Rebuttals To Christians

Rebuttals to Anti-Islamic
Contents
from Answeringislam.com (which is an anti
Islamic site run by Christians)…
-Responses By Br.Bassam Zawadi

-Compiled By Mohammad T.H.
Manna & Adnan T.H. Manna
NOTE: SINCE THESE ARE REBUTTALS TO ANTI-ISLAMIC ARTICLES,THE FORMAT FOLLOWED BY THE
COMPILERS IS,THEY HAVE FIRST GIVEN THE QUESTION or ARTICLE,AND THEN HAVE PROVIDED THE ANSWER
BELOW IT FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING,AND FOR THE READERS TO HAVE AN EASIER REFERENCE TO THE
QUESTIONS.
Any errors in compilation are regretted, please send your comments and suggestions to
1234567islam@gmail.com
In The Name Of Allah, The Most Gracious,The Most Merciful.
-1-
***************Are Christians Dyed or Baptized?********************
Sura 2:138 tells us:
(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah: And who can baptize better than Allah?
And it is He Whom we worship. (Yusuf Ali)
(Receive) the baptism of Allah, and who is better than Allah in baptising? and
Him do we serve. (Shakir)
Say, "Belief in God and following the guidance of Islam are God's means of
purification for us. Islam is the baptism of God. No one is a better baptizer than
He and we Muslims worship Him." (Sarwar)
The word which is translated as baptism is sibghah which, in the literal translation, means
"dye". The commentators al-Jalalain and al-Baizawi say that the term refers to baptism.
Al-Baizawi says:
"the Nasra (Christians) were in the habit of dipping their offspring in yellow water
which they called al-Ma'mudiyah and said it purified them and confirmed them as
Christians." (Tafsiru'l-Baizawi)
Two Qur'an translations give this meaning:
(We take our) colour from Allah, and who is better than Allah at colouring. We
are His worshippers. (Pickthall)
(Our religion) takes its hue from Allah. And who can give a better hue than
Allah. And it is He Whom we worship. (Yusuf Ali, Saudi corrected version)
In Matthew 21:24-26, Jesus was tested by the chief priests and the elders of the Temple,
and he asked them a question which we Christians can also ask Muslims:
Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you
by what authority I am doing these things. John's baptism—where did it come
from? Was it from heaven, or from men?" They discussed it among themselves
and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe
him?' But if we say, 'From men'—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold
that John was a prophet."
In other words, if Baptism was commanded by God through His Prophet John the Baptist,
then why are Muslims not obeying this divine command? If Baptism was the invention of
John the Baptist, how can Muslims honestly call him a Prophet of God?
-2-
Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "Are Christian
Dyed or Baptized?"
by
Bassam Zawadi
Their article could be located here.
Read it first and then my response.
Since some Christians believe that baptism is part of salvation, Allah is only using a figure of speech saying that the
baptism of Allah is the best and only way for salvation.
When Allah says 'baptism of Allah' it is simply referring to the religion of Allah, which is Islam. Refer to (Tafsir of
Suyuti), (Tafsir of Tabari) and (Tafsir of Qurtubi).
We don't believe that Prophet John ever ordered baptism. Even if he did, then it was probably only meant for that
time. In Islam we have something similar known as Ghusl and someone who becomes a Muslim is obliged to take it.
Muhammad And Àmr b. Jihash
In The Life of Muhammad being A. Guillaume's translation of Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn
Hisham, on page 438 we read:
One of Yamin's family told me that the apostle said to Yamin, 'Have you seen the
way your cousin has treated me and what he proposed to do?' Thereupon Yamin
gave a man money to kill Àmr b. Jihash and he did kill him, or so they allege.
Supposedly Àmr intended to or suggested to kill Muhammad, but the only evidence for
this allegation is that Muhammad had a revelation about this. He is killed not based on
facts that he tried to kill Muhammad, but based only on Muhammad's suspicion.
Àmr b. Jihash did not receive a fair trial, somebody send a killer.
-3-
Brief Reply to Answering Islam's Article
"Muhammad And Àmr b. Jihash"
by
Bassam Zawadi
The article could be accessed here.
Answering Islam said:

In The Life of Muhammad being A. Guillaume's translation of Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Hisham, on page 438 we
read:
One of Yamin's family told me that the apostle said to Yamin, 'Have you seen the way your cousin has
treated me and what he proposed to do?' Thereupon Yamin gave a man money to kill Àmr b. Jihash and he
did kill him, or so they allege.
Supposedly Àmr intended to or suggested to kill Muhammad, but the only evidence for this allegation is that
Muhammad had a revelation about this. He is killed not based on facts that he tried to kill Muhammad, but based
only on Muhammad's suspicion.
Àmr b. Jihash did not receive a fair trial, somebody send a killer.
My Response:
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not say that he ordered the killing of the man only based on his
suspicion. The Prophet said that he received a revelation from the God Almighty exposing the Jewish plot to kill
him. Obviously, because Christians do not believe that Prophet Muhammad is a Messenger of God, they are going to
accuse him straight away of killing on suspicion. However, for us Muslims we find no problem with this because we
know that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is indeed a true Messenger of the Almighty God. This is the
same way how Christians believe that Paul received revelations from Jesus. So we would have to believe in the
unseen. So therefore, in order to prove that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) killed this man or any man just
based on suspicion would just simply require evidence to prove that he is not a Prophet of God and therefore was
lying about receiving revelations.. However, no proof is there. All the allegations have been refuted. For a Muslim,
this is no problem because we indeed do believe that the Prophet received revelations from God and in this situation
God protected him from the evil doers.
-4-
The Argument about Abu Lahab
A new argument for the divine origin of the Qur'an has recently come to be presented by
increasing numbers of Muslims. For our response we will quote from the end of the
article Qur'an: Is it the Truth? at the Khalifornia web site where it is formulated in the
following way:
The Quran also made many statements, which would have been foolish for Muhammad
to make as they could have undermined his entire message. As an example, in Surah
Masad, Allah condemned Abu Lahab and his wife to Jahannam (Hellfire),
"The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish. His wealth and gains will not
exempt him. He will be plunged in flaming Fire, and his wife, the wood carrier, will have
upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre" (111:1-5).
Here, the Quran makes a promise that Abu Lahab and his wife will never accept Islam.
How would Muhammad know this. How would he know that Abu Lahab would not
declare his belief in the Islamic doctrine hypocritically such that all the people would
think the Quran was wrong. In addition, if Muhammad were to produce such an ayah he
would have been expected to produce them about other enemies just as staunch in their
hatred during the Meccan period, such as Abu Jahl and Abu Sufyan. However, Allah did
not reveal such ayahs because Allah knows that Abu Sufyan would become Muslims and
perhaps because Abu Jahl may have taken the shahadah hypocritically. Only Allah could
have known for sure that Abu Lahab would be too arrogant to do this.
We do know that Abu Lahab was a relative of Muhammad who was making
Muhammad's life miserable, trying to work against his message in many ways.
It is understandable that Muhammad would compose a sura condemning him to hell for
his enmity towards Islam. It is natural that the anger of Muhammad about Abu Lahab's
resistence and mockery would formulate itself in such a condemnation.
The punishment of hellfire is stated in the Qur'an in general for lots of people many times
over. It is here only made specific for Abu Lahab. It is a threat more than a prophecy,
since a prophecy needs to be specific and needs to be testable. We cannot test in any way
whether Abu Lahab is indeed in hell. The judgement of God at that last day has not yet
taken place. As such this statement has very little value in testing whether the Qur'an is of
divine origin.
Note: The text only says that Abu Lahab will go to hell. It does not say what the above
article claims it says. It does not say that "Abu Lahab will never become a Muslim",
whether truly or hypocritically. That might have been a testable prediction (even though
of very limited value), but this is not even what the sura actually says.
Since there is no testable prediction this sura has no (positive) value for the determination
of divine origin.
-5-
In case you think that "going to hell" is equivalent to "never become a Muslim" you
might ponder that the Qur'an even says that most or all Muslims will go to hell.
There will be no one of you who will not enter it (Hell).

This was an inevitable decree of your Lord.
Afterwards he may save some of the pious, God-fearing Muslims out of the
burning fire.
-- Sura 19:71-72
So, even if Abu Lahab had professed faith, according to Sura 19:71 he would still have
gone to hellfire.
Under the assumption that Sura 19:71 is true, Sura 111 becomes an absolutely trivial
statement since everyone goes to hell anyway.
In Summary: We fail to see any evidence in this sura that would support the divine origin
of the Qur'an. On the contrary, it is evidence that Muhammad's personal feelings of anger
against Abu Lahab have found their way into what is claimed to be the eternal word of
God.
Brief Response to Answering Islam's

Article "The Argument about Abu
Lahab"
by
Bassam Zawadi
Read it first.
The reason why this statement in the Quran was very daring is because it was revealed
ten years before Abu Lahab's death. The fact that Abu Lahab had ten years to believe in
the Quran as the word of God is a lot of time. Many of the bitterest enemies of Islam such
as Umar bin Al Khattab and Khaled bin Waleed accepted Islam and so many others. Why
they and not Abu Lahab?
If Abu Lahab came out 'even if acting' repenting from fear of Allah's punishment and he
is finally convinced of Muhammad's Prophethood (peace be upon him) then so many
people would have started having doubts in the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
-6-
So this was a daring statement for the Prophet to make taking into the considerations the
risks that came along with it. However, since it was a revelation from God we would
expect to see that things went according to plan.
Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com
A Look At Answering Islam's Article

"Muhammad and Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi
Safwan"
by
Bassam Zawadi
Their article can be located here.

