Responses to Sami Zaataris Debate Points [Part 2]
As promised we resume our analysis of Samis debate points.
As far as Muhammad initially believing that he was demon-possessed Sami responded by appealing to the fact that Muhammad grew up in a different environment that was completely pagan, and therefore didnt know any better. This shows that he is either ignorant of what his own religious texts teach or he is simply lying.
This claim is blatantly false in light of what the Islamic sources themselves say. For instance, Muslim records state that Ishmael settled in Mecca where both he and Abraham built the Kabah.
The Quran even says that Ishmael was given a book by revelation and commanded his people in the way of true religion:
We have revealed to thee as We revealed to Noah, and the Prophets after him, and We revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, Jesus and Job, Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and We gave to David Psalms, S. 4:163
And We gave to him Isaac and Jacob -- each one We guided, And Noah We guided before; and of his seed David and Solomon, Job and Joseph, Moses and Aaron -- even so We recompense the good-doers -- Zachariah and John, Jesus and Elias; each was of the righteous; Ishmael and Elisha, Jonah and Lot-each one We preferred above all beings; and of their fathers, and of their seed, and of their brethren; and We elected them, and We guided them to a straight path. That is God's guidance; He guides by it whom He will of His servants; had they been idolaters, it would have failed them, the things they did. Those are they to whom We gave the Book, the Judgment, the Prophethood; so if these disbelieve in it, We have already entrusted it to a people who do not disbelieve in it. S. 6:84-89
And mention in the Book Ishmael; he was true to his promise, and he was a Messenger, a Prophet. He bade his people to pray and to give the alms, and he was pleasing to his Lord These are they whom God has blessed among the Prophets of the seed of Adam, and of those We bore with Noah, and of the seed of Abraham and Israel, and of those We guided and chose. When the signs of the All-merciful were recited to them, they fell down prostrate, weeping. S. 19:54-55, 58
Since the Muslims believe that the Quran is historically accurate they must therefore accept that Muhammad wasnt ignorant concerning the religion of Allah and must have known that his ancestor Ishmael was a prophet who enjoined upon his progeny Tawhid (Islamic unity) and specific religious practices such as the rites of the pilgrimage (Hajj).
If this is so then Muhammad must have been aware of the prophets and would have an idea of the nature of revelation.
This is especially true when we realize that Muhammad met some of the so-called hanifs, or those who had abandoned paganism for the worship of the one true God:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet met Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail in the bottom of (the valley of) Baldah before any Divine Inspiration came to the Prophet. A meal was presented to the Prophet but he refused to eat from it. (Then it was presented to Zaid) who said, "I do not eat anything which you slaughter in the name of your stone idols. I eat none but those things on which Allah's Name has been mentioned at the time of slaughtering." Zaid bin 'Amr used to criticize the way Quraish used to slaughter their animals, and used to say, "Allah has created the sheep and He has sent the water for it from the sky, and He has grown the grass for it from the earth; yet you slaughter it in other than the Name of Allah." He used to say so, for he rejected that practice and considered it as something abominable.
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Zaid bin 'Amr bin Nufail went to Sham, inquiring about a true religion to follow. He met a Jewish religious scholar and asked him about their religion. He said, "I intend to embrace your religion, so tell me something about it." The Jew said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you receive your share of Allah's Anger." Zaid said, "I do not run except from Allah's Anger, and I will never bear a bit of it if I have the power to avoid it. Can you tell me of some other religion?" He said, "I do not know any other religion except the Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He said, "Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, and he used to worship none but Allah (Alone)." Then Zaid went out and met a Christian religious scholar and told him the same as before. The Christian said, "You will not embrace our religion unless you get a share of Allah's Curse." Zaid replied, "I do not run except from Allah's Curse, and I will never bear any of Allah's Curse and His Anger if I have the power to avoid them. Will you tell me of some other religion?" He replied, "I do not know any other religion except Hanif." Zaid enquired, "What is Hanif?" He replied, "Hanif is the religion of (the prophet) Abraham who was neither a Jew nor a Christian and he used to worship none but Allah (Alone)." When Zaid heard their Statement about (the religion of) Abraham, he left that place, and when he came out, he raised both his hands and said, "O Allah! I make You my Witness that I am on the religion of Abraham."
Narrated Asma bint Abi Bakr: I saw Zaid bin Amr bin Nufail standing with his back against the Ka'ba and saying, "O people of Quraish! By Allah, none amongst you is on the religion of Abraham except me." He used to preserve the lives of little girls: If somebody wanted to kill his daughter he would say to him, "Do not kill her for I will feed her on your behalf." So he would take her, and when she grew up nicely, he would say to her father, "Now if you want her, I will give her to you, and if you wish, I will feed her on your behalf." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169)
The same Islamic sources also report that while traveling with his uncle to Syria, Muhammad met a monk named Bahira who claimed that he was the prophet predicted in the Holy Bible. Furthermore, after Muhammads encounters with a spirit his wife took him to her relative Waraqa b. Naufal who was a Christian priest. This shows that he would have had some idea concerning the Biblical teaching on prophets and revelation.
