated by questions from people who were tasked with washing and enshrouding bodies of the deceased.
The same applies for Fiqh literature (on purification) concerning those who commit the sin of bestiality. The Fiqh literature is not endorsing the act but simply giving us the mode of purification if somebody did commit this depraved act. (see appendix 1)
You can imagine purification rulings in Fiqh literature related to the sin of bestiality came about because somebody was caught doing such a deed (or rumours of such deeds were abound at the time of the jurist) and people asked regarding the purification route the one who committed the act must take in order to perform Salah (prayer)
So spinning Fiqh literature related to purification is deceptive, especially so if the one spinning the literature knows that the classical scholars considered bestiality to be a sin (i.e. not allowed in Islam)
Beware of the Forgeries, Spin and Other Malpractice
The critics bring forward a Shia leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, and claim he allowed this practice. His “quotes” are clouded with doubt.
However, this Shia leader did not approve of sex with animals. He was simply giving his opinion related to purification with regards to the crime of bestiality and has become the victim of the spin we have already discussed.
In any case when he spoke of such an act (hypothetically) he appended the words “Allah protect him from it” thus indicating he did not approve of such an action.
“If a man – Allah protect him from it! – fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary” [5]
As for many quotes attributed to him, on the internet, there is a huge deal of suspicion surrounding the translations and whether they are forgeries or not. An alleged fourth edition of his Tahrir al Wasilah is being denied to ever exist.
For the record, in the interest of fairness, this man (Khomeini) did not appear to approve of bestiality so it would be unfair to accuse him of allowing such an act.
As a side note: any quotations of Khomeini used as a polemic against Islam should just be shrugged off as most Muslims (roughly 90%) do not view him with any authority whatsoever. This seems to be a common ploy used by insincere types against Islam; they use quotations from people who are unaccepted or on the fringe, all the while being contradicted by accepted authorities.
Bogus Argument: There is No Set Punishment in Islam for Bestiality
The other “supporting” material the accuser will use is the claim that Islam does not have a defined punishment for those who have sex with animals. This is an argument which is built on misconception and thrives on fertile imaginations.
It is spin based on a misconception; “The major myth of many people is that judges in Islamic nations have fixed punishments for all crimes. In reality the judges have much greater flexibility than judges under common law.” [6]
Just because a fixed punishment for this sin is not set it does not mean it is allowed in Islam or that it goes unpunished. In fact, it has been clearly shown the act is not allowed in Islam, thus the judge will decide on the punishment for somebody proven to have committed the degrading act of bestiality.
A Typical Claim Examined
For good measure I have appended a rebuttal, by Bassam Zawadi, to a Christian who was making the argument that Islam allows sex with animals. This Christian’s (Sam Shamoun) work was characterized by the spin of Fiqh which we have touched on in this article and bizarrely enough this Christian was so desperate to see his claim stick he even resorted to making up his OWN translation of a Quranic verse. How debauched can one get! (see appendix 1)
Overall Effects of this Claim
The lack of believability factor in this argument against Islam only serves to counteract the work of the mud-slingers and thus their other claims are further doubted; as in the case of the boy who cried “wolf”.
Article put together by Yahya Snow
References
[1] Free dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bestiality
[2] Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] The Little Green Book at the Prophet of Doom, (doubts concerning authenticity of translations).
[6] http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm
Appendices
Appendix 1
Bassam Zawadi refutes the “bestiality” argument by a Christian evangelist:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/sexual_ethics.htm
Appendix 2
Interesting reading about Sweden and zoophiles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5140576.ece
Tuesday, 25 May 2010
Does the Quran Teach Allah Prays/Worships? By Yahya Snow
Some Christian critics who know basic Arabic are claiming the Quran teaches us that Allah prays. They normally use this argument in an attempt to counter and pacify the Muslim use of the Bible which points to Jesus praying (Matthew 26:39).
Rather than focussing on Christianity let us look at the issue in hand; does Allah pray according to the Quran?
The claimants claim the Arabic translation (2:157, 33:43, 33:56) means Allah prays. However, once we consult the EXPERT translators, the lexicon, the commentaries and early Muslim clarification we realise the claimants are completely ignorant of word usage and thus incorrect.
Through the course of this article you will realise it really is a case of the Christian critic against the experts in the field, the experts do NOT agree with the Christian critics!
The structure of the article is thus, there will be a presentation of evidence against their claim based on different authorities:
*Expert Translators
*The Lexicon (Authoritative Arabic Dictionary)
*Expert Commentators
*Early Muslim views
After this evidence is passed over there will be a specific address (refutation) to a vocal critic’s (Sam Shamoun) written work in the interest of thoroughness. I chose Shamoun’s work as he seems to be the most vociferous in claiming Allah prays and is a source material for any subsequent claimant.
The Expert Translators (Masters in the Arabic language) disagree with the Christian critics
There are three Quranic verses which the claimant uses to make their claim. These three verses are translated below by THREE DIFFERENT translators; do these experts in the Arabic language think the Quran teaches us that Allah prays? No, you can see for yourself:
Quran 2:157
Dr. Mohsin : They are those on whom are the Salawât (i.e. who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided-ones.
Pickthal : Such are they on whom are blessings from their Lord, and mercy. Such are the rightly guided.
Yusuf Ali : They are those on whom (descend) blessings from their Lord and Mercy and they are the ones that receive guidance.