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 826:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud:
Sa'd bin Mu'adh came to Mecca with the intention of performing 'Umra,
and stayed at the house of Umaiya bin Khalaf Abi Safwan, for Umaiya
himself used to stay at Sa'd's house when he passed by Medina on his way
to Sham. Umaiya said to Sad, "Will you wait till midday when the people
are (at their homes), then you may go and perform the Tawaf round the
Ka'ba?" So, while Sad was going around the Ka'ba, Abu Jahl came and
asked, "Who is that who is performing Tawaf?" Sad replied, "I am Sad."
Abu Jahl said, "Are you circumambulating the Ka'ba safely although you
have given refuge to Muhammad and his companions?" Sad said, "Yes,"
and they started quarreling. Umaiya said to Sad, "Don't shout at Abi-l-
Hakam (i.e. Abu Jahl), for he is chief of the valley (of Mecca)." Sad then
said (to Abu Jahl). 'By Allah, if you prevent me from performing the
Tawaf of the Ka'ba, I will spoil your trade with Sham." Umaiya kept on
saying to Sad, "Don't raise your voice." and kept on taking hold of him.
-7-
Sad became furious and said, (to Umaiya), "Be away from me, for I
have heard Muhammad saying that he will kill you." Umaiya said,
"Will he kill me?" Sad said, "Yes." Umaiya said, "By Allah! When
Muhammad says a thing, he never tells a lie." Umaiya went to his wife
and said to her, "Do you know what my brother from Yathrib (i.e.
Medina) has said to me?" She said, "What has he said?" He said, "He
claims that he has heard Muhammad claiming that he will kill me."
She said, By Allah! Muhammad never tells a lie." So when the infidels
started to proceed for Badr (Battle) and declared war (against the
Muslims), his wife said to him, "Don't you remember what your brother
from Yathrib told you?" Umaiya decided not to go but Abu Jahl said to
him, "You are from the nobles of the valley of Mecca), so you should
accompany us for a day or two." He went with them and thus Allah got
him killed.
Often Allah seems to be very anxious to fulfill Muhammad's will ... as Aisha observed on
some occasions. We see Muhammad announcing that he would kill Umaiya. Was it really
Allah or could it be that not only Sa`d but more of Muhammad's people knew that the
execution of Umaiya was Muhammad express wish which they then hastened to fulfill?
In any case, Muhammad expressed his plan to kill him and it happened.
One of many who were killed after there was some request or order by Muhammad to do
so. This one is different as it happens during an offical battle and being killed on the
battlefield is not the same as a night time execution squad but nevertheless he seems to
have been singled out and Muhammad's soldiers might have been instructed to have
special attention to see to his death.
We don't know for sure, but it fits the pattern of the many other assassinations of
Muhammad's personal enemies.
Ironically, the book in Bukhari out of which this hadith is taken is titled "Virtues and
Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions".
My Response:
First of all, I want to understand what is wrong with targeted killings? Doesn't America
order their army to target specific war criminals?
Targeted killing is a common thing even in the battlefield. Here is an example of target
killing in which Wahshi killed the Prophet's Uncle Hamzah.
Saheeh Bukhari
-8-
Narrated Jafar bin 'Amr bin Umaiya:
I went out with 'Ubaidullah bin 'Adi Al-Khaiyar. When we reached Hims
(i.e. a town in Syria), 'Ubaidullah bin 'Adi said (to me), "Would you like to
see Wahshi so that we may ask him about the killing of Hamza?" I replied,
"Yes." Wahshi used to live in Hims. We enquired about him and
somebody said to us, "He is that in the shade of his palace, as if he were a
full water skin." So we went up to him, and when we were at a short
distance from him, we greeted him and he greeted us in return. 'Ubaidullah
was wearing his turban and Wahshi could not see except his eyes and feet.
'Ubaidullah said, "O Wahshi! Do you know me?" Wahshi looked at him
and then said, "No, by Allah! But I know that 'Adi bin Al-Khiyar married
a woman called Um Qital, the daughter of Abu Al-Is, and she delivered a
boy for him at Mecca, and I looked for a wet nurse for that child. (Once) I
carried that child along with his mother and then I handed him over to her,
and your feet resemble that child's feet." Then 'Ubaidullah uncovered his
face and said (to Wahshi), "Will you tell us (the story of) the killing of
Hamza?" Wahshi replied "Yes, Hamza killed Tuaima bin 'Adi bin Al-
Khaiyar at Badr (battle) so my master, Jubair bin Mut'im said to me,
'If you kill Hamza in revenge for my uncle, then you will be set free."
When the people set out (for the battle of Uhud) in the year of
'Ainain ..'Ainain is a mountain near the mountain of Uhud, and between it
and Uhud there is a valley.. I went out with the people for the battle. When
the army aligned for the fight, Siba' came out and said, 'Is there any
(Muslim) to accept my challenge to a duel?' Hamza bin 'Abdul Muttalib
came out and said, 'O Siba'. O Ibn Um Anmar, the one who circumcises
other ladies! Do you challenge Allah and His Apostle?' Then Hamza
attacked and killed him, causing him to be non-extant like the bygone
yesterday. I hid myself under a rock, and when he (i.e. Hamza) came
near me, I threw my spear at him, driving it into his umbilicus so that
it came out through his buttocks, causing him to die. When all the
people returned to Mecca, I too returned with them. I stayed in (Mecca)
till Islam spread in it (i.e. Mecca). Then I left for Taif, and when the
people (of Taif) sent their messengers to Allah's Apostle, I was told that
the Prophet did not harm the messengers; So I too went out with them till I
reached Allah's Apostle. When he saw me, he said, 'Are you Wahshi?' I
said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Was it you who killed Hamza?' I replied, 'What
happened is what you have been told of.' He said, 'Can you hide your face
from me?' So I went out when Allah's Apostle died, and Musailamah Al-
Kadhdhab appeared (claiming to be a prophet). I said, 'I will go out to
Musailamah so that I may kill him, and make amends for killing Hamza.
So I went out with the people (to fight Musailamah and his followers) and
then famous events took place concerning that battle. Suddenly I saw a
man (i.e. Musailamah) standing near a gap in a wall. He looked like an
ash-colored camel and his hair was dishevelled. So I threw my spear at
him, driving it into his chest in between his breasts till it passed out
through his shoulders, and then an Ansari man attacked him and struck
him on the head with a sword. 'Abdullah bin 'Umar said, 'A slave girl on
-9-
the roof of a house said: Alas! The chief of the believers (i.e. Musailamah)
has been killed by a black slave."
Even realize how the glorious Prophet Muhammad did not have Wahshi killed to avenge
for the death of his uncle.
Umaiya bin Khalaf was a criminal who persecuted Muslims during their stay in Mecca.
He needed to pay the price for such deeds. He made the Prophet of God's mission more
difficult and always harassed him.
Let's get to know a little bit more about Umaiya bin Khalaf....
Bilal Kills Umayyah ibn Khalaf
At Muhammad's urging and inspiration, his standing in their midst and

inciting them against the enemy, and his announcement that paradise
belongs to the men of valor who plunge fearlessly into the ranks of the
enemy, the Muslims doubled and redoubled their strength. Before entering
battle, they resolved to direct their attention to the leaders and nobles of
the Quraysh. They planned to seek them and to kill them first,
remembering the persecution and travails they suffered at their hands in
Makkah, especially the blocking of the road to God and to the holy
mosque. Bilal saw Umayyah ibn Khalaf and his son on the field
surrounded by a number of Muslims who had recognized him and sought
to take him as captive. This Umayyah was Bilal's previous master who
used to torture him by forcing him down to the ground where he
placed a large rock on his chest, letting him burn under the torrid sun
in order to force him to abjure Islam. Bilal survived all these travails in
certainty of his faith while repeating continuously, "God is one! God is
one!" When his eyes fell upon Umayyah in the field, he shouted,
"Umayyah, the head of idolatry! Death to me if he escapes!" and charged
furiously toward him. The Muslims surrounding Umayyah sought to
prevent Bilal from reaching him. Bilal called to them at high voice: "O
Helpers of God! The head of idolatry is Umayyah ibn Khalaf. Death to me
if he escapes!" He charged again toward Umayyah and killed him.
(Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life Of Muhammad (Allah's peace
and blessing be upon him), Source)
Scandal-mongering and backbiting were also amongst the means of

oppression that the chiefs of Makkah, in general, and Omaiyah bin
- 10 -
Khalaf, in particular, resorted to in their overall process of evil-doing.
In this regard, All⨍ says:
"Woe to every slanderer and backbiter." [Al-Qur'an 104:1]

(Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-
Makhtum
(THE SEALED NECTAR), Source)
Saheeh Bukhari
Once the Prophet was offering prayers at the Ka'ba. Abu Jahl was sitting
with some of his companions. One of them said to the others, "Who
amongst you will bring the abdominal contents (intestines, etc.) of a camel
of Bani so and so and put it on the back of Muhammad, when he
prostrates?" The most unfortunate of them got up and brought it. He
waited till the Prophet prostrated and then placed it on his back between
his shoulders. I was watching but could not do any thing. I wish I had
some people with me to hold out against them. They started laughing and
falling on one another. Allah's Apostle was in prostration and he did not
lift his head up till Fatima (Prophet's daughter) came and threw that
(camel's abdominal contents) away from his back. He raised his head and
said thrice, "O Allah! Punish Quraish." So it was hard for Abu Jahl and his
companions when the Prophet invoked Allah against them as they had a
conviction that the prayers and invocations were accepted in this city
(Mecca). The Prophet said, "O Allah! Punish Abu Jahl, 'Utba bin Rabi'a,
Shaiba bin Rabi'a, Al-Walid bin 'Utba, Umaiya bin Khalaf, and 'Uqba bin
Al Mu'it (and he mentioned the seventh whose name I cannot recall). By
Allah in Whose Hands my life is, I saw the dead bodies of those persons
who were counted by Allah's Apostle in the Qalib (one of the wells) of
Badr.
See also (Volume 1, Book 9, Number 499, Volume 4, Book 53, Number
409)
Saheeh Bukhari
Narrated 'Aisha:
- 11 -
When Allah's Apostle reached Medina, Abu Bakr and Bilal became ill.
When Abu Bakr's fever got worse, he would recite (this poetic verse):
"Everybody is staying alive with his People, yet Death is nearer to him
than His shoe laces." And Bilal, when his fever deserted him, would
recite: "Would that I could stay overnight in A valley wherein I would be
Surrounded by Idhkhir and Jalil (kinds of good-smelling grass). Would
that one day I could Drink the water of the Majanna, and Would that (The
two mountains) Shama and Tafil would appear to me!" The Prophet said,
"O Allah! Curse Shaiba bin Rabi'a and 'Utba bin Rabi'a and Umaiya bin
Khalaf as they turned us out of our land to the land of epidemics." Allah's
Apostle then said, "O Allah! Make us love Medina as we love Mecca or
even more than that. O Allah! Give blessings in our Sa and our Mudd
(measures symbolizing food) and make the climate of Medina suitable for
us, and divert its fever towards Aljuhfa." Aisha added: When we reached
Medina, it was the most unhealthy of Allah's lands, and the valley of
Bathan (the valley of Medina) used to flow with impure colored water.
So here we have a man that was a torturer of the Muslims. An abuser and ridiculer of a
Prophet of God and he made the Prophet's mission much more difficult than it already
was. He was standing in the way of God's message to be sent. He is a criminal in the sight
of God and deserved to die.
Ironically even after Umaiya bin Khalaf knew that the Prophet was wanting for him to be
killed, he still continued to go to the battlefield. Why did he go?
Saheeh Bukhari
From Sad bin Mu'adh: Sad bin Mu'adh was an intimate friend of Umaiya
bin Khalaf and whenever Umaiya passed through Medina, he used to stay
with Sad, and whenever Sad went to Mecca, he used to stay with Umaiya.
When Allah's Apostle arrived at Medina, Sa'd went to perform 'Umra and
stayed at Umaiya's home in Mecca. He said to Umaiya, "Tell me of a time
when (the Mosque) is empty so that I may be able to perform Tawaf
around the Ka'ba." So Umaiya went with him about midday. Abu Jahl met
them and said, "O Abu Safwan! Who is this man accompanying you?" He
said, "He is Sad." Abu Jahl addressed Sad saying, "I see you wandering
about safely in Mecca inspite of the fact that you have given shelter to the
people who have changed their religion (i.e. became Muslims) and have
claimed that you will help them and support them. By Allah, if you were
- 12 -
not in the company of Abu Safwan, you would not be able to go your
family safely." Sad, raising his voice, said to him, "By Allah, if you should
stop me from doing this (i.e. performing Tawaf) I would certainly prevent
you from something which is more valuable for you, that is, your passage
through Medina." On this, Umaiya said to him, "O Sad do not raise your
voice before Abu-l-Hakam, the chief of the people of the Valley (of
Mecca)." Sad said, "O Umaiya, stop that! By Allah, I have heard Allah's
Apostle predicting that the Muslim will kill you." Umaiya asked, "In
Mecca?" Sad said, "I do not know." Umaiya was greatly scared by that
news.
When Umaiya returned to his family, he said to his wife, "O Um Safwan!
Don't you know what Sad told me? "She said, "What has he told you?" He
replied, "He claims that Muhammad has informed them (i.e. companions
that they will kill me. I asked him, 'In Mecca?' He replied, 'I do not know."
Then Umaiya added, "By Allah, I will never go out of Mecca." But when
the day of (the Ghazwa of) Badr came, Abu Jahl called the people to war,
saying, "Go and protect your caravan." But Umaiya disliked to go out (of
Mecca). Abu Jahl came to him and said, "O Abu Safwan! If the people see
you staying behind though you are the chief of the people of the Valley,
then they will remain behind with you." Abu Jahl kept on urging him to go
until he (i.e. Umaiya) said, "As you have forced me to change my
mind, by Allah, I will buy the best camel in Mecca. Then Umaiya said
(to his wife). "O Um Safwan, prepare what I need (for the journey)."
She said to him, "O Abu Safwan! Have you forgotten what your
Yathribi brother told you?" He said, "No, but I do not want to go
with them but for a short distance." So when Umaiya went out, he
used to tie his camel wherever he camped. He kept on doing that till
Allah caused him to be killed at Badr.
Saheeh Muslim
Book 019, Number 4394:
It has been narrated on the authority of Anas that when (the news of) the
advance of Abu Sufyan (at the head of a force) reached him. the
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) held consultations with his
Companions. The narrator said: Abu Bakr spoke (expressing his own
views), but he (the Holy Prophet) did not pay heed to him. Then spoke
'Umar (expressing his views), but he (the Holy Prophet) did not pay heed
to him (too). Then Sa'd b. 'Ubada stood up and said: Messenger of Allah,
you want us (to speak). By God in Whose control is my life, if you order
us to plunge our horses into the sea, we would do so. If you order us to
goad our horses to the most distant place like Bark al-Ghimad, we would
do so. The narrator said: Now the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon
him) called upon the people (for the encounter). So they set out and
encamped at Badr. (Soon) the water-carriers of the Quraish arrived.
- 13 -
Among them was a black slave belonging to Banu al-Hajjaj. The
Companions of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) caught
him and interrogated him about Abu Sufyan and his companions. He said:
I know nothing about Abu Sufyan, but Abu Jahl, Utba, Shaiba and
Umayya b. Khalaf are there. When he said this, they beat him. Then he
said: All right, I will tell you about Abu Sufyan. They would stop beating
him and then ask him (again) about Abu Sufyan. He would again say', I
know nothing about Abu Sufyan, but Abu Jahl. 'Utba, Shaiba and Umayya
b. Khalaf are there. When he said this, they beat him likewise. The
Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) was standing in prayer.
When he saw this he finished his prayer and said: By Allah in Whose
control is my life, you beat him when he is telling you the truth, and you
let him go when he tells you a lie. The narrator said: Then the Messenger
of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: This is the place where so and so
would be killed. He placed his hand on the earth (saying) here and here;
(and) none of them fell away from the place which the Messenger of Allah
(may peace be upon him) had indicated by placing his hand on the earth.
Umaiya bin Khalaf continued not only for a short distance but he went and continued on
his way to the Battlefield in order to fight the Muslims. Now who could go and possibly
say that his killing is not justifiable especially since he continued on to go to the
battlefield to fight the Muslims?
Muhammad And Àbdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul al-Àufi
This hadith is extremely long. You may either read the whole story or use this link to
jump to the relevant part of quotation and discussion, separated off by horizontal bars.
Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 462:
Narrated 'Aisha:
Whenever Allah's Apostle intended to go on a journey, he used to draw lots amongst his
wives, and Allah's Apostle used to take with him the one on whom lot fell. He drew lots
amongst us during one of the Ghazwat which he fought. The lot fell on me and so I
proceeded with Allah's Apostle after Allah's order of veiling (the women) had been
revealed. I was carried (on the back of a camel) in my howdah and carried down while
still in it (when we came to a halt). So we went on till Allah's Apostle had finished from
that Ghazwa of his and returned.
When we approached the city of Medina he announced at night that it was time for
departure. So when they announced the news of departure, I got up and went away from
- 14 -
the army camps, and after finishing from the call of nature, I came back to my riding
animal. I touched my chest to find that my necklace which was made of Zifar beads (i.e.
Yemenite beads partly black and partly white) was missing. So I returned to look for my
necklace and my search for it detained me. (In the meanwhile) the people who used to
carry me on my camel, came and took my howdah and put it on the back of my camel on
which I used to ride, as they considered that I was in it. In those days women were light
in weight for they did not get fat, and flesh did not cover their bodies in abundance as
they used to eat only a little food. Those people therefore, disregarded the lightness of the
howdah while lifting and carrying it; and at that time I was still a young girl. They made
the camel rise and all of them left (along with it). I found my necklace after the army had
gone.
Then I came to their camping place to find no call maker of them, nor one who would
respond to the call. So I intended to go to the place where I used to stay, thinking that
they would miss me and come back to me (in my search). While I was sitting in my
resting place, I was overwhelmed by sleep and slept. Safwan bin Al-Muattal As-Sulami
Adh-Dhakwani was behind the army. When he reached my place in the morning, he saw
the figure of a sleeping person and he recognized me on seeing me as he had seen me
before the order of compulsory veiling (was prescribed). So I woke up when he recited
Istirja' (i.e. "Inna lillahi wa inna llaihi raji'un") as soon as he recognized me. I veiled my
face with my head cover at once, and by Allah, we did not speak a single word, and I did
not hear him saying any word besides his Istirja'. He dismounted from his camel and
made it kneel down, putting his leg on its front legs and then I got up and rode on it. Then
he set out leading the camel that was carrying me till we overtook the army in the
extreme heat of midday while they were at a halt (taking a rest). (Because of the event)
some people brought destruction upon themselves and the one who spread the Ifk
(i.e. slander) more, was 'Abdullah bin Ubai Ibn Salul."
(Urwa said, "The people propagated the slander and talked about it in his (i.e.
'Abdullah's) presence and he confirmed it and listened to it and asked about it to let it
prevail." Urwa also added, "None was mentioned as members of the slanderous group
besides ('Abdullah) except Hassan bin Thabit and Mistah bin Uthatha and Hamna bint
Jahsh along with others about whom I have no knowledge, but they were a group as
Allah said. It is said that the one who carried most of the slander was 'Abdullah bin Ubai
bin Salul." Urwa added, "'Aisha disliked to have Hassan abused in her presence and she
used to say, 'It was he who said: My father and his (i.e. my father's) father and my honor
are all for the protection of Muhammad's honor from you.").
'Aisha added, "After we returned to Medina, I became ill for a month. The people were
propagating the forged statements of the slanderers while I was unaware of anything of
all that, but I felt that in my present ailment, I was not receiving the same kindness from
Allah's Apostle as I used to receive when I got sick. (But now) Allah's Apostle would
only come, greet me and say,' How is that (lady)?' and leave. That roused my doubts, but
I did not discover the evil (i.e. slander) till I went out after my convalescence, I went out
with Um Mistah to Al-Manasi' where we used to answer the call of nature and we used
not to go out (to answer the call of nature) except at night, and that was before we had
latrines near our houses. And this habit of our concerning evacuating the bowels, was
similar to the habits of the old 'Arabs living in the deserts, for it would be troublesome for
- 15 -
us to take latrines near our houses. So I and Um Mistah who was the daughter of Abu
Ruhm bin Al-Muttalib bin Abd Manaf, whose mother was the daughter of Sakhr bin
'Amir and the aunt of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq and whose son was Mistah bin Uthatha bin
'Abbas bin Al-Muttalib, went out. I and Um Mistah returned to my house after we
finished answering the call of nature. Um Mistah stumbled by getting her foot entangled
in her covering sheet and on that she said, 'Let Mistah be ruined!' I said, 'What a hard
word you have said. Do you abuse a man who took part in the battle of Badr?' On that she
said, 'O you Hantah! Didn't you hear what he (i.e. Mistah) said? 'I said, 'What did he say?'
Then she told me the slander of the people of Ifk. So my ailment was aggravated, and
when I reached my home, Allah's Apostle came to me, and after greeting me, said, 'How
is that (lady)?' I said, 'Will you allow me to go to my parents?' as I wanted to be sure
about the news through them. Allah's Apostle allowed me (and I went to my parents) and
asked my mother, 'O mother! What are the people talking about?' She said, 'O my
daughter! Don't worry, for scarcely is there a charming woman who is loved by her
husband and whose husband has other wives besides herself that they (i.e. women) would
find faults with her.' I said, 'Subhan-Allah! (I testify the uniqueness of Allah). Are the
people really talking in this way?' I kept on weeping that night till dawn I could neither
stop weeping nor sleep then in the morning again, I kept on weeping. When the Divine
Inspiration was delayed.
Allah's Apostle called 'Ali bin Abi Talib and Usama bin Zaid to ask and consult them
about divorcing me. Usama bin Zaid said what he knew of my innocence, and the respect
he preserved in himself for me. Usama said, '(O Allah's Apostle!) She is your wife and
we do not know anything except good about her.' 'Ali bin Abi Talib said, 'O Allah's
Apostle! Allah does not put you in difficulty and there are plenty of women other than
she, yet, ask the maid-servant who will tell you the truth.' On that Allah's Apostle called
Barira (i.e. the maid-servant) and said, 'O Barira! Did you ever see anything which
aroused your suspicion?' Barira said to him, 'By Him Who has sent you with the Truth. I
have never seen anything in her (i.e. Aisha) which I would conceal, except that she is a
young girl who sleeps leaving the dough of her family exposed so that the domestic goats
come and eat it.'
So, on that day, Allah's Apostle got up on the pulpit and complained about 'Abdullah bin
Ubai (bin Salul) before his companions, saying, 'O you Muslims! Who will relieve me
from that man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By Allah, I
know nothing except good about my family and they have blamed a man about whom I
know nothing except good and he used never to enter my home except with me.' Sad bin
Mu'adh the brother of Banu 'Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I will
relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I will chop his head off,
and if he is from our brothers, i.e. Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your
order.' On that, a man from Al-Khazraj got up. Um Hassan, his cousin, was from his
branch tribe, and he was Sad bin Ubada, chief of Al-Khazraj. Before this incident, he was
a pious man, but his love for his tribe goaded him into saying to Sad (bin Mu'adh). 'By
Allah, you have told a lie; you shall not and cannot kill him. If he belonged to your
people, you would not wish him to be killed.'
- 16 -
On that, Usaid bin Hudair who was the cousin of Sad (bin Mu'adh) got up and said to Sad
bin 'Ubada, 'By Allah! You are a liar! We will surely kill him, and you are a hypocrite
arguing on the behalf of hypocrites.' On this, the two tribes of Al-Aus and Al Khazraj got
so much excited that they were about to fight while Allah's Apostle was standing on the
pulpit. Allah's Apostle kept on quietening them till they became silent and so did he. All
that day I kept on weeping with my tears never ceasing, and I could never sleep.
DISCUSSION
Slander is a serious offense that needs to be addressed. All societies have laws and
procedures how to deal with slander. However, does slander justify a call for
assassination? Muhammad did not call for a public trial that the slanderer be properly
punished based on law agreed upon in the community. Muhammad went to the pulpit and
asks for a volunteer among his companions to kill the man. Is that the proper manner a
prophet would deal with offenses whether done to himself or to anyone else?
According to this hadith, the order was not carried out in this case because the
companions got into an internal fight and the original request of Muhammad might have
been forgotten in the end. Internal quarrels saved his life. But the issue is whether
Muhammad's approach to the problem is fitting a prophet who has to judge according to
God's law and cannot just send a killer to execute whomever has annoyed him.
An observation that applies to most of the assassination requests by Muhammad: If