Moreover, even if it were true that Muhammad had no prophetic tradition to fall upon this still wouldnt justify the manner of his experiences and the suicidal tendencies which resulted from them. Abraham also had no prophetic tradition to fall upon when God called him to be his friend. The Holy Bible shows that Abrahams family members were idolators:
"Joshua said to all the people, This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: "Long ago your forefathers, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the River and worshiped other gods."" Joshua 24:2
The Bible describes the call of Abraham:
"The LORD had said to Abram, Leave your country, your people and your father's household and go to the land I will show you. I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you. So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he set out from Haran. He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there. Abram traveled through the land as far as the site of the great tree of Moreh at Shechem. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. The LORD appeared to Abram and said, To your offspring I will give this land. So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him. From there he went on toward the hills east of Bethel and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There he built an altar to the LORD and called on the name of the LORD." Genesis 12:1-8
Unlike Muhammad, Abraham experienced no fears, no doubts, and no suicidal tendencies when encountering God for the first time. Now if Sami claims that Abraham would have had an idea of prophecy from his ancestors since he was a descendant of Noah who had spoken with God, then we would simply repeat what we stated above. If we are to accept the Quran and the Islamic traditions at face value then Muhammad also knew of Biblical prophecy and should therefore not have had the doubts and fears that he did. That he did have such doubts as a result of the violent experiences he had with a spirit that were completely unlike what Gods true prophets had ever encountered only serves to further confirm that the true God didnt speak to him.
Speaking of Waraqa, Sami claimed that since he knew the Holy Bible he would be in a better position to determine whether what Muhammad encountered was from God or not. And yet Waraqa testified that Muhammad had seen Gabriel.
The problem with this argument is that Waraqa didnt have any real reason to disbelieve Muhammads initial fears that a spirit had possessed him. In fact, neither Waraqa nor Muhammads wife provided Muhammad with any legitimate Biblical basis to deny that the spirit that had appeared to him was either Satan or one of his demons. Notice what Al-Bukhari records:
(the mother of the faithful believers) The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read."
The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, I do not know how to read. Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)? Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." (96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allahs Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." Khadija replied, "Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones."
Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin Abdul Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allahs Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allahs Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3)
The reasons that Khadijah gave to convince Muhammad that he wasnt possessed are unconvincing since even relatively good people can come under satanic possession.
More importantly, for a person who was supposed to be reading the Gospel Waraqa was rather too hasty in assuming that God had sent to Muhammad the same entity that had also appeared to Moses. Waraqa must have known that no genuine Biblical prophet had ever been violated and demoralized by Gods Spirit or holy angels. Besides, Waraqa should have known to test the message brought by this spirit to see if it was in complete agreement with the Gospel that he was reading and had access to. After all, the New Testament expressly says not to believe every entity but to test them so as to see whether they confess the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ:
"I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband. But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds." 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, 13-15
"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood. Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." 1 John 4:1-10; cf. 2:22-23; Galatians 1:8-9
In the context, what John means by Christ coming in the flesh is that the prehuman Son of God came down from heaven and become a man. In other words, John is referring to the Incarnation, e.g. all true prophets who speak by Gods Spirit must testify that Jesus is Gods preexistent Son who became flesh, became a man, in order to save us from our sins. Since Muhammad denied this he is one of those false prophets that came into the world.
Interestingly, Waraqa himself wasnt completely certain at first that the spirit who appeared to Muhammad was Gabriel since he suspected that it might have been Satan or a demon:
"Waraqa was dumbfounded at this, and said, If Gabriel has actually placed his feet upon the earth, he has done so for the best of people thereupon. And he never came down for anyone except a prophet. For he is the companion of all the prophets and messengers, the one whom God sends down to them. I believe what you tell me of him. Send for Abd Allahs son, so that I may question him, hear what he says and talk to him. I am afraid it may be someone other than Gabriel, for certain devils imitate him and by so doing can mislead and corrupt some men. This can result in a man becoming confused and even crazy whereas before he had been of sound mind." (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), Volume I, translated by professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization, 1998], pp. 296-297; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Finally, pay attention to the statement of the hadith that Waraqa died shortly after Muhammad started having these experiences and never got to hear the message that Muhammad would eventually bring. Had he continued to live and actually learned what Muhammad would later preach about Jesus Christ and his Cross, Waraqa may not have been so keen to support him and may have come to the realization that his fears concerning that it was one of the devils who appeared to Muhammad was correct.