Quran 33:43
Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you, and His angels too (ask Allâh to bless and forgive you), that He may bring you out from darkness (of disbelief and polytheism) into light (of Belief and Islâmic Monotheism). And He is Ever Most Merciful to the believers.
Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you, and His angels (bless you), that He may bring you forth from darkness unto light; and He is Merciful to the believers.
Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers
Quran 33:56
Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and also His angels (ask Allâh to bless and forgive him). O you who believe! Send your Salât[] on (ask Allâh to bless) him (Muhammad SAW), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islâmic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As¬Salâmu 'Alaikum).
Pickthal : 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.
Yusuf Ali : Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! send ye blessings on him and salute him, with all respect.
The stubborn Christian critic, upon seeing these translations, will say these translations are produced by Muslims so we do not trust them. This is all rather silly but we shall indulge their argument further.
Well let us look at how the Christian missionary JM Rodwell translated the verses in question. Let us look at how AJ Arberry translated the verses in question, AJ Arberry is endorsed by the Christian MISSIONARY Robert Morey [1].
To further highlight the expert opinion we can bring the opinion of the CHRISTIAN missionary Rodwell (who is a translator of the Quran), does he think the Quran teaches Allah prays? No!
Rodwell agrees with the expert (Muslim) translators above. The same applies to AJ Arberry, he too agrees with the translations above and the same applies to George Sale:
Quran 33:56
George Sale 33:56
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet: O true believers, do ye also bless him, and salute him with a respectful salutation.
John Medows Rodwell 33:56
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet! Bless ye Him, O Believers, and salute Him with salutations of Peace.
Arthur John Arberry 33:56
God and His angels bless the Prophet. O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace.
Quran 33:43
Arthur John Arberry 33:43
It is He who blesses you, and His angels, to bring you forth from the shadows into the light. He is All-compassionate to the believers.
George Sale 33:43
It is He who is gracious unto you, and his angels intercede for you, that He may lead you forth from darkness into light; and He is merciful towards the true believers.
John Medows Rodwell 33:43
He blesseth you, and His angels intercede for you, that He may bring you forth out of darkness into light: and Merciful is He to the Believers.
Quran 2:157
AJ Arberry 2:157
Upon the rest blessings and mercy from their Lord and those---they are the truly guided
JM Rodwell 2:157
On them shall be blessings from their Lord, also mercy: and these! They are rightly guided
George Sale 2:157
Upon them shall be blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they are rightly directed.
So there they have it. It is NOT a Muslim conspiracy theory. The Christian critics should base their arguments on facts rather than conspiracy theories. Furthermore, if they are still in doubt why don’t they consult Lane’s Lexicon?
The Lexicon: Does the authoritative dictionary agree with the Christian missionaries? No.
Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.
Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)
From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].
Nowhere does Lane agree with the critic’s claims but Lane agrees with the expert translators (mentioned above). So the Christian critic is quite simply bringing stuff of conjecture to the table and has no in depth knowledge of Arabic word usage.
Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”
Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too. So lane the expert is agreeing with the Muslim translators but disagreeing with the critic’s unauthorized claims
So the experts in the field of Arabic disagree with the Christian critic’s bizarre claim. Thus it is clear Allah does not pray and the Muslim expert translators are correct. If there is still a stubborn critic holding onto his/her claim then they can view the commentary material.
Do the Expert Commentators Agree with the Christian critics? No.
If the critic was serious about their claim they would have consulted the commentaries as these reflect the early Arab (Muslim and non-Muslim Arabs) opinion related to word usage.
Let us open up Al-Tustari’s commentary (2:157), in fact al-Tustari explains all three verses in question and DISAGREES with the Christian critic.
Al-Tustari explains the word used in 2:157 (“al-salawat”):
“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord”
So we realise the verses in question does not refer to God (Allah) praying. Thus the translators are backed up by the early Muslim expert(Al Tustari). Al-Tustari goes further and explains the word used in the two other references (33:43 and 33:56) as blessings referring to forgiveness:
“As for its meaning of 'forgiveness', it is referred to in His words, Exalted is He, He it is who blesses you [33:43], meaning: 'He forgives you', and [again in His words]: as do His angels… [33:43], by which is meant: 'They seek forgiveness for you'. In the same vein are His words: Indeed God and His angels bless the Prophet [33:56], which mean: 'Truly God forgives the Prophet, and the angels seek forgiveness for him.'” [3]
So Al-Tustari explained these verses and the related word usage hundreds of years prior to the Christian critics coming on the scene with their broken Arabic looking to re-interpret sources according to their missionary agendas. The fact remains, Al-Tustari (the expert) does NOT agree with the critics; he did NOT believe any of the three verses (2:157, 33:43, and 33:56) taught Allah prays. Who are these critics to disagree with the early Muslim commentator?
If by chance there is STILL a critic espousing their claim then they can view early Arab thought concerning the verses in question.
Do Other Early Arab Experts Agree with the Christian Critics? No.
To be totally comprehensive let us open up another Tafsir master piece. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir literature also proves the critics are clearly in error as it points to other early Muslim (Arab) experts. When we read Ibn Kathir we note Allah’s Salah is explained:
“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.'' “ [4]
So we realise Abu Al-Aliyah did not believe Allah prayed! The same goes for At-Thawri and other scholars, neither At-Thawri or the other scholars thought the Quran taught Allah prays:
“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. “ [4]
Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.