Muhammad is the offended party, why does Muhammad not go and deal with enemies
directly? Why does he send others to kill his personal enemies? Why does he never call
for proper trial to determine a punishment based on the law but often sends night time
execution squads? Is that how a prophet of God would act?
It needs to be mentioned that there are conflicting reports about this story. See bottom of
this page.
For completeness sake, we give in the below the remainder of this hadith.
In the morning my parents were with me and I wept for two nights and a day with my
tears never ceasing and I could never sleep till I thought that my liver would burst from
weeping. So, while my parents were sitting with me and I was weeping, an Ansari
woman asked me to grant her admittance. I allowed her to come in, and when she came
in, she sat down and started weeping with me. While we were in this state, Allah's
Apostle came, greeted us and sat down. He had never sat with me since that day of the
slander. A month had elapsed and no Divine Inspiration came to him about my case.
Allah's Apostle then recited Tashah-hud and then said, 'Amma Badu, O 'Aisha! I have
been informed so-and-so about you; if you are innocent, then soon Allah will reveal your
innocence, and if you have committed a sin, then repent to Allah and ask Him for
forgiveness for when a slave confesses his sins and asks Allah for forgiveness, Allah
accepts his repentance.'
- 17 -
When Allah's Apostle finished his speech, my tears ceased flowing completely that I no
longer felt a single drop of tear flowing. I said to my father, 'Reply to Allah's Apostle on
my behalf concerning what he has said.' My father said, 'By Allah, I do not know what to
say to Allah's Apostle .' Then I said to my mother, 'Reply to Allah's Apostle on my behalf
concerning what he has said.' She said, 'By Allah, I do not know what to say to Allah's
Apostle.' In spite of the fact that I was a young girl and had a little knowledge of Quran, I
said, 'By Allah, no doubt I know that you heard this (slanderous) speech so that it has
been planted in your hearts (i.e. minds) and you have taken it as a truth. Now if I tell you
that I am innocent, you will not believe me, and if confess to you about it, and Allah
knows that I am innocent, you will surely believe me. By Allah, I find no similitude for
me and you except that of Joseph's father when he said, '(For me) patience in the most
fitting against that which you assert; it is Allah (Alone) Whose Help can be sought.' Then
I turned to the other side and lay on my bed; and Allah knew then that I was innocent and
hoped that Allah would reveal my innocence. But, by Allah, I never thought that Allah
would reveal about my case, Divine Inspiration, that would be recited (forever) as I
considered myself too unworthy to be talked of by Allah with something of my concern,
but I hoped that Allah's Apostle might have a dream in which Allah would prove my
innocence. But, by Allah, before Allah's Apostle left his seat and before any of the
household left, the Divine inspiration came to Allah's Apostle.
So there overtook him the same hard condition which used to overtake him, (when he
used to be inspired Divinely). The sweat was dropping from his body like pearls though it
was a wintry day and that was because of the weighty statement which was being
revealed to him. When that state of Allah's Apostle was over, he got up smiling, and the
first word he said was, 'O 'Aisha! Allah has declared your innocence!' Then my Mother
said to me, 'Get up and go to him (i.e. Allah's Apostle). I replied, 'By Allah, I will not go
to him, and I praise none but Allah. So Allah revealed the ten Verses:-- "Verily! They
who spread the slander Are a gang, among you............." (24.11-20)
Allah revealed those Quranic Verses to declare my innocence. Abu Bakr As-Siddiq who
used to disburse money for Mistah bin Uthatha because of his relationship to him and his
poverty, said, 'By Allah, I will never give to Mistah bin Uthatha anything after what he
has said about Aisha.' Then Allah revealed:--
"And let not those among you who are good and wealthy swear not to give (any sort of
help) to their kinsmen, those in need, and those who have left their homes for Allah's
cause, let them pardon and forgive. Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? And
Allah is oft-Forgiving Most Merciful." (24.22)
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq said, 'Yes, by Allah, I would like that Allah forgive me.' and went
on giving Mistah the money he used to give him before. He also added, 'By Allah, I will
never deprive him of it at all.'
Aisha further said:." Allah's Apostle also asked Zainab bint Jahsh (i.e. his wife) about my
case. He said to Zainab, 'What do you know and what did you see?" She replied, "O
Allah's Apostle! I refrain from claiming falsely that I have heard or seen anything. By
Allah, I know nothing except good (about 'Aisha).' From amongst the wives of the
Prophet Zainab was my peer (in beauty and in the love she received from the Prophet) but
- 18 -
Allah saved her from that evil because of her piety. Her sister Hamna, started struggling
on her behalf and she was destroyed along with those who were destroyed. The man who
was blamed said, 'Subhan-Allah! By Him in Whose Hand my soul is, I have never
uncovered the cover (i.e. veil) of any female.' Later on the man was martyred in Allah's
Cause."
More details about Àbdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul al-Àufi are found in Sirat Rasul
Allah, pages 205-6, 277-9, 363, 371-2, 437, 463, 481, 491-2, 495, 604, 621, 623. In
particular, the above story of the suspicion against À'isha is told somewhat different on
pages 493-499. According the Sirat the death request for Àbdullah is not uttered by
Muhammad, but Usayd b. Hudayr, asking Muhammad to allow kill the slanderers. The
question would be which report is more authentic.
Interestingly, in the Sirat Àbdullah b. Ubayy is named first among the greatest offenders
(p. 495) but not flogged for false testimony like Mistah b. Uthatha, Hassan b. Thabit and
Hamna d Jahsh (p. 497) after À'isha's innocence is declared. He is spared probably
because of his high standing as a great leader of the community in Medina. The
punishment seems not to be applied impartially. This is one of the moral problems in the
report according to Ibn Hisham's account. We would expect that a prophet of God would
judge impartially and people will be punished equally if they have committed the same
crime, no matter if they are of low rank or high standing.
Page 623 reports about the (seemingly natural) death of Àbdullah bin Ubayy.
Rebuttal To Answering Islam's Article