Thus, Samis appeal to Waraqas testimony is quite suspect.
For more on Muhammads initial fears we suggest the following articles:
When Wood mentioned Muhammad and his thugs raping captive women Sami denied this and claimed that this was consensual sex. He even had the audacity to say that Islam doesnt allow raping slaves!
Here is what the Quran actually says:
Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, - desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise. S. 4:24 Y. Ali
The above passage emphatically allows for adultery since it is permitting Muslims to rape captives who are married!
It did not remain an abstract theoretical right, but was readily put into practice by the Muslim jihadists:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3371)
Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150)
Noted Sunni expositor Ibn Kathir wrote:
<except those whom your right hands possess>
except those women whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant.
Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Said Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed
<Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess>.
Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women." This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasai, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 2, Parts 3, 4 & 5 (Surat Al-Baqarah, Verse 253, to Surat An-Nisa, Verse 147), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First edition, March 2000], p. 422; bold emphasis ours)
Zaatari wants his audience to really believe that these women, whose land had been pillaged, their people murdered, and whose captive husbands were right there before them, actually consented to having sex with their captors! In fact, these women couldnt wait to sleep with their Muslim overlords!
As if he couldnt get any more desperate Zaatari misapplies the following hadith:
Narrated Al-Ma'rur: "At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names. The Prophet said to me, O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names? You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Belief, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29)
By appealing to this narrative Sami has now caused himself a major problem. If his eisegesis is correct then this means that the men whom the Muslims took captive were also to be treated as their brothers. This being the case why does Muhammad and his Quran allow the Muslims to sleep with these mens wives? Is this how Muslims are to love their slaves as their brothers? Would Samis father allow his fellow Muslim to sleep with Samis mom? Wouldnt this be adultery? And if Sami did have a Muslim slave who was married would it be lawful for him to sleep with his slaves wife as an act of brotherly love?
It is apparent that what Muhammad meant here is that a Muslim is not to mistreat his Muslim slave. This doesnt apply to the disbelievers who have been taken captive since the Quran disavows and disallows loving unbelievers even if they happen to be family members:
O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand. Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and you believe in all the Scriptures [i.e. you believe in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), while they disbelieve in your Book, the Qur'an]. And when they meet you, they say, "We believe". But when they are alone, they bite the tips of their fingers at you in rage. Say: "Perish in your rage. Certainly, Allah knows what is in the breasts (all the secrets)." If a good befalls you, it grieves them, but if some evil overtakes you, they rejoice at it. But if you remain patient and become Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2), not the least harm will their cunning do to you. Surely, Allah surrounds all that they do. S. 3:118-120 Hilali-Khan
O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer God an open proof against yourselves? S. 4:144 Pickthall
O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. God guides not the people of the evildoers. Yet thou seest those in whose hearts is sickness vying with one another to come to them, saying, 'We fear lest a turn of fortune should smite us.' But it may be that God will bring the victory, or some commandment from Him, and then they will find themselves, for that they kept secret within them, remorseful, and the believers will say, 'What, are these the ones who swore by God most earnest oaths that they were with you? Their works have failed now they are losers.' O believers, whosoever of you turns from his religion, God will assuredly bring a people He loves, and who love Him, humble towards the believers, disdainful towards the unbelievers, men who struggle in the path of God (yujahidoona fee sabeel Allah), not fearing the reproach of any reproacher. That is God's bounty; He gives it unto whom He will; and God is All-embracing, All-knowing. Your friend is only God, and His Messenger, and the believers who perform the prayer and pay the alms, and bow them down. Whoso makes God his friend, and His Messenger, and the believers -- the party of God (hizba Allah), they are the victors. O believers, take not as your friends those of them, who were given the Book before you, and the unbelievers, who take your religion in mockery and as a sport -- and fear God, if you are believers -- S. 5:51-57 Arberry
O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers. Say: If your fathers, and your sons, and your brethren, and your wives, and your tribe, and the wealth ye have acquired, and merchandise for which ye fear that there will no sale, and dwellings ye desire are dearer to you than Allah and His messenger and striving in His way: then wait till Allah bringeth His command to pass. Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. S. 9:23-24 Pickthall
Thou wilt not find any people who believe in God and the Last Day, loving those who resist God and His Apostle, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever). God will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of God. Truly it is the Party of God that will achieve Felicity. S. 58:22 Y. Ali
He further stated that the Bible doesnt forbid consensual sex with slaves (or captives, since this is what Wood was talking about). This exposes his ignorance of Biblical theology since the Holy Scriptures forbid raping captives and commands the Israelites to marry them in the case they find one of them attractive:
"When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her AS YOUR WIFE. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her." Deuteronomy 21:10-14
What makes this injunction truly amazing is that Yahweh expressly forbids the husband from selling her in the case he divorces the wife, and commands him to send her away as a free woman to wherever she chooses!