None of these experts is claiming the references mean Allah prays and these experts knew the language remarkably well. In fact Lane uses these experts as source material for his lexicon! Who are these Christian critics to argue with the early Muslim (Arab) experts in the Arabic language?
Conclusion
The copious evidence presented showing the critics to be wrong is sufficient for anybody of a reasonable disposition to realise the Quran does not teach Allah prays.
Essentially the audience, is asked to choose between the Christian critic’s shoddy scholarship or the Muslim expert translators, the dictionary, the commentators and the early Arabs. It is a no brainer; clearly authority is correct and the agenda based missionaries are mistaken.
A Response to A Christian Critic
In the interest to deliver a comprehensive piece of work to the reader I have appended an article addressing the shoddy scholarship of the chief supporter of the Christian missionary claim. The gentleman, ironically enough, has a history of bringing his own unauthorized Quran translations to the table; previously he was found to have translated a Quranic verse in order to present Islam as a religion which allows bestiality! [5]
Nevertheless, his work shall be quickly combed through in a scholarly fashion, his work is entitled:
Islam and the prayers of Allah An examination of the worship and praise which Allah performs (by Sam Shamoun)
Yahya Snow responds:
Shamoun’s deceptive ways on 2:157
Shamoun wastes no time and immediately claims:
“We are told in the Quran that the Islamic deity prays for his followers, especially Muhammad”
The question is does Shamoun take into account the fact that Y.Ali, Pikthal, Hilali/Khan, Arberry, Rodwell and Sale all disagree with him? No.
Shamoun presents his OWN translation for the 2:157, here it is:
“They are those on whom are the prayers (salawatun) from their Lord and mercy (rahmatun), and it is they who are the guided-ones. S. 2:157”
Why does Shamoun not cite a translator to back him up? It is because all the translators (even Palmer) disagree with him!
Shamoun translates “salawatun” (salawat) as “the prayers”. Shamoun would have saved himself from the embarrassment if he had consulted an EXPERT, Al-Tustari has already (hundreds of years prior to Shamoun) defined the word used in 2:157 (“salawat”):
“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord” [3]
To further pour refutation and authoritative admonishment on Shamoun’s shoddy translation we can look to Palmer and Rodwell (as well as the Y.Ali, Pikthal and Hilali/Khan). None of these translators agree with Shamoun’s shoddy translation.
A.J Arberry translates is as “blessings” whilst E.H PALMER translates is as “blessings” too:
“These on them are blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they it is who are guided.” (EH Palmer 2:157)
There is a real significance to Palmer which highlights the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of Sam Shamoun. This shall be elaborated upon.
However, Shamoun does not even bother to inform his audience he simply made his OWN translation of 2:157. He does not inform them why he did this either! This is a misdirection of the audience but it gets worse. As Shamoun for the other two references (33:34 and 33:56) uses E.H. Palmer’s translation of the Quran.
Why did he not use Palmer’s for 2:157? It is obvious, because Palmer disagrees with Shamoun and translates the verse the same vein as the Muslim translators.
Sam Shamoun is playing games of inconsistency and partial information in order to misdirect the audience. If Shamoun was of a consistent scholarly substance he would have cited many translators (as I have done) or at least stuck with one translator for all three verses. Shamoun does not do this. He employs Palmer for two of the references but not the third as Palmer does not agree with Shamoun on 2:157, hence why Shamoun makes his OWN translation up and does not even announce this to his audience (readers).
Shamoun’s desperation in making his OWN translation of 2:157 highlights no expert translator agrees with him; if he had a translator who agreed with him he would have cited him or her. This is depraved deception and disrespectful to the unwitting reader.
Shamoun’s lack of expertise on 33:43 and 33:56
These two references can be discussed simultaneously as the relevant word in both Verses is derived from the same Arabic word (“salla”)
Shamoun brings E.H Palmer’s translation for both:
He it is who prays (yusallee) 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
Verily, God and His angels pray (yusalloona) for the prophet. O ye who believe! pray for him (salloo) and salute him with a salutation! S. 33:56 Palmer
Shamoun does add the transliterated Arabic words (bracketed) to the translation. It would have been responsible to note this was the doing of Sam Shamoun but Shamoun does not do the scholarly thing. However, this is not such a big issue.
Does Shamoun mention to his audience that the other translators (including the Christian missionary Rodwell) all translate these two verses in question differently from Palmer? No.
Is Palmer’s translation of 33:43 and 33:56 convincing?
So effectively it is a case of Palmer translating it as “pray” but the other experts disagree with Palmer and teach it to it refer to “bless” (or “gracious”) and NOT “pray”:
Quran 33:43
Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you..
Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you..
Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you..
Arthur John Arberry
It is He who blesses you..
John Medows Rodwell
He blesseth you..
George Sale
It is He who is gracious unto you..
Quran 33:56
Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW)…
Pickthal : Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet…
Yusuf Ali : Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet…
Arthur John Arberry
God and His angels bless the Prophet...
John Medows Rodwell
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet..
George Sale
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet..
Now, if Shamoun was scholarly he would have looked into how Palmer translates the related word (“salawat”) in 2:157. Palmer translates the related word as “blessings” and NOT prayers. Thus Palmer is not only isolated and in disagreement with the other translators but is INCONSISTENT in his translation which suggests and error on the part of Palmer.