"Muhammad And Àbdullah bin Ubayy
bin Salul al-Àufi"
by
Bassam Zawadi
Their article can be located here. You should definitely read their article before reading
this.
Basically their two main arguments are why the Prophet ordered the killing of Abdullah
bin Salul and why didn't the Prophet have Abdullah bin Salul flogged.
- 19 -
First of all, the Prophet never ordered the killing of Abdullah bin Ubay. When you read
the word in Arabic, it is 'ya'athirni', meaning 'help' or 'relieve'. Even look at how Ibn
Kathir translates it.....
So then the Messenger of Allah got up and (addressed the people) and
asked who could sort out Àbdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul for him. While he
was standing on the Minbar, the Messenger of Allah said, O Muslims,
who will help me against a man who has hurt me by slandering my family
By Allah,.......... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Source)
When the Muslims reacted by saying that they will kill him that was THEIR idea of
helping the Prophet! The Prophet never ordered it. The Prophet just wanted their help in
how to stop Abdullah bin Salul from doing what he was doing.
If the Prophet wanted to have Abdullah ibn Salool killed then he would have taken the
chance. He was given this opportunity, yet the Prophet (peace be upon him) refused to
order the killing of Abdullah ibn Salool...
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 004, Book 056, Hadith Number 720.
Narated By Jabir : We were in the company of the Prophet in a Ghazwa. A

large number of emigrants joined him and among the emigrants there was
a person who used to play jokes (or play with spears); so he (jokingly)
stroked an Ansari man on the hip. The Ans-ari got so angry that both of
them called their people. The Ansari said, "Help, O Ansar!" And the
emigrant said "Help, O emigrants!" The Prophet came out and said, "What
is wrong with the people (as they are calling) this call of the period of
Ignorance? "Then he said, "What is the matter with them?" So he was told
about the stroke of the emigrant to the Ansari. The Prophet said, "Stop this
(i.e. appeal for help) for it is an evil call. "Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul (a
hypocrite) said, "The emigrants have called and (gathered against us); so
when we return to Medina, surely, the more honorable people will expel
there-from the meaner," Upon that 'Umar said, "O Allah's Prophet! Shall
we not kill this evil person (i.e. Abdullah bin Ubai bin Salul) ?" The
Prophet) said, "(No), lest the people should say that Muhammad used
to kill his companions."
- 20 -
Narated By Jabir bin 'Abdullah : We were in a Ghazwa (Sufyan once said,

in an army) and a man from the emigrants kicked an Ansari man (on the
buttocks with his foot). The Ansari man said, "O the Ansar! (Help!)" and
the emigrant said. "O the emigrants! (Help!) Allah's Apostle heard that
and said, "What is this call for, which is characteristic of the period of
ignorance?" They said, "O Allah's Apostle! A man from the emigrants
kicked one of the Ansar (on the buttocks with his foot)." Allah's Apostle
said, "Leave it (that call) as is a detestable thing." 'Abdullah bin Ubai
heard that and said, 'Have the (the emigrants) done so? By Allah, if we
return Medina, surely, the more honourable will expel there-from the
meaner." When this statement reached the Prophet. 'Umar got up an,
said, "O Allah's Apostle! Let me chop off the head of this hypocrite
('Abdullah bin Ubai)!" The Prophet said "Leave him, lest the people
say that Muhammad kills his companions." The Ansar were then
more in number than the emigrants when the latter came to Medina,
but later on the emigrant increased.
Narated By Jabir bin Abdullah : We were in a Ghazwa and a man from the
emigrants kicked an Ansari (on the buttocks with his foot). The Ansari
man said, "O the Ansari! (Help!)" The emigrant said, "O the emigrants!
(Help)." When Allah's Apostle heard that, he said, "What is that?" They
said, "A man from the emigrants kicked a man from the Ansar (on the
buttocks his foot). On that the Ansar said, 'O the Ansar!' and the emigrant
said, 'O the emigrants!" The Prophet said' "Leave it (that call) for it Is a
detestable thing." The number of Ansar was larger (than that of the
emigrants) at the time when the Prophet came to Medina, but later the
number of emigrants increased. 'Abdullah bin Ubai said, "Have they,
(the emigrants) done so? By Allah, if we return to Medina, surely, the
more honourable will expel there-from the meaner," 'Umar bin Al-
Khattab said, "O Allah's Apostle! Let me chop off the head of this
hypocrite!" The Prophet said, "Leave him, lest the people say
Muhammad kills his companions."
Plus even Answering Islam say...
- 21 -
According the Sirat the death request for Àbdullah is not uttered by
Muhammad, but Usayd b. Hudayr, asking Muhammad to allow kill the
slanderers. The question would be which report is more authentic.
So I would like to thank Answering Islam for strengthening my position even more that it
was not the Prophet who issued the order for the killing.
The main people involved in the slandering affair were Mistah bin Athatha, Hassan bin
Thabit and Hamnah bint Jahsh and they were flogged.
However, the person who started it all, Abdullah bin Salool was not. This could be for the
reason that his punishment was awaiting him in the next life. Unlike, the others whom
Allah forgave and their punishment was only in this life.
Verily, those who brought forth the slander are a group among you.), until
the ten Ayat. Allah revealed these Ayat concerning my innocence. Abu
Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, who used to spend on Mistah bin
Uthathah because he was a close relative and because he was poor,
said, `By Allah, I will never spend anything on him again after what
he has said about À'ishah. ' Then Allah revealed,
(And let not those among you who are blessed with graces and wealth
swear not to give to their kinsmen.) until His saying:
(Do you not love that Allah should forgive you And Allah is Oft-
Forgiving, Most Merciful) [24:22]. So Abu Bakr said, `By Allah, certainly
I love that Allah should forgive me.' So he resumed spending on Mistah
as he had spent on him before, and he said, `By Allah, I shall never stop
spending on him.' The Messenger of Allah asked Zaynab bint Jahsh about
my situation, and said, (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Source)
(Verily, those who brought forth the slander are a group among you.)
[24:1] This refers to Hassan and his companions who said what they
said. Then Allah said, (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Source)
(Had it not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy unto you in this
world and in the Hereafter,) This is addressed to those who were
indulging in discussing the matter of À'ishah, informing them that
Allah has accepted their repentance in this world, and forgiven them
because of their faith in the Hereafter.
- 22 -
would have touched you for that whereof you had spoken.) with regard to
the slander.
(a great torment) This refers to those who had faith in Allah because of
their repentance, such as Mistah, Hassan and Hamnah bint Jahsh the
sister of Zaynab bint Jahsh. As for the hypocrites who indulged in the
slander, such as Àbdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul and his like, they are
not the ones who are referred to in this Ayah , because they did not
have sufficient faith and righteous deeds to balance or cancel out what
they had done. By the same token, the threats that were narrated for a
specific deed are bound to be carried out, if there is no repentance or
sufficient righteous deeds to balance or outweigh it. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir,
Source)
Allah talks about Abdullah bin Ubayy in the following saying "and to him who took on
himself the lead among them, will be a penalty grievous."
So let's look at the verse one more time...
Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves: think it not to be an evil
to you; On the contrary it is good for you: to every man among them (will come the
punishment) of the sin that he earned, (they are Mistah, Hassan and Hamnah) and to
him who took on himself the lead among them, will be a penalty grievous. (this is
Abdullah bin Salul)
So God instead of having Abdullah bin Salul punished in this life is giving him a worse
punishment, which is a guaranteed entry to hell.
The idea that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not punish certain people because of
their position or who they were is a complete lie. The Prophet was even willing to
implement Islamic law on his own family if it were to resort to such a need...
Saheeh Muslim
A'isha reported that the Quraish had been anxious about the Makhzumi
woman who had committed theft, and said: Who will speak to Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) about her? They said: Who dare it,
but Usama, the loved one of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)?
- 23 -
So Usama spoke to him. Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be
upon him) said: Do you intercede regarding one of the punishments
prescribed by Allah? He then stood up and addressed (people) saying: O
people, those who have gone before you were destroyed, because if any
one of high rank committed theft amongst them, they spared him; and it
anyone of low rank committed theft, they inflicted the prescribed
punishment upon him. By Allah, if Fatima, daughter of Muhammad,
were to steal, I would have her hand cut off. In the hadith transmitted on
the authority of Ibn Rumh (the words are):" Verily those before you
perished."
Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri puts it nicely in his book 'The Sealed Nectar'...
The principal elements involved in the slander affair, Mistah bin Athatha, Hassan bin
Thabit and Hamnah bint Jahsh, were flogged with eighty stripes.
As for the man who took the principal part, 'Abdullah bin Ubai, he was not flogged,
either because the corporal punishment commutes the chastisement in store for him in the
Hereafter, and he does not deserve this merit, or for the same public interest for which he
was not killed previously. He, moreover, became the butt of reproach and humiliation
amongst his people after his real intentions had been unequivocally exposed to all the
public. [Sahih Al-Bukhari 1/364,2/696-698; Za'd Al-Ma'ad 2/113-115; Ibn Hisham
2/297-307]
Almost a month later, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and 'Umar bin Al-Khattab were
engaged in the following talk: "Don't you see 'Umar if I had had him (Abdullah bin Ubai)
killed, a large number of dignitaries would have furiously hastened to fight for him. Now,
on the contrary, if I ask them to kill him, they will do so out of their own free will."
'Umar replied "I swear by Allâh that the Prophet's judgement is much more sound than
mine." [Ibn Hisham 2/293] (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, The Sealed Nectar,
Source)
Abdullah bin Salul had enmity towards the Prophet since day one (read Saheeh
Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 89)
Abdulla bin Salool even betrayed the Muslim army at the time of Uhud when they were
most desperate and took 300 men along with him. Read about it here.
Another hadith showing the trouble Abdullah bin Salul caused the Muslims (read
Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 720)
- 24 -
However, even after all this the Prophet prayed for Abdullah bin Salul in his funeral
prayer. (read Saheeh Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 447)
You see the mercy of the glorious Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)?
Return to Refuting Answering-Islam.org Section
Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "Are Divinity