M.G. Kline, considered one of the leading Old Testament theologians of the last century, wrote concerning this ruling:
"This first of three stipulations concerned with the authority of the head of the household (cf. vv. 15-21) deals with the limits of the husband's authority over his wife. The case of a captive woman (vv. 10,11; cf. 20:14; contrast 7:3) is used as a case in point for establishing the rights of the wife, perhaps because the principle would obviously apply, a fortiori in the case of an Israelite wife. On the purificatory acts of verses 12b, 13a, which signified removal from captive-slave status, compare Lev. 14:8; Num. 8:7.
On the month's mourning, see Num 20:29 and Deut 34:8. This period would provide for the achieving of inward composure for beginning a new life, as well as for an appropriate expression of filial piety. 14. Thou shalt not sell her. A wife might not be reduced to slave status, not even the wife who had been raised from slave status then thou shalt let her go whither she will. The severance of the marriage relationship is mentioned here only incidentally to the statement of the main principle that a man's authority did not extend to the right of reducing his wife to a slave. This dissolution of the marriage would have to be accomplished according to the laws of divorce in the theocracy (cf. Deut. 24:1-4). Not that the divorce was mandatory, but the granting of freedom in case the man should determine to divorce his wife according to the permission granted by Moses because of the hardness of their hearts (cf. Matt 19:8)." (Wycliffe Bible Commentary [Oliphants Ltd.: London, 1963), p. 184)
The late chief rabbi of the British Empire, Chief Rabbi J. H. Hertz noted regarding this passage:
"A female war-captive was not to be made a concubine till after an interval of a month. The bitter moments of the captive's first grief had to be respected. She must not subsequently be sold or treated as a slave. 12. bring her home. This law inculcates thoughtfulness and forbearance under circumstances in which the warrior, elated by victory, might deem himself at liberty to act as he pleased (Driver). After the countless rapes of conquered women with which recent history has made us so painfully familiar, it is like hearing soft music to read of the warriors duty to the enemy woman, of the necessary marriage with its set ritual and its due delay. And the Legislator proceeds to trace the course of the husbands duty in the event of the conquered alien woman failing to bring him the expected delight. "Then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her" (Zangwill) 13. she shall be thy wife. And enjoy the full rights and duties of a Jewish wife; Exodus xxi, 10.14. no delight in her, i.e. no longer any delight in her. The Rabbis deemed such a marriage a concession to human weakness, as a preventive against worse manifestations of the unbridled passions of man humbled her. Dishonored her." (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J H Hertz [The Soncino Press Limited: London, 1960], p. 840)
Thus, we can clearly see that the Holy Bible even dignified captive gentile women by elevating them to the same status as that of married Israelite women. This is unlike Muhammad who devalued women by raping and treating them as chattel.
In the debate Sami mentioned my article where I say that the Holy Bible sets the age for marriage at puberty (*) in order to defend Muhammads marriage to Aisha. This, once again, shows that Sami is either ignorant or was lying since he failed to mention that according to his own sources Aisha hadnt reached puberty when Muhammad married her:
A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. (Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3311)
The Muslim scholars state that the reason for Aisha being permitted to keep her dolls after marriage is because she was a prepubertal girl!
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, NOT YET REACHED THE AGE OF PUBERTY.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151)
He also failed to mention that the Quran allows Muslims to marry young girls that havent menstruated yet:
And (as for) those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, if you have a doubt, their prescribed time shall be three months, and of those too who have not had their courses; and (as for) the pregnant women, their prescribed time is that they lay down their burden; and whoever is careful of (his duty to) Allah He will make easy for him his affair. S. 65:4 Shakir
The waiting period for divorced women who havent even menstruated is three months. This means that these women arent even women (they havent attained womanhood) but are in fact young minors who havent reached puberty!
Now a woman can only be divorced if she is married and had her marriage consummated, since the Quran expressly teaches that there is no waiting period for marriages where the couple havent had sex:
O you who believe: When you marry believing women and then divorce them before you have touched them, no period of idda (waiting) have you to count in respect of them: so give them a present and set them free in a graceful manner. S. 33:49
This shows that the waiting period only applies in the case of a prepubescent when her husband has actually slept with her. So it is clear that this injunction assumes that young girls can be married, divorced and remarried before they reach puberty.
Even more, the purpose of this waiting period is to ensure that the wife who is about to be divorced is not pregnant or, if she is, to make sure that the true father is known, i.e. that the child is from the current husband, and not a next husband that she may marry afterwards. Thus, this further proves that the Muslim men who are married to prepubescent girls have sexual intercourse with them. To put it simply, the Quran is allowing men to have sex with minors.