So it would be unscholarly to use Palmer’s translation in this regard (33:43 and 56) to support a claim. However, our friend (Sam Shamoun) ignores principles of balanced scholarship and proceeds to use Palmer to support his claim.
If Shamoun is still unwilling to accept Palmer’s error then we can take the issue to Lane’s Lexicon.
Edward William Lane is an expert in the Arabic language. Lane explains the word (“salla”) used in the two verses (33:43and 56). Surely Lane will settle it once and for all.
Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.
Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)
From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].
Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”
Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too [2]. So Lane, the expert, is agreeing with the all the other translators but disagreeing with Palmer.
So we realise Palmer is not only inconsistent but not supported by his fellow translators nor the authoritative lexicon.
This points to Palmer being in error, thus it would be unscholarly of Shamoun or any other critic to use Palmer’s error in order to build their claim.
To further show Palmer is in error we can consult the early Muslim expert Ath-Thawri and other scholars:
“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. “ [4]
Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. Al-Tustari disagrees with Palmer as well [3]. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.
It is also fair to note Palmer is not to blame for this Christian critic claim as the critics manipulate and take advantage of Palmer’s error and inconsistency. As all the other experts and source material disagree with Palmer, I am of the view, if Palmer had a chance to revise his work he would change his translation to agree with the other translators and Lane’s Lexicon.
The more concerning element is the refusal of the Christian critics (including Shamoun) to portray the full picture to their audience. Agendas will be agendas!
Shamoun Brings Irrelevant Hadith Literature to the Table or Misrepresents it Completely
Shamoun, again wastes no time and states:
“The hadith reports also mention Allah praying for people”, he then brings a translation of a Hadith:
“1387. Abu Umama reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “Allah AND His angels AND the people of the heavens AND the earth, EVEN the ants in their rocks AND the fish, PRAY for blessings on those who teach people good." [at-Tirmidhi] (Aisha Bewley, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), Book of Knowledge, 241. Chapter: the excellence of knowledge; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)””
Shamoun, is extremely unscholarly here as at-Tirmidhi has ALREADY EXPLAINED the meaning concerning “pray” related to Allah. At-Tirmidhi clearly does not think Allah prays as he explains the term:
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. [4]
Thus the word “pray” is concerning Allah sending Mercy upon the recipient. That is all, it does not refer to Allah literally praying. So Shamoun should cross reference the Arabic phraseology before presenting such material, that way he would not look so unscholarly.
As we have seen previously, Lane’s Lexicon, Al-Tustari and the expert translators disagree with Shamoun’s rendering of the word.
Shamoun Butchers Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir Literature
Shamoun swiftly moves onto his translation of Ibn Kathir, he writes:
“The people of Israel said to Moses: “Does your Lord pray?” His Lord called him [saying]: “O Moses, they asked you if your Lord prays. Say [to them] ‘Yes, I do pray, and my angels [pray] upon my prophets and my messengers,’” and Allah then sent down on his messenger: “Allah and His angels pray…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 33:56; translated from the Arabic online edition; bold emphasis ours)”
Shamoun is unscholarly again, not only has Lane’s Lexicon explained the word in question (“salla” “pray”) but Ibn Kathir in his commentary of the SAME chapter explains the verse via at-Tirmidhi:.
“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.” [4]
So it is clear Ibn Kathir did not think “pray” (salla) meant what Shamoun tries to intimate. The real question is why did Shamoun translate his own bit from Ibn Kathir BUT ignore the explanation of Allah’s Salah within the SAME chapter of Ibn Kathir?
It is obvious, Shamoun wanted to misdirect the audience. The fact remains, Ibn Kathir’s EXPLANATION of Allah’s Salah is from the same section as the passage Shamoun translates so there is NO chance Shamoun did not view the explanation, thus it is clear Shamoun is trying to dupe the audience.
Shamoun Opening up the Dictionary
Shamoun then presents a basic translation of the words in question:
“What makes this rather amazing is that according to the Islamic sources the words salawat and salah refer to worship and glorification:
Ibn Al-Atheer in his highly acknowledged dictionary of the Arabic language, 'Al-Nihaayah fi Ghareeb al-Athar' has explained "Sala'h" as follows:
'Al-Sala'h' and 'Al-Salawaat': used for a particular kind of worship. Its literal origin is supplication (prayer). Sometimes, 'Sala'h' is referred to by mentioning any one or more of its parts. It is also said that the literal origin of the word is 'to glorify' and the particular worship is called 'Sala'h', because it entails the glorification of the Lord. (The Meaning of the Word "Sala'h", May 19, 2001; bold emphasis ours)”
Shamoun simply presents the standard meaning of the words used in everyday situations but does not present the meanings of words in relation to Allah. Thus Shamoun hides the in depth analysis of the word usage.
Al-Tustari has ALREADY taught us “al-Salawat” refers to a bestowal of Mercy when it refers to Allah (as in 2:157) and NOT what Shamoun suggests. Why did Shamoun not give the fuller picture?
As for Salah ,this was explained in IBN KATHIR, it is worthy of note to mention (again) that Shamoun has READ IBN KATHIR’S Tafsir related to Salah, why did Shamoun not present it? It is clear as it scuppers Shamoun’s claims. Thus Shamoun is not after honest scholarship but is after deception.