and Humanity Irreconcilable?"
by
Bassam Zawadi

The Muslim speaker said, "Just as the ocean cannot be contained in a tea cup, the infinite God cannot be contained in
the finite body of Jesus."
There you go; that is a basic assumption of Muslims used to "refute" the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity.
More philosophically the assumption can be stated as, "If the content of a proposition is apparently logically
contradictory, then the reality denoted by that content is ontologically/metaphyically impossible."
Like most Islamic arguments about things Christian, the Islamic assumption sounds good on the surface, but only so
long as one stays on the surface. Just a little digging and the fallacious thinking is patent. Just a little digging on my
part revealed the following about this Islamic assumption:
1. Modal terms such as "possible," or "impossible," apply to propositions only, not to beings. This was the gist of
Kant's refutation of Anselm's ontological argument in the Proslogion. Thus it makes no sense to say that the bodily
finite Jesus is the infinite God is impossible. Jesus is not merely a proposition; and God is not merely a proposition.
- 25 -
2. The logical and the ontological realms are discrete. Muslims fail to demonstrate that the one realm must
necessarily operate under the same rules as the other. I would love to see that argument developed.
3. Since Muslims apparently believe in a God who is all-powerful, why do they attempt to constrain that God by
logical rules that apply to propositions only? Is God merely a proposition, or is God bound by those logical rules? Of
course, a Muslim could claim that Allah bound Allah's self by those logical rules. Where is the proof for this claim?
Again, I would love to see that argument developed.
4. Just yesterday I was reading a hadith qudsi that said, "Our Lord (glorified and exalted be He) descends each night
to the earth's sky when there remains the final third of the night. [al-Bukhari, Muslim, Malik, at-Tirmidhi, and Abu
Dawud]. To descend is a movement through space. Only a physical entity can move through space. Thus even the
hadith has a non-physical God act in physical ways. Sounds contradictory or impossible to me. I guess Muslims
believe that the infinite Allah can act in finitely physical ways only under certain circumstances. God can enter space
and time, but not flesh. God can do some impossible things, but not others. Do I have that right? Sounds pretty
arbitrary to me.
Why do I have the feeling that Muslims will respond by saying that some language is metaphorical and other
language isn't. When we say that Allah descends that is metaphorical. And how do we know that? Well, it is
obvious?Muslims have decided that Allah can only act in the ways Muslims have decided that Allah can act. It
reminds me of a conversation I had with a Salafiyyah Muslim who said that Allah has an arm, eyes, foot, and a
throne (I hope I have those parts correct). When I asked whether the arm and the throne were physical, his response
was, "I only know what the Qur'an says. I know there is a throne, but I don't know whether it is a physical throne or
not." I didn't say it, but I was wondering what a non-physical throne would be?an imaginative throne (one that isn't
there; Allah is sitting on a throne that isn't there), a spiritual throne (and how does a spiritual throne differ from a
physical throne?) Wouldn't Muslims find life much more logical if they granted that Allah can do whatever Allah
wills to do, even if that will looks to us like a contradiction or a breaking of the rules of metaphysics.
My Response:
Indeed God says in the Quran that he has a hand, but he has a hand that suites his majesty. It does not indicate that it
is a 'finite' hand as ours. So that argument means nothing.
As for the hadith regarding the descent, we don't know how God descends. Therefore, we can't make any
assumptions of God mixing with creation and so on.
Either way the author makes a false comparison between God coming down and moving around in finite space and
time and the fact that God became a man. When God the infinite moves around in finite space, he still remains
infinite. Nothing has changed.
But Christians believe that Jesus was fully God and fully man. They believe that Jesus was finite and infinite at the
same time. They believe that Jesus was mortal and immortal at the same time. They believe that Jesus was
omniscient and non omniscient at the same time. They believe that Jesus was eternal and non eternal at the same
time. This is as illogical as saying that some one is a married bachelor.
- 26 -
The author seems to be confusing two things together. He is confusing that, which is beyond our reason and cannot
be proven to be false (e.g. God's eternal existence) with things that are unreasonable and can be proven to be false
(e.g. having a married bachelor) So the Christian claim that God was man at the same time is unreasonable for it is
self contradictory.
Yes indeed Allah does what he wills to do, but He would never will to do something ungodly. If God does anything
that goes against His attributes and nature then that is an ungodly act. God is All Just, if God chooses to be unfair
then He ceases to be God. Similarly God is infinite, if he chooses to become finite then he ceases to be God. It is self
refuting.
Allah, the God of Grace and Mercy:

By Hussein Tirmizi
This is a response to an article by Sam Shamoun entitled, ?Allah, the Greatest Deceiver
of them All', which is located here:
Answering-Islam.Org/Shamoun/Allah_Best_Deceiver.Htm
Through this article the reader will see the hypocrisy, lies, deception and inconsistency of
Shamoun. At the end they will see that his entire article is a bunch of hogwash, which has
no substance at all and will also see something even more awkward, which is that
according to Sam Shamoun's own words he should be a Muslim. I do not intend to
offend Shamoun by saying this, but every anti-Islamic article I have seen so far is filled
with misquotes, verses taken out of context, lies, deception and hypocrisy. I started
studying the Bible and the Holy Qur'an for about a year, and every single Islamophobe I
have come across has so much inconsistency in their information.
Key:
(SAWW) = Sal Allahu-Aza-wa-Jala A'laihi Wa A'le Hi Wasalam (The Blessings of
Allah, the Glorified, be upon him and his family and peace).
(AS) = A'laihi-Salam (Upon him be peace).
(AS2) = A'laiha-Salam (Upon her be peace).
- 27 -
(AS3) = A'laihimus-Salam (Upon them be peace)
(RA) = Radi Allahu-Aza-wa-Jala A'nhu (May Allah, the Glorified, be pleased with him).
(RA2) = Radi Allahu-Aza-wa-Jala A'nha (May Allah, the Glorified, be pleased with her).
(RA3) = Radi Allahu-Aza-wa-Jala A'nhum (May Allah, the Glorified, be pleased with
them)
(SWT) = Subhana Huwa-ta'ala (Glory be to him).
All the quotes from the Holy Qur'an in this article are from the translation of Mohammad
Habib Shakir, unless otherwise indicated, most commonly known as M.H Shakir or just
Shakir, though no one can rely completely on any translations.
All quotes from the Bible in this response are from the King James Version (also known
as KJV) of the Bible.
His article will be in black and my response in green, except for any links made by him
or me:
He wrote:
The Quran describes Allah as the best deceiver there is, a liar who is not above using the
same evil and wicked schemes of his opponents.
For example, the Quran calls Allah a makr, in fact the best makr there is:
But they (the Jews) were deceptive, and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is
the best of deceivers (Wamakaroo wamakara Allahu waAllahu khayru
al-makireena)! S. 3:54; cf. 8:30
Other texts that identify Allah as a makr include:
Are they then secure from Allah's deception (makra Allahi)? None
deemeth himself secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi) save folk
that perish. S. 7:99 Pickthall
So they schemed a scheme: and We schemed a scheme (Wamakaroo