And just in case Zaatari squirms his way from admitting that this is what his book teaches here is how some of Islams greatest expositors interpreted Q. 65:4
(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: "O Messenger of Allah! What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?" (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months. Another man asked: "what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?" (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well. (Tanwīr al-Miqbās min Tafsīr Ibn Abbās; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)
And [as for] those of your women who (read alla'i or alla'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months - both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn; source; bold and underline emphasis ours)
The renowned Muslim exegete Abu-Ala Maududi, in his six volume commentary on the Quran, confirms this by stating the following:
*13 They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman, who has stopped menstruation, that is three months from the time divorce was pronounced.
Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Qur'an the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible. (Maududi, volume 5, p. 620, note 13; sources 1, 2; bold emphasis added)
Interestingly, al-Bukhari mentioned Aishas marriage as an example of a married prepubescent girl per Q. 65:4:
XXXIX. A man giving his young children in marriage
By the words of Allah, "that also applies to those who have not yet menstruated" (65:4) and He made the 'idda of a girl before puberty three months.
4840. It is related from Aisha that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, married her when she was six years old and consummated it when she was nine, and she was his wife for nine years. (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of Al-Bukhari, Chapter 70. Book of Marriage; source)
This provides additional corroboration that Muhammad married his child bride before she reached maidenhood. Thus, according to the Holy Bible Muhammad stands condemned for marrying a minor and for allowing others to sleep with prepubertal girls.
Sami also stated that Aishas parents didnt have a problem with Muhammad marrying their daughter, which is another lie since this is how Aishas father reacted:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said "But I am your brother." The Prophet said, "You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she ('Aisha) is lawful for me to marry." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 18)
Doesnt Abu Bakrs reaction refute such a claim? Was he not clearly objecting to Muhammads proposal, in fact perturbed and shocked that his prophet would do such a thing?
For more on this point we recommend the following:
Wood mentioned the fact that Muhammad failed to apply his rules fairly since he had more wives than what he allowed for his followers. Sami again sourced the OT to show that prophets like David had three hundred wives (sic). He then said that the Bible doesnt say to marry only one woman!
These points have been addressed here:
So we wont say much concerning them apart from correcting his ignorance since it wasnt David who had three hundred wives, but his son Solomon who fell away from the faith as a result of his polygynous marriages:
"King Solomon, however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughterMoabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. They were from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, You must not intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their gods. Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done. On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. He did the same for all his foreign wives, who burned incense and offered sacrifices to their gods. The LORD became angry with Solomon because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice. Although he had forbidden Solomon to follow other gods, Solomon did not keep the LORDs command. So the LORD said to Solomon, Since this is your attitude and you have not kept my covenant and my decrees, which I commanded you, I will most certainly tear the kingdom away from you and give it to one of your subordinates. Nevertheless, for the sake of David your father, I will not do it during your lifetime. I will tear it out of the hand of your son. Yet I will not tear the whole kingdom from him, but will give him one tribe for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen." 1 Kings 11:1-13
What we want to do here is to see what happens when we hold Samis feet to the fire by showing how Muhammads commands contradict the instructions found in the Hebrew Bible.
Gods true Law condemns anyone who would remarry a divorcee that went on to marry someone else:
"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance." Deuteronomy 24:1-4
The Quran, however, says that the only way that a man can remarry his former spouse is if she has married and had sex with someone else!
"A divorce is only permissible twice: after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms, or separate with kindness. It is not lawful for you, (men), to take back any of your gifts (from your wives), except when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If ye (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom. These are the limits ordained by Allah. So do not transgress them if any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (themselves as well as others). So if a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, re- marry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her. In that case there is no blame on either of them if they re-unite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. Such are the limits ordained by Allah, which He makes plain to those who understand." S. 2:229-230
Gods Law also commands that his people Israel observe Sabbath, and whoever failed to do so was to be put to death:
"Then the LORD said to Moses, Say to the Israelites, You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed."" Exodus 31:12-17
Muhammad, however, set it aside for Friday out of spite for the Jews and Christians.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "We (Muslims) are the last (to come) but (will be) the foremost on the Day of Resurrection though the former nations were given the Holy Scriptures before us. And this was their day (Friday) the celebration of which was made compulsory for them but they differed about it. So Allah gave us the guidance for it (Friday) and all the other people are behind us in this respect: the Jews (holy day is) tomorrow (i.e. Saturday) and the Christians (is) the day after tomorrow (i.e. Sunday)." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 13, Number 1; see also Number 21)
Finally, recall that earlier we saw how Gods true Word forbids the Israelites from raping their captive women and presupposes puberty as the starting age for marriage. Muhammad goes against this by permitting his men to have sex with minors and to rape their captive women.
So if Zaatari keeps appealing to the Law to vindicate Muhammad then he must consistently apply this same standard to condemn his prophet as a fraud and deceiver for breaking it.