From Ibn Kathir:
“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.” [4]
So Ibn Kathir and the early Muslims KNEW Allah’s Salah did NOT mean Allah prayed! It referred to his Blessing of Mercy ( Al-Tustari: a bestowal of Mercy)
“Salla” and “Salawat” with Sam Shamoun
Shamoun also gives examples of the words “salla” and “salawat” and tries to argue his case BUT FORGETS to mention his examples are not linked to Allah. The experts including Lane all teach that the words in question have a different meaning once linked to Allah. It really is getting repetitive now.
Thereafter Shamoun drifts of topic he starts talking about praises and referring to work of those who counter him. I feel what has been said here is sufficient. If you feel the rest of his article requires attention then please let me know (or alternatively if somebody else has countered Shamoun’s article the let me know as I can link to it, God Willing).You can read Shamoun’s article in full here:http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/allah_worships.html
Conclusion
Shamoun uses slight of hand and audience misdirection by withholding the full picture from the readers. Effectively Shamoun disagrees with the expert translators, Lane’s Lexicon, Tafsir writers and early experts in the Arabic language. Does Shamoun bring any proof to show all these authorities to be wrong? No.
The facts remain Shamoun has no authority and is basing his views on conjecture and wishful thinking. It seems as though Shamoun simply puts this claim out there because he is frustrated with Muslims pointing to the Biblical account of Jesus worshipping as evidence against Jesus being God. So Shamoun seems to be motivated by insincere goals.
If he really believes God worships then that is down to him but in his frustration at Muslim objections to his belief (that God worships in the Bible) Shamoun should not overstep scholarly bounds and make half-hearted attempts to make the same claim against God in the Quran.
Shamoun, seems unscholarly, deceptive immature with his claim.
So does Allah worship? Well, the experts say NO.
References
[1] Robert Morey’s The Islamic Invasion, Christian Scholar Press, 1992 pg 21
[2] An Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, Williams and Norgate, 1872, pg 1720
[3] Tafsir Al-Tustari, (2:157), trans. Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler
[4] Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Surah 33), Dar as-Salam Publishing
[5] http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=788§ion=family_society&subsection=
Rather than focussing on Christianity let us look at the issue in hand; does Allah pray according to the Quran?
The claimants claim the Arabic translation (2:157, 33:43, 33:56) means Allah prays. However, once we consult the EXPERT translators, the lexicon, the commentaries and early Muslim clarification we realise the claimants are completely ignorant of word usage and thus incorrect.
Through the course of this article you will realise it really is a case of the Christian critic against the experts in the field, the experts do NOT agree with the Christian critics!
The structure of the article is thus, there will be a presentation of evidence against their claim based on different authorities:
*Expert Translators
*The Lexicon (Authoritative Arabic Dictionary)
*Expert Commentators
*Early Muslim views
After this evidence is passed over there will be a specific address (refutation) to a vocal critic’s (Sam Shamoun) written work in the interest of thoroughness. I chose Shamoun’s work as he seems to be the most vociferous in claiming Allah prays and is a source material for any subsequent claimant.
The Expert Translators (Masters in the Arabic language) disagree with the Christian critics
There are three Quranic verses which the claimant uses to make their claim. These three verses are translated below by THREE DIFFERENT translators; do these experts in the Arabic language think the Quran teaches us that Allah prays? No, you can see for yourself:
Quran 2:157
Dr. Mohsin : They are those on whom are the Salawât (i.e. who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided-ones.
Pickthal : Such are they on whom are blessings from their Lord, and mercy. Such are the rightly guided.
Yusuf Ali : They are those on whom (descend) blessings from their Lord and Mercy and they are the ones that receive guidance.
Quran 33:43
Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you, and His angels too (ask Allâh to bless and forgive you), that He may bring you out from darkness (of disbelief and polytheism) into light (of Belief and Islâmic Monotheism). And He is Ever Most Merciful to the believers.
Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you, and His angels (bless you), that He may bring you forth from darkness unto light; and He is Merciful to the believers.
Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers
Quran 33:56
Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and also His angels (ask Allâh to bless and forgive him). O you who believe! Send your Salât[] on (ask Allâh to bless) him (Muhammad SAW), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islâmic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As¬Salâmu 'Alaikum).
Pickthal : 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.
Yusuf Ali : Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! send ye blessings on him and salute him, with all respect.
The stubborn Christian critic, upon seeing these translations, will say these translations are produced by Muslims so we do not trust them. This is all rather silly but we shall indulge their argument further.
Well let us look at how the Christian missionary JM Rodwell translated the verses in question. Let us look at how AJ Arberry translated the verses in question, AJ Arberry is endorsed by the Christian MISSIONARY Robert Morey [1].
To further highlight the expert opinion we can bring the opinion of the CHRISTIAN missionary Rodwell (who is a translator of the Quran), does he think the Quran teaches Allah prays? No!
Rodwell agrees with the expert (Muslim) translators above. The same applies to AJ Arberry, he too agrees with the translations above and the same applies to George Sale:
Quran 33:56
George Sale 33:56
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet: O true believers, do ye also bless him, and salute him with a respectful salutation.
John Medows Rodwell 33:56
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet! Bless ye Him, O Believers, and salute Him with salutations of Peace.
Arthur John Arberry 33:56
God and His angels bless the Prophet. O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace.
Quran 33:43
Arthur John Arberry 33:43
It is He who blesses you, and His angels, to bring you forth from the shadows into the light. He is All-compassionate to the believers.
George Sale 33:43
It is He who is gracious unto you, and his angels intercede for you, that He may lead you forth from darkness into light; and He is merciful towards the true believers.