makran wamakarna makran), while they perceived not. S. 27:50
My Response:
The Holy Qur'an does not even use the word liar with Allah (SWT) nor does it
say that Allah (SWT) deceives in any negative manner or uses wicked schemes.
- 28 -
On the contrary, the Holy Qur'an shows us the true character of Allah (SWT), as
the True One/The Truth, which is al-Haqq in Arabic, one of his beautiful names:
Then are they sent back to Allah, their Master, the True one; now surely His is
the judgment and He is swiftest in taking account. (Surah al-Anam 6:62)
This is because Allah is the Truth and because He gives life to the dead and
because He has power over all things. (Surah al-Hajj 22:6)
So exalted be Allah, the True King; no god is there but He, the Lord of the
honorable dominion. (Surah al-Mu'minun 23:116)
On that day Allah will pay back to them in full their just reward, and they shall
know that Allah is the evident Truth. (Surah an-Nur 24:25)
It is clear here that the character of Allah (SWT) is not what Shamoun claims it to
be, but the real character of him is that he is al-Haqq, meaning he is the Truth.
Deceiving, in a negative sense, or lying cannot be attributed to Allah (SWT),
since indeed he is the Truth and the True one. It is not Allah (SWT) who deceives
the accursed people who attempted to kill his Prophets, but it is they who
deceived themselves. Allah (SWT) simply planned against their plans and
deceived their wicked agendas, so that his Prophet would be safe from the
wickedness of the ones who attempted to murder him, solely for believing and
preaching the Message of Truth and peace, though all their attempts failed,
because the plan of Allah (SWT) always prevails over the plans of wicked men.
Getting back to the topic, let's analyse the twisted information by Shamoun. He
first quotes Surah Ale-Imran 3:54.
And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners.
Before explaining the misconceptions of this Noble Verse, one should look at the context
and see whom Allah (SWT) refers to when he says they planned. (Surah Ale-Imran 3:54)
They clearly refers to those who rejected Prophet Isa (AS), who is Jesus, when the verses
before it:
But when Isa perceived unbelief on their part, he said who will be my helpers in Allah's
way? The disciples said: We are helpers (in the way) of Allah: We believe in Allah and
bear witness that we are submitting ones.
Our Lord! We believe in what Thou hast revealed and we follow the apostle, so write us
down with those who bear witness.
And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners. (Surah Ale-
Imran 3:52-54)
- 29 -
We can see from verse 52 we can see that the ones who verse 54 refers to are those who
refused to be the helpers of Prophet Isa (AS) and the ones on whom he perceived
disbelief
Many people misinterpret this verse to say that Allah (SWT) is a deceiver and that the
Arabic word used here, which is al-makireena, means deceiver.
This is a blatant lie, and this verse does not say that Allah (SWT) deceives. The Arabic
word used there is al-makireena which has many meanings, such as to plot, to plan, to
scheme, to deceive etc.
There is no translator who uses the word deceive including the non-Muslim translators
because it is clear from the context of this verse that the disbelievers, who rejected
Prophet Isa (AS), planned against him. However Allah (SWT) planned against them to
save his Holy Messiah (AS) from death. Even if it is deceiving, it means that Allah
(SWT) deceived them by saving his Messiah, though they believed they had killed him.
Let us also examine Surah al-Anfal 8:30:
And when those who disbelieved devised plans against you that they might confine you or
slay you or drive you away; and they devised plans and Allah too had arranged a plan;
and Allah is the best of planners. (Surah al-Anfal 8:30)
Firstly, it says that he plans against the disbelievers who plotted against the Holy Prophet
Mohammad (SAWW) and Allah (SWT) also plotted and planned against them. There is
nothing wrong or deceptive used here by Allah (SWT). In order to protect his Holy
Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), he prevented the disbelievers plot. The answer is not very
different to that of Surah Ale-Imran 3:54 and even if Allah (SWT) deceived the pagans,
he did so by stopping the deceptive plans of the pagans. He deceived them because they
expected to kill the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), but Allah (SWT) destroyed their
plan, and he is indeed the best of planners.
In addition Shamoun cited Surah al-A'raf 7:99:
What! Do they then feel secure from Allah's plan? But none feels secure from Allah's
plan except the people who shall perish. (Surah al-A'raf 7:99)
If one reads verse 94 from this verse up till 99, he/she will see that this refers to the
people who rejected the Prophets that were sent to them and continued to disbelieve after
Allah (SWT) continuously gave them chances. Then Allah (SWT) sent affliction to them,
but later on gave them calm. But the next generation did not take example from what had
happened to their predecessors and continued in their tyrannous lifestyle, rather than
taking from just, divine teachings that Allah (SWT) gave them. What this verse is saying
is that those very people who disbelieved did not heed the plan of Allah (SWT) to perish
them. Verse 101 of this very same Surah, says that Messengers had come to them with
clear proofs, and yet they had rejected these Messengers. Allah (SWT) says that because
of that action, he sealed up their hearts, meaning that there was no light and no chance of
- 30 -
salvation for them, because of their sinful deed in rejecting a Messenger of Allah (SWT)
who came with clear proof and guidance for that community.
Let's take the assumption this verse says that the rejecters did not heed Allah's (SWT)
deception. This means that Allah (SWT) had deceived their predecessors, because they
had rejected the Messengers that came to them, by sending affliction to them. They had
planned to deceive the Messengers sent to them, by killing them or perhaps by killing a
miracle they brought [for instance the people of Prophet Salih (AS) had killed the she-
camel, Allah (SWT) created from an inanimate rock as a miracles to them, which they
demanded, yet even after this demand they were stubborn and disbelieved to the extent
that they killed the she-camel] but Allah (SWT) planned against them. That is all it
means, whether Allah (SWT) is saying deception or saying something else, like planning,
plotting, scheming etc. All of these verses just show that Allah (SWT) was planning
against those who had planned against his messengers and had rejected them.
Furthermore, he quoted Surah an-Naml 27:50, which reads:
And they planned a plan, and We planned a plan while they perceived not. (Surah an-
Naml 27:50)
If this verse is read in context and not just read immediately, then any reader would know
what Allah (SWT) is saying in this verse. Allah (SWT) says in verses 45-46 of this same
Surah that Prophet Salih (AS) had asked his people to worship Allah (SWT). Some of
them obeyed while others rejected the Message of Islam (Note Islam is the Message from
all Messengers. In Arabic Islam means: ?submission' and refers to submission to the one-
God, Allah (SWT) and belief in his Messengers. This message was sent to all
Messengers, but it was people who deviated from the truth. Verse 47, says that the people
had accused Prophet Salih (AS) of bringing bad luck to them, i.e. affliction was sent to
them, because they had rejected Allah (SWT) but Prophet Salih (AS) replied that this evil
fortune to them was from Allah (SWT), i.e. because they had rejected the Message of
Islam and continued in their ignorant, unjust and filthy lifestyles and sick pagan beliefs.
Verse 49, says that these people had planned to kill Prophet Salih (AS) but Allah (SWT)
says in the next verse that they had planned, but he planned to, while they did not know.
This means that they had planned to kill Prophet Salih (AS), with no knowledge that
Allah (SWT) devised another plan, to save his Prophet from their sick treacherous
behaviour. So, Allah (SWT) deceived these pagans, because they did not achieve what
they wanted, which was to kill a Holy Prophet (AS), of such high morals, who came with
guidance and truth. In verse 51, Allah (SWT) says that he wiped these people out because
they were unjust and verse 52 says that this (i.e. this story) is a sign for people who know.
What verse 52 is saying is that this story is a sign for those who have knowledge of what
Allah (SWT) did to the people of old, who rejected Prophets and how he gave them an
example to heed from, so that they would worship him and live in the lifestyle
recommended by him, which was the most perfect and just system ever and there will by
nothing greater than the law of Allah (SWT).
So whether the translation is deceive or not, either way the meaning is one, which is that
Allah (SWT) saved his Prophets and his Messengers, by destroying the plans of those
who had plotted to perform these hideous acts, without them knowing. In the end they
- 31 -
were deceived, because their satanic agendas of killing Prophets and living in a filthy,
sick, lifestyle was destroyed and Islam had prevailed.
If a wicked army of 10 000 people comes to destroy a peaceful town, of 100 people, with
no defense and the men are killed from affliction by Allah (SWT), is that deception, in a
negative sense?
No. It is to save innocent people. In the end the 10 000 people are deceived, but they are
not deceived by Allah (SWT) but by their own actions. However, in the case of the Holy
Qur'an innocent Messengers of Allah (SWT), who preached a perfect religion and
lifestyle were persecuted for it, but Allah (SWT) forsook the wicked and saved his
Prophets, leaving the accursed people deceived.
He wrote:
The word for deception/deceiver/scheme is makr. The lexical sources define the term as:
Miim-Kaf-Ra = To practice deceit or guile or circumvention, practice

evasion or elusion, to plot, to exercise art or craft or cunning, act with
policy, practice stratagem.
makara vb. (1)

perf. act. 3:54, 3:54, 7:123, 13:42, 14:46, 16:26, 16:45, 27:50, 40:45,
71:22
impf. act. 6:123, 6:123, 6:124, 8:30, 8:30, 8:30, 10:21, 12:102, 16:127,
27:70, 35:10
n.vb. 7:99, 7:99, 7:123, 10:21, 10:21, 12:31, 13:33, 13:42, 14:46, 14:46,
14:46, 27:50, 27:50, 27:51, 34:33, 35:10, 35:43, 35:43, 71:22
pcple. act. 3:54, 8:30
LL, V7, p: 256 (Source)
And:
He practised DECEIT, GUILE, or CIRCUMVENTION, desiring to do

another a foul, an abominable, or an evil action, clandestinely or without
his knowing whence it proceeded. (Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon;
source)
My Response:
As said previously, whether the word makr means deception or not, the meaning
is still the same. People, who had planned against the Messengers of Allah
(SWT), did not succeed because Allah (SWT) had planned against them, which
simply means that he had left them deceived and confused, as they did not
- 32 -
achieve the filthy agenda they aimed for. It was them who chose to be deceived,
because they did not obey the Messenger sent to them and devised plans against
him.
He also quoted Lane's Arabic-English lexicon. However this is simply the

interpretation of Edward William Lane and not the word of infallible word of
Allah (SWT). Nevertheless, Allah (SWT) did do a foul and evil action against
these people, by afflicting them, because of their sick actions. It would seem evil
to do something foul to an innocent, however to do a foul action against someone
guilty (especially a rejecter of a Prophet, who plans to kill him) is showing grace
and mercy to the victims.
For instance, if a criminal burns down a building and 50 people die and 200 are
injured, he has performed an extremely immoral and filthy deed and would be
jailed for life or executed. An evil action would be committed against him, but it
would not be an evil action, because it is simply punishing him for his sick and
disgraceful act.
Also the people, whom Allah (SWT) had planned against, were indeed deceived,
guiled and circumvented, meaning they were outsmarted and left deceived. They
were stopped from their hideous action, because Allah (SWT) had planned against
them and they were left deceived.
He wrote:
Lest Muslims accuse these lexicons of bias or distortion notice what Muslim scholar Dr.
Mahmoud M. Ayoub says when he asks,
"how the word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness

or dishonesty, could be attributed to God." (The Quran and Its
Interpreters - The House of Imran [State University of New York Press
[SUNY], Albany 1992], Volume II, p. 165; italic emphasis ours)
After listing several Muslim sources he quotes a renowned Muslim expositor named ar-
Razi who wrote that,
"scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It

is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the
muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166; italic
emphasis ours)
My Response:
But I did not accuse Lane of bias or distortion. He is wrong in my opinion, but
that does not mean he had purposely twisted the words around to make Islam look
- 33 -
bad. However, even if he is right, his interpretation is still explained and it still
does not prove anything evil from Allah (SWT), the Lord of Grace and Mercy.
Then Shamoun quoted Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub. Though he is a scholar in Islam,

he is not infallible. There are mistakes in the works of men, but the only book that
Muslims know is fully infallible, is the Holy Qur'an.
Again, even if Allah (SWT) is using dishonesty and deception, he is using it for a
reason, which is against foul criminals, who rejected the Message, which came to
them with clear proof and sought to kill his Prophets. In the end, the people are
deceived by not achieving their satanic objective, i.e. to lead people astray and kill
Prophets and Messengers. If Allah (SWT) is using dishonesty and Dr. Mahmoud
Ayoub is right, then he is doing so because the people are expecting everything to
go their way and for their plans to succeed, but Allah (SWT) uproots their plans,
crushes their ambitions of killing Prophets and leading people astray and to hell
and crushes them.
Also he says that Imam Fakhr ud-Din ar-Razi, denies that Allah (SWT) schemes.
If scheming is in a negative sense, then of course, Allah (SWT) does not scheme,
but he does scheme in a positive sense, by uprooting the evil plans of the
disbelievers, who reject the Message and the Messenger sent to them, lead people
astray and plan to kill the Holy Prophets of Allah (SWT).
He wrote:
Unfortunately for ar-Razi, the Quran attributes deception to Allah since it
identifies him as the best makr there is.
Ayoub also sources one Muslim who actually boasted of Allah being the best
conniver/deceiver/schemer etc.,
"Qurtubi observes that some scholars have considered the words ?best of
schemers' to be one of God's beautiful names. Thus one would pray, ?O
Best of Schemers, scheme for me!' Qurtubi also reports that the Prophet
used to pray, ?O God, scheme for me, and do not scheme against me!'
(Qurtubi, IV, pp. 98-99; cf. Zamakhshari, I, p. 366)." (Ibid., p. 166)
My Response:
Unfortunately for Shamoun, the Holy Qur'an does not allude to Allah (SWT) in
any negative sense whatsoever, when it uses the word makr.
As said before it is a positive sense of scheming, because Allah (SWT) is crushing