For more on Muhammad breaking Gods true Law we recommend the following article:
The final point we will address is Samis claim in his debate with Nabeel that the word for "just as" in John 5:23 is the Greek word kathos, which can mean that Jesus is telling people to honor him exactly like the Father or in a similar proportion to the honor that the Father receives. He then appeals to the Lords Prayer (cf. Matthew 6:9-13) to show that Jesus told people to pray to the Father which somehow proves that Christ wasnt saying to give him the same exact honor.
First, here is how one lexical source defines the term:
1) according as
This particular lexicon doesnt list "in a similar proportion to" but rather "in proportion as." The latter would mean that the proportion of honor that Jesus receives is as the honor that the Father receives, refuting Zaataris case. In fact, saying that Jesus receives honor in a similar proportion to the honor that the Father receives basically says the same thing. After all, what honor does the Father receive which the Son doesnt?
It cant be worship since Jesus is worshiped by all creation just as the Father is:
"And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, Let all God's angels worship him." Hebrews 1:6
"After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this. At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it. And the one who sat there had the appearance of jasper and carnelian. A rainbow, resembling an emerald, encircled the throne. Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads. From the throne came flashes of lightning, rumblings and peals of thunder. Before the throne, seven lamps were blazing. These are the seven spirits of God. Also before the throne there was what looked like a sea of glass, clear as crystal. In the center, around the throne, were four living creatures, and they were covered with eyes, in front and in back. The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle. Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come. Whenever the living creatures give glory, honor and thanks to him who sits on the throne and who lives for ever and ever, the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne, and worship him who lives for ever and ever. They lay their crowns before the throne and say: You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being." Revelation 4:1-11
"And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song: You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth. Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they sang: Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise! Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: To him who sits on the throne AND TO THE LAMB be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever! The four living creatures said, Amen, and the elders fell down and worshiped." Revelation 5:8-14
It cant be prayer since Jesus tells his followers that once he returns to the Father they can then pray to him and he will answer all of their invocations:
"I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask ME for anything in my name, and I will do it." John 14:12-14
This also addresses Samis assertion that by commanding his followers to pray to the Father this somehow proves that Jesus doesnt receive the same honor or that we are not to pray to him since Christ clearly said to his followers that they can and will pray directly to him and he will personally answer all of these prayers. Now had Jesus told his followers that they should pray to the Father alone then Zaatari may have had a case against Christ receiving the same exact honor. Yet unfortunately for Sami that is not what Christ said.
Other examples of prayers being offered to Jesus include:
"While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. Then he fell on his knees and cried out, Lord, do not hold this sin against them. When he had said this, he fell asleep." Acts 7:59-60
"To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christtheir Lord and ours:" 1 Corinthians 1:2; cf. Acts 9:14, 21
It cant be reverence since Jesus receives that as well:
"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Ephesians 5:21
Moreover, in his blatant ignorance or attempt to deceive Zaatari failed to inform the audience that kathos in the context can only mean that Jesus is to be honored JUST AS the Father since he personally claims to have the same power that the Father has and can do whatever the Father does:
"Jesus gave them this answer: I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because WHATEVER the Father does THE SON ALSO DOES. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. For JUST AS the Father raises the dead and gives them life, EVEN SO the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son JUST AS they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear THE VOICE OF THE SON OF GOD and those who hear will live. For AS the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear HIS VOICE and come outthose who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." John 5:19-29
Although Jesus states that he cannot act independently since he can only work in perfect union with the Father, he qualifies what he means by saying that he is able to do everything that the Father does, a rather astonishing claim! Jesus, just like the Father, has life within himself, gives life to whomever he wants, raises the dead both spiritually and physically, and judges everyone.
Someone who can do whatever God does must be God and therefore proves that Jesus is to be honored JUST AS the Father is.
For more on Jesus perfect union and essential equality with the Father, and regarding the worship which he receives, we recommend the following material:
Even though Sami raised other issues such as the justification of Muhammad murdering Kab ibn al-Ahsraf and others, and again appealed to the Bible to show that the Law condemns blasphemers to death, we will address those points in a separate rebuttal (Lord Jesus willing).
Hopefully, this will help keep Sami honest in future debates otherwise he will be exposing himself to further ridicule and shame. One thing for sure, we will not let him get away with lying or deceiving people since we will be here to expose him whenever he does by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is too bad that Sami doesnt see how he keeps digging himself in a bigger hole every time he opens his mouth to defend his false prophet. We hopefully pray that the Lord Jesus will give this young man the grace to see clearly and to enable him to break away from following a false prophet and turn to Christ who is the only hope anyone has of being saved from the wrath of God which is to come upon the world.