John Medows Rodwell 33:43
He blesseth you, and His angels intercede for you, that He may bring you forth out of darkness into light: and Merciful is He to the Believers.
Quran 2:157
AJ Arberry 2:157
Upon the rest blessings and mercy from their Lord and those---they are the truly guided
JM Rodwell 2:157
On them shall be blessings from their Lord, also mercy: and these! They are rightly guided
George Sale 2:157
Upon them shall be blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they are rightly directed.
So there they have it. It is NOT a Muslim conspiracy theory. The Christian critics should base their arguments on facts rather than conspiracy theories. Furthermore, if they are still in doubt why don’t they consult Lane’s Lexicon?
The Lexicon: Does the authoritative dictionary agree with the Christian missionaries? No.
Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.
Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)
From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].
Nowhere does Lane agree with the critic’s claims but Lane agrees with the expert translators (mentioned above). So the Christian critic is quite simply bringing stuff of conjecture to the table and has no in depth knowledge of Arabic word usage.
Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”
Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too. So lane the expert is agreeing with the Muslim translators but disagreeing with the critic’s unauthorized claims
So the experts in the field of Arabic disagree with the Christian critic’s bizarre claim. Thus it is clear Allah does not pray and the Muslim expert translators are correct. If there is still a stubborn critic holding onto his/her claim then they can view the commentary material.
Do the Expert Commentators Agree with the Christian critics? No.
If the critic was serious about their claim they would have consulted the commentaries as these reflect the early Arab (Muslim and non-Muslim Arabs) opinion related to word usage.
Let us open up Al-Tustari’s commentary (2:157), in fact al-Tustari explains all three verses in question and DISAGREES with the Christian critic.
Al-Tustari explains the word used in 2:157 (“al-salawat”):
“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord”
So we realise the verses in question does not refer to God (Allah) praying. Thus the translators are backed up by the early Muslim expert(Al Tustari). Al-Tustari goes further and explains the word used in the two other references (33:43 and 33:56) as blessings referring to forgiveness:
“As for its meaning of 'forgiveness', it is referred to in His words, Exalted is He, He it is who blesses you [33:43], meaning: 'He forgives you', and [again in His words]: as do His angels… [33:43], by which is meant: 'They seek forgiveness for you'. In the same vein are His words: Indeed God and His angels bless the Prophet [33:56], which mean: 'Truly God forgives the Prophet, and the angels seek forgiveness for him.'” [3]
So Al-Tustari explained these verses and the related word usage hundreds of years prior to the Christian critics coming on the scene with their broken Arabic looking to re-interpret sources according to their missionary agendas. The fact remains, Al-Tustari (the expert) does NOT agree with the critics; he did NOT believe any of the three verses (2:157, 33:43, and 33:56) taught Allah prays. Who are these critics to disagree with the early Muslim commentator?
If by chance there is STILL a critic espousing their claim then they can view early Arab thought concerning the verses in question.
Do Other Early Arab Experts Agree with the Christian Critics? No.
To be totally comprehensive let us open up another Tafsir master piece. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir literature also proves the critics are clearly in error as it points to other early Muslim (Arab) experts. When we read Ibn Kathir we note Allah’s Salah is explained:
“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.'' “ [4]
So we realise Abu Al-Aliyah did not believe Allah prayed! The same goes for At-Thawri and other scholars, neither At-Thawri or the other scholars thought the Quran taught Allah prays:
“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. “ [4]
Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.
None of these experts is claiming the references mean Allah prays and these experts knew the language remarkably well. In fact Lane uses these experts as source material for his lexicon! Who are these Christian critics to argue with the early Muslim (Arab) experts in the Arabic language?
Conclusion
The copious evidence presented showing the critics to be wrong is sufficient for anybody of a reasonable disposition to realise the Quran does not teach Allah prays.
Essentially the audience, is asked to choose between the Christian critic’s shoddy scholarship or the Muslim expert translators, the dictionary, the commentators and the early Arabs. It is a no brainer; clearly authority is correct and the agenda based missionaries are mistaken.
A Response to A Christian Critic
In the interest to deliver a comprehensive piece of work to the reader I have appended an article addressing the shoddy scholarship of the chief supporter of the Christian missionary claim. The gentleman, ironically enough, has a history of bringing his own unauthorized Quran translations to the table; previously he was found to have translated a Quranic verse in order to present Islam as a religion which allows bestiality! [5]
Nevertheless, his work shall be quickly combed through in a scholarly fashion, his work is entitled:
Islam and the prayers of Allah An examination of the worship and praise which Allah performs (by Sam Shamoun)
Yahya Snow responds:
Shamoun’s deceptive ways on 2:157
Shamoun wastes no time and immediately claims:
“We are told in the Quran that the Islamic deity prays for his followers, especially Muhammad”
The question is does Shamoun take into account the fact that Y.Ali, Pikthal, Hilali/Khan, Arberry, Rodwell and Sale all disagree with him? No.
Shamoun presents his OWN translation for the 2:157, here it is:
“They are those on whom are the prayers (salawatun) from their Lord and mercy (rahmatun), and it is they who are the guided-ones. S. 2:157”
Why does Shamoun not cite a translator to back him up? It is because all the translators (even Palmer) disagree with him!