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." John 5:24
"The Lord's message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaiayour faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the deadJesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." 1 Thessalonians 1:8-10
"For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." 1 Thessalonians 5:9
Bassam Zawadi recently produced a series of "replies" to us and even boasted about it:
March 22, 2008: Today we wish the Anwering [sic] Islam team a happy 'you are being refuted badly' day. (Source)
Zawadi lives under the mistaken impression that just because a person writes tons of articles this somehow means that s/he has provided a meaningful response, a solid refutation of the opposing view. In order to help Zawadi see reality more clearly we need to remind him that it is not the number of articles one produces, but the level of argumentation that one provides which will determine whether the person is really addressing the issues. Sadly for Zawadi, his "rebuttals" do far more damage to Islam than good and only prove that he has no business defending his religion or criticizing ours.
To give you an example of the quality of arguments produced by Zawadi notice what he says regarding the contradiction within the Quran concerning Muhammad being nothing more than a warner:
This is a result of Shamoun taking things TOO LITERALLY [sic] as we will show. (Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun's Article "Quran Contradiction: Is Muhammad Only A Warner or a Prophet/Messenger?; Capital emphasis ours; source)
And this is supposed to be a convincing argument against our article, the response which refutes us badly!
Notice that there is no winning with these Muslim dawagandists since if we take the Quran at face value then they attack us for reading the text too literally. If we understand a passage a certain way then either we dont understand the Arabic or have not taking the reference literally enough! In either case we are in a lose-lose situation.
Just to expose how desperate this "response" truly is, we take the passages which say that Muhammad was no more or nothing but a warner as literally as we do those passages which use the same Arabic terms in regards to Allah being the only god there is. Thus, if we shouldnt take the verses which speak of Muhammad being nothing but a warner literally than consistency demands that we shouldnt take those statements concerning there being no god except Allah literally either. For the details please consult our article (*)
As a further illustration of just how utterly shallow his rebuttals truly are, Zawadi just came out with a reply (*) to my article where I document Muhammads false prophecies, thereby exposing his colleague Sami Zaatari (*).
Zawadi writes concerning Muhammads mistaken claim that the Last Hour would arrive during the lifetime of a specific child who was living during his time:
Now when we bring all the narrations together we know that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was speaking about the hour of the death of the individuals he was speaking to [sic]. In Islam we consider the Last Hour of someone to be his death as brother Shamul Hameed states
That is what the Prophet (peace be upon him) was saying [sic].
It is obvious once again that Bassam has no clue what he is talking about and that he didnt even bother reading the hadiths carefully. Here, once, again is the "prophecy":
'A'isha reported that when the desert Arabs came to Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) they asked about THE Last Hour as to when that would come. And he looked towards the youngest amongst them and said: If he lives he would not grow very old that he would find your Last Hour coming to you (he would see you dying). (Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 7050)
Pay close attention to the fact that the Arabs did not ask when their deaths or THEIR Last Hour would approach, but specifically asked concerning THE Last Hour; nor did Muhammad say that by the Last Hour he meant their deaths. That is merely Zawadis desperate attempt of reading into the text something that is simply not there. This next report again indicates that by the Last Hour Muhammad meant that the end of the world would come upon his followers:
Anas b. Malik reported that a person asked Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him): When would THE Last Hour come? Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) kept quiet for a while, then looked at a young boy in his presence belonging to the tribe of Azd Shanilwa and he said: If this boy lives he would not grow very old till THE Last Hour would come to you. Anas said that this young boy was of our age during those days. (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 7052)
And isnt it obvious that when the Last Day comes this would mean that it is the Last Hour for Muhammads companions as well since this would mark the end of the age?
Interestingly, the translator is actually improving on Muhammads speech since he inserts words in the parentheses that are not part of Muhammads statements, i.e. "he (the child) would see you dying." For one who was supposed be the master of eloquence Muhammad sure failed to convey his point clearly (assuming of course that Zawadi and the translator are correct in their interpretation which they arent).
To further substantiate that Muhammad was speaking of THE Last Hour, and not the death of the people he was addressing, notice the subheading of this particular section of Muslim as well as these specific narrations which follow immediately:
Chapter 25: APPROACH OF THE LAST HOUR
Abdullah reported Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: The Last Hour would affect (most terribly) the wicked persons. (Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 7043)
This hadith has been reported by Sahl b. Sa'd that he heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour are (close to each other) like this (and he, in order to explain it) pointed (by joining his) forefinger, (one) next to the thumb and the middle finger (together). (Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 7044)
Anas reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I and the Last Hour have been sent like this and (he while doing it) joined the forefinger with the middle finger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 7049)
The reference to Muhammad joining his middle and forefingers together implies that he believed that only a short time would go by before the end would come. The hadiths which follow right after these narratives give us an idea of just how short Muhammad thought this time would be, e.g. the end would come before the child grew old which clearly didnt happen.
To top it off, this part of Muslim immediately precedes the following section:
Chapter 26: THE INTERVAL BETWEEN TWO BLOWINGS OF THE TRUMPET
In light of the foregoing, isnt it obvious that Muhammad was speaking of the end of the age, not the deaths of his immediate followers? Yet in spite of the above Zawadi would still have us believe that Muhammad wasnt speaking of the end of the world but only about the approaching death of the people he was communicating to!
Finally, Zawadi just soundly refuted his own colleague Sami Zaatari since that is not how the latter explained these hadiths. Zaatari said that the hadith means that the Last Hour would get nearer as the child grew older since the passing of time means that the Last Day is approaching closer and closer.
He then says regarding Muhammads assertion that the world would end in 100 years:
Can't Shamoun read the hadith properly?:
"One night Allah's Apostle led us in the 'Isha' prayer and that is the one called Al-'Atma by the people. After the completion of the prayer, he faced us and said, 'Do you know the importance of this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight will be living after one hundred years from this night.'"
The Prophet (peace be upon him) is clearly talking about those present during his time. He said that not a single one of them alive at that time would be alive after a hundred years. He didn't say that after one hundred years there will be no more people!!!
And this is the gentleman who calls me foolish and my arguments garbage! The real question is whether Zawadi can read properly. What is clear is that Zawadi misread his prophets words since the latter clearly speaks of THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH:
"One night Allah's Apostle led us in the 'Isha' prayer and that is the one called Al-'Atma by the people. After the completion of the prayer, he faced us and said, 'Do you know the importance OF THIS NIGHT? NOBODY PRESENT ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH tonight will be living after one hundred years from this night.'"
Notice, again, how the alleged master of eloquence didnt say that none of his companions would live beyond a hundred years. Nor did he even say that all those living in Arabia would be dead within that time.
In fact, the next report further supports that Muhammad wasnt limiting this alleged prophecy to the lifespan of his companions:
Chapter 64. ‘A Hundred Years Shall Not Pass While A Soul Born Upon the Earth TODAY Survives
2250. It was narrated Jabir, that the Prophet said: There is no soul BORN upon the earth MEANING TODAY upon whom will come one hundred years. (Sahih)
[He said:] There are narrations on this topic from Ibn Umar, Abu Saeed and Buraidah.
[Abu Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan. (English Translation of Jami At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by Imam Hafiz Eisa Mohammad Ibn Eisa At-Tirmidhi, From Hadith no. 1897 to 2605, translated by Abu Khalil (USA), Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair Ali Zai, final review by Islamic Research Section Darussalam [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 4, p. 299; capital emphasis ours)
We see, once again, how the supposed master of Arabic speech didnt limit his alleged prediction to his immediate generation, e.g. that none of them would live a hundred years after the time of his so-called prophecy. Rather, Muhammad expressly and emphatically says that no single living soul that would be born on that specific day throughout the entire earth would be alive a hundred years later – obviously because, as we noted previously, he thought the world would come to an end at that time.
This point bears repeating since Zawadi has a habit of twisting things and attacking straw men as well as raising red herrings. The text of the hadith is clear that by tonight Muhammad meant that no human being living in the whole world would still be alive a hundred years from that very moment or hour since he erroneously and mistakenly assumed that would be the end of the age.
Interestingly, Zawadi conveniently ignored the fact that even Muhammads companions thought that he was speaking of the end of the world:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
The Prophet prayed one of the 'Isha' prayer in his last days and after finishing it with Taslim, he stood up and said, "Do you realize (the importance of) this night? Nobody present on the surface of the earth tonight would be living after the completion of one hundred years from this night."
The people made a mistake in grasping the meaning of this statement of Allah's Apostleand they indulged in those things which are said about these narrators (i.e. some said that the Day of Resurrection will be established after 100 years etc.) But the Prophet said, "Nobody present on the surface of earth tonight would be living after the completion of 100 years from this night"; he meant, "When that century (people of that century) would pass away." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 10, Number 575)
And yet when the end of the world did not come a hundred years later Muslims had to come up with desperate answers in order to cover up their prophets false predictions. So much for Muhammads eloquence since he left his followers more confused than enlightened!
Zawadi sourced Sheikh Salih Munajjid who really doesnt disprove anything since he, much like Zawadi, erroneously assumes that Muhammad was only referring to his companions. These gentlemen need to stop assuming things and start proving their case, which Muslims like Zawadi have yet to do.
By the grace of the Lord Jesus, we will be addressing the rest of his "rebuttals" in due course in order to further expose just how shallow and desperate his "responses" truly are and to document how his points backfire against him and his religion. As we did here, we will be demonstrating how Zawadis arguments only provide further evidence that Islam is a false religion.
Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page