Shamoun translates “salawatun” (salawat) as “the prayers”. Shamoun would have saved himself from the embarrassment if he had consulted an EXPERT, Al-Tustari has already (hundreds of years prior to Shamoun) defined the word used in 2:157 (“salawat”):
“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord” [3]
To further pour refutation and authoritative admonishment on Shamoun’s shoddy translation we can look to Palmer and Rodwell (as well as the Y.Ali, Pikthal and Hilali/Khan). None of these translators agree with Shamoun’s shoddy translation.
A.J Arberry translates is as “blessings” whilst E.H PALMER translates is as “blessings” too:
“These on them are blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they it is who are guided.” (EH Palmer 2:157)
There is a real significance to Palmer which highlights the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of Sam Shamoun. This shall be elaborated upon.
However, Shamoun does not even bother to inform his audience he simply made his OWN translation of 2:157. He does not inform them why he did this either! This is a misdirection of the audience but it gets worse. As Shamoun for the other two references (33:34 and 33:56) uses E.H. Palmer’s translation of the Quran.
Why did he not use Palmer’s for 2:157? It is obvious, because Palmer disagrees with Shamoun and translates the verse the same vein as the Muslim translators.
Sam Shamoun is playing games of inconsistency and partial information in order to misdirect the audience. If Shamoun was of a consistent scholarly substance he would have cited many translators (as I have done) or at least stuck with one translator for all three verses. Shamoun does not do this. He employs Palmer for two of the references but not the third as Palmer does not agree with Shamoun on 2:157, hence why Shamoun makes his OWN translation up and does not even announce this to his audience (readers).
Shamoun’s desperation in making his OWN translation of 2:157 highlights no expert translator agrees with him; if he had a translator who agreed with him he would have cited him or her. This is depraved deception and disrespectful to the unwitting reader.
Shamoun’s lack of expertise on 33:43 and 33:56
These two references can be discussed simultaneously as the relevant word in both Verses is derived from the same Arabic word (“salla”)
Shamoun brings E.H Palmer’s translation for both:
He it is who prays (yusallee) 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
Verily, God and His angels pray (yusalloona) for the prophet. O ye who believe! pray for him (salloo) and salute him with a salutation! S. 33:56 Palmer
Shamoun does add the transliterated Arabic words (bracketed) to the translation. It would have been responsible to note this was the doing of Sam Shamoun but Shamoun does not do the scholarly thing. However, this is not such a big issue.
Does Shamoun mention to his audience that the other translators (including the Christian missionary Rodwell) all translate these two verses in question differently from Palmer? No.
Is Palmer’s translation of 33:43 and 33:56 convincing?
So effectively it is a case of Palmer translating it as “pray” but the other experts disagree with Palmer and teach it to it refer to “bless” (or “gracious”) and NOT “pray”:
Quran 33:43
Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you..
Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you..
Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you..
Arthur John Arberry
It is He who blesses you..
John Medows Rodwell
He blesseth you..
George Sale
It is He who is gracious unto you..
Quran 33:56
Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW)…
Pickthal : Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet…
Yusuf Ali : Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet…
Arthur John Arberry
God and His angels bless the Prophet...
John Medows Rodwell
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet..
George Sale
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet..
Now, if Shamoun was scholarly he would have looked into how Palmer translates the related word (“salawat”) in 2:157. Palmer translates the related word as “blessings” and NOT prayers. Thus Palmer is not only isolated and in disagreement with the other translators but is INCONSISTENT in his translation which suggests and error on the part of Palmer.
So it would be unscholarly to use Palmer’s translation in this regard (33:43 and 56) to support a claim. However, our friend (Sam Shamoun) ignores principles of balanced scholarship and proceeds to use Palmer to support his claim.
If Shamoun is still unwilling to accept Palmer’s error then we can take the issue to Lane’s Lexicon.
Edward William Lane is an expert in the Arabic language. Lane explains the word (“salla”) used in the two verses (33:43and 56). Surely Lane will settle it once and for all.
Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.
Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)
From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].
Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”
Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too [2]. So Lane, the expert, is agreeing with the all the other translators but disagreeing with Palmer.
So we realise Palmer is not only inconsistent but not supported by his fellow translators nor the authoritative lexicon.
This points to Palmer being in error, thus it would be unscholarly of Shamoun or any other critic to use Palmer’s error in order to build their claim.
To further show Palmer is in error we can consult the early Muslim expert Ath-Thawri and other scholars:
“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. “ [4]
Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. Al-Tustari disagrees with Palmer as well [3]. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.
It is also fair to note Palmer is not to blame for this Christian critic claim as the critics manipulate and take advantage of Palmer’s error and inconsistency. As all the other experts and source material disagree with Palmer, I am of the view, if Palmer had a chance to revise his work he would change his translation to agree with the other translators and Lane’s Lexicon.
The more concerning element is the refusal of the Christian critics (including Shamoun) to portray the full picture to their audience. Agendas will be agendas!
Shamoun Brings Irrelevant Hadith Literature to the Table or Misrepresents it Completely
Shamoun, again wastes no time and states:
“The hadith reports also mention Allah praying for people”, he then brings a translation of a Hadith:
“1387. Abu Umama reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “Allah AND His angels AND the people of the heavens AND the earth, EVEN the ants in their rocks AND the fish, PRAY for blessings on those who teach people good." [at-Tirmidhi] (Aisha Bewley, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), Book of Knowledge, 241. Chapter: the excellence of knowledge; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)””
Shamoun, is extremely unscholarly here as at-Tirmidhi has ALREADY EXPLAINED the meaning concerning “pray” related to Allah. At-Tirmidhi clearly does not think Allah prays as he explains the term:
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. [4]
Thus the word “pray” is concerning Allah sending Mercy upon the recipient. That is all, it does not refer to Allah literally praying. So Shamoun should cross reference the Arabic phraseology before presenting such material, that way he would not look so unscholarly.
As we have seen previously, Lane’s Lexicon, Al-Tustari and the expert translators disagree with Shamoun’s rendering of the word.
Shamoun Butchers Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir Literature
Shamoun swiftly moves onto his translation of Ibn Kathir, he writes:
“The people of Israel said to Moses: “Does your Lord pray?” His Lord called him [saying]: “O Moses, they asked you if your Lord prays. Say [to them] ‘Yes, I do pray, and my angels [pray] upon my prophets and my messengers,’” and Allah then sent down on his messenger: “Allah and His angels pray…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 33:56; translated from the Arabic online edition; bold emphasis ours)”
Shamoun is unscholarly again, not only has Lane’s Lexicon explained the word in question (“salla” “pray”) but Ibn Kathir in his commentary of the SAME chapter explains the verse via at-Tirmidhi:.
“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.” [4]
So it is clear Ibn Kathir did not think “pray” (salla) meant what Shamoun tries to intimate. The real question is why did Shamoun translate his own bit from Ibn Kathir BUT ignore the explanation of Allah’s Salah within the SAME chapter of Ibn Kathir?
It is obvious, Shamoun wanted to misdirect the audience. The fact remains, Ibn Kathir’s EXPLANATION of Allah’s Salah is from the same section as the passage Shamoun translates so there is NO chance Shamoun did not view the explanation, thus it is clear Shamoun is trying to dupe the audience.
Shamoun Opening up the Dictionary
Shamoun then presents a basic translation of the words in question:
“What makes this rather amazing is that according to the Islamic sources the words salawat and salah refer to worship and glorification:
Ibn Al-Atheer in his highly acknowledged dictionary of the Arabic language, 'Al-Nihaayah fi Ghareeb al-Athar' has explained "Sala'h" as follows:
'Al-Sala'h' and 'Al-Salawaat': used for a particular kind of worship. Its literal origin is supplication (prayer). Sometimes, 'Sala'h' is referred to by mentioning any one or more of its parts. It is also said that the literal origin of the word is 'to glorify' and the particular worship is called 'Sala'h', because it entails the glorification of the Lord. (The Meaning of the Word "Sala'h", May 19, 2001; bold emphasis ours)”
Shamoun simply presents the standard meaning of the words used in everyday situations but does not present the meanings of words in relation to Allah. Thus Shamoun hides the in depth analysis of the word usage.
Al-Tustari has ALREADY taught us “al-Salawat” refers to a bestowal of Mercy when it refers to Allah (as in 2:157) and NOT what Shamoun suggests. Why did Shamoun not give the fuller picture?
As for Salah ,this was explained in IBN KATHIR, it is worthy of note to mention (again) that Shamoun has READ IBN KATHIR’S Tafsir related to Salah, why did Shamoun not present it? It is clear as it scuppers Shamoun’s claims. Thus Shamoun is not after honest scholarship but is after deception.
From Ibn Kathir:
“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.” [4]
So Ibn Kathir and the early Muslims KNEW Allah’s Salah did NOT mean Allah prayed! It referred to his Blessing of Mercy ( Al-Tustari: a bestowal of Mercy)
“Salla” and “Salawat” with Sam Shamoun
Shamoun also gives examples of the words “salla” and “salawat” and tries to argue his case BUT FORGETS to mention his examples are not linked to Allah. The experts including Lane all teach that the words in question have a different meaning once linked to Allah. It really is getting repetitive now.
Thereafter Shamoun drifts of topic he starts talking about praises and referring to work of those who counter him. I feel what has been said here is sufficient. If you feel the rest of his article requires attention then please let me know (or alternatively if somebody else has countered Shamoun’s article the let me know as I can link to it, God Willing).You can read Shamoun’s article in full here:http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/allah_worships.html
Conclusion
Shamoun uses slight of hand and audience misdirection by withholding the full picture from the readers. Effectively Shamoun disagrees with the expert translators, Lane’s Lexicon, Tafsir writers and early experts in the Arabic language. Does Shamoun bring any proof to show all these authorities to be wrong? No.
The facts remain Shamoun has no authority and is basing his views on conjecture and wishful thinking. It seems as though Shamoun simply puts this claim out there because he is frustrated with Muslims pointing to the Biblical account of Jesus worshipping as evidence against Jesus being God. So Shamoun seems to be motivated by insincere goals.
If he really believes God worships then that is down to him but in his frustration at Muslim objections to his belief (that God worships in the Bible) Shamoun should not overstep scholarly bounds and make half-hearted attempts to make the same claim against God in the Quran.
Shamoun, seems unscholarly, deceptive immature with his claim.
So does Allah worship? Well, the experts say NO.
References
[1] Robert Morey’s The Islamic Invasion, Christian Scholar Press, 1992 pg 21
[2] An Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, Williams and Norgate, 1872, pg 1720
[3] Tafsir Al-Tustari, (2:157), trans. Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler
[4] Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Surah 33), Dar as-Salam Publishing
[5] http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=788§ion=family_society&subsection=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