the wicked intentions of the disbelievers to destroy the Message sent to their
community from Allah (SWT) and to kill his Holy Prophets, also sent by him.
- 34 -
?Best of schemers' is not a name of Allah (SWT) from his 99 names (Asma al-
Husna), so this source from al-Qurtubi is clearly false.
The word makr refers to planning in this case, because it is impossible to scheme
for someone. The word scheme in itself is something negative, but when it is done
against those who have evil schemes, in order that their plans may fail, then it is
positive. If the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) did pray to Allah (SWT),
what Shamoun quoted, then he did not say scheme but said plan. The prayer
would be from him to Allah (SWT) to plan for him, i.e. in his favour.
He wrote:
And here, also, is how one of the earliest sources on the life of Muhammad
interpreted Q. 8:30:
Then he reminds the apostle of His favour towards him when the people
plotted against him 'to kill him, or to wound him, or to drive him out; and
they plotted and God plotted, and is the best of plotters.' i.e. I DECEIVED
them with My firm GUILE so that I delivered you from them. (The Life of
Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with
introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press,
Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 323; capital emphasis ours)
My Response:
This has already been addressed previously. Clearly, Allah (SWT) had left the
disbelievers, who planned to kill his Holiest Prophet and lead people astray,
deceived and guiled. This was because of their stubbornness and wickedness as
well as their evil ambitions. To deceive them and to guile them, simply meant to
plan against their plans and to uproot them in order to save the Holiest and
Greatest Prophet Mohammad (SAWW). This left them confused and deceived.
Allah (SWT) deceived them indirectly, because they were left confused and had
failed miserably at all of their sick attempts. Indeed the plan of Allah (SWT)
prevails over all others. Indeed, Allah (SWT) delivered the Holy Prophet
Mohammad (SAWW) from the oppression and wickedness of the pagans.
He wrote:
Thus, the Quran unashamedly calls Muhammad's god the best liar and deceiver of them
all! It even dares to say that ALL deception belongs completely to Allah:
And verily, those before them did deceive/scheme (makara), but all
deception/scheming is Allah's (falillahi al-makru). He knows what every
person earns, and the disbelievers will know who gets the good end. S.
13:42
- 35 -
My Response:
Thus, we have seen that the Holy Qur'an never calls Allah (SWT) a liar. Shamoun
adds his own false words into the verses of the Holy Qur'an. Indeed Allah (SWT)
is al-Haqq, the Truth/the True one, as testified by the Holy Qur'an (Surah al-
Anam 6:62, Surah al-Hajj 22:6, Surah al-Mu'minun 23:116 and Surah an-Nur
24:25).
Of course, Allah (SWT) is the best planner of them all, but nowhere does the
verse say liar. People wickedly plan to kill the Prophets of Allah (SWT), so he
uproots their plans and they are left bewildered and deceived, not by Allah
(SWT), but by their own evil actions. The verse does not even use the word lie.
Surely, this filth can never be attributed to Allah (SWT).
In the verse quoted by Shamoun, Surah ar-Ra'd 13:42; he does not use any
translation, but places his own translation, which he believes to be correct.
The verses before this verse, from verse 36, should also be taken into context to
analyse what Allah (SWT) is saying. The whole passage says that there are those
among the people of the book, who rejoice at the revelation sent to the Holy
Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), while there are others who deny a part of this
revelation. Those who do not follow what has been revealed and follow their low
desires shall have no guardian when Allah (SWT) will judge them. Allah (SWT)
continues speaking about how there is nothing that can hinder his plans. Then he
says that those before them did make plans but Allah (SWT) planned as well but
Allah (SWT) plans all things. What this means is that, in the end, no matter how
many of the wicked there are, no matter how smart they and no matter how well
they plan their wicked actions, the plans of Allah (SWT) will always prevail.
This means that these people will try their best to destroy the message sent by
Allah (SWT), but will always fail, because all planning is Allah's (SWT). As said
before many times, these evil people are, in the end, deceived and bewildered, as
their expectations never come to pass and their wicked plans never succeed.
He wrote:
In fact, the Quran states that Allah actually raises wicked individuals to deceive and
scheme:
Even so have we placed in every city, ringleaders of its wicked ones, to

scheme therein (liyamkuroo): but only against themselves shall they
scheme (yamkuroona)! and they know it not. S. 6:123 Rodwell
My Response:
- 36 -
Shamoun has falsely said that Allah (SWT) ?raises' wicked individuals. Nowhere
in this entire verse does it say that Allah (SWT) ?raises' anyone. Let us look at the
verse quoted by Shamoun:
And thus have We made in every town the great ones to be its guilty ones, that
they may plan therein; and they do not plan but against their own souls, and they
do not perceive. (Surah al-Anam 6:123)
Shamoun just did me a favour by quoting this verse, because it proves all that I
said previously and disproves his false claims of Allah (SWT) allegedly deceiving
others, in a negative sense. It says that they plan against their own souls, meaning
that in the end it is they who shall be the losers and they will end up in hell.
Indeed Allah (SWT) does not make people wicked, so that they can be leaders
and can scheme. What this verse is saying is that, in every town/community,
Allah (SWT) places people, who are wicked, meaning they are wicked by their
own nature, in towns, so that they may plan, i.e. they plan against the Holy
Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and the Message of Islam. The purpose of this is
not to create mischief, as Allah (SWT) forbids his followers from making
mischief on Earth (Surah al-A'raf 7:56) but I believe the purpose is to test the
people of Mecca, whether they will observe the clear signs of Islam and the Holy
Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) or follow their leaders who plan against Islam.
Ismail ibn Kathir, Jalal ad-Din as-Suyuti, ibn Abbas (in the source Tanwir al-
Miqbas Tafsir ibn Abbas, though the source was compiled long after ibn Abbas's
death and may have some fallacy) and Jalal ad-Din al-Mihali agree that these
people were wicked by their own nature and Allah (SWT) did not make them
wicked, as falsely asserted by Shamoun.
As said previously, what the verse is actually saying is that in every town Allah
(SWT) makes the leaders, people who plan, i.e. plan against Islam and the Holy
Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), though they do not plan against anyone but
themselves, because in the end they always lose. As said before, I believe that the
reason Allah (SWT) does this is to test the people, whether they will follow the
leaders, i.e. the easy and wicked path, or will follow the Holy Prophet
Mohammad (SAWW), whose path was difficult at the start, due to persecution
and injustice, but is truly the path to Heaven.
He wrote:
And further commands people to do evil so that he can then have a reason to destroy
them!
And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its

folk who live at ease, AND AFTERWARD they commit abomination
therein, and so the Word (of doom) hath effect for it, and we annihilate it
with complete annihilation. S. 17:16 Pickthall
- 37 -
My Response:
Shamoun has just proved himself to be a complete liar and a deceiver, the very
characteristics he falsely attributes to Allah (SWT). I would not mind him if he
was honest and gentle in critiquing Islam and had an open mind, but here, I
clearly see he is deceiving his readers and asserting false interpretations of his
own, to the Holy Qur'an.
The translation by Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall, on this verse, Surah Bani

Israel 17:16, which he quotes himself, proves that his interpretation is false. It
reads: ?We send commandment to its folk who live at ease, AND AFTERWARD
they commit abomination therein'. It is clear that Allah (SWT) in this verse tells
us that he sends commandment to its folk who live at ease. What this means is
that Allah (SWT) sends an Apostle to a town, and this town lives at ease, because
Allah (SWT) provides them with sustenance. Afterward, they commit
transgression (which Pickthall translates as abomination), meaning that they deny
the message sent to them and continue their sick beliefs and lifestyles. Then Allah
(SWT) annihilates the town completely. Shamoun has proved himself to be a liar.
I am not trying to insult Shamoun on purpose, but exposing his deception and lies
is necessary, so that the reader may see the true character of this man.
He wrote:
The Quran uses another word to denote that Allah is a liar, a schemer who has no
problems using guile, namely kayd:
And those who cry lies to Our signs We will draw them on little by little
whence they know not; and I respite them -- assuredly My guile (kaydee)
is sure. S. 7:182-183 Arberry
and I shall respite them -- assuredly My guile (kaydee) is sure. S. 68:45

Arberry
My Response:
No the Holy Qur'an never uses the word liar and it is only according to Shamoun's
twisted interpretation, that the Holy Qur'an denotes that Allah (SWT) is a liar. The
word guile means deception. It is not Allah (SWT) who uses deception, but Allah
(SWT) plans against those who reject his signs. These people are left deceived,
because what they expect does not come to pass. These are people, who wish to
continue their sick, unjust and filthy lifestyle, of worshiping idols, burying newly
born girls, forcing women into prostitution and dozens of other extremely filthy
acts, though truth has been offered to them and clear signs have come. They
expect to live their filthy lifestyle and then die. However, because of their
transgression in life, they get deceived in their death, because of their own
actions. Had they chosen to accept the clear signs and give up filth, surely Allah
- 38 -
(SWT) would never have them bewildered and deceived. The word ?lie' has not
even been used in these verses, proving that Shamoun is a liar. Allah (SWT) says
in these verses:
And (as to) those who reject Our communications, We draw them near (to destruction)
by degrees from whence they know not.
And I grant them respite; surely My scheme is effective. (Surah al-A'raf 7:182-
183)
Indeed, the plan of Allah (SWT) is effective because no matter what anyone does
and no matter what plans they have it will not hinder the plans of Allah (SWT).
The word scheme here, does not denote anything negative or harsh, but denotes a
just plan against the wicked people.
Shamoun also quoted Arberry's translation of Surah al-Qalam 68:45. This verse
also says that Allah's (SWT) plan is firm, meaning that it cannot be shaken or
changed, no matter what happens. The verse before shows that this refers to those
who reject the signs of Allah (SWT) and the just judgement upon them has
already been discussed just above.
He wrote:
The lexicons provide the following definitions:
Kaf-Ya-Dal (Kaf-Alif-Dal) = To be about to, be just on the point of, be

well nigh, intend, wish, practise an artful device, desire,
contrive/plot/devise such a thing, worked or laboured at or upon anything,
to do something clandestinely, to deceive/beguile/circumvent, means of
evading/eluding, vomited, emitted fire, had menstrual flux, gave up his
spirit.
kada vb. (1)

perf. act. 12:76
impf. act. 12:5, 21:57, 86:15, 86:16
impv. 7:195, 11:55, 77:39
n.vb. 3:120, 4:76, 7:183, 8:18, 12:5, 12:28, 12:28, 12:33, 12:34, 12:50,
12:52, 20:60, 20:64, 20:69, 21:70, 22:15, 37:98, 40:25, 40:37, 52:42,
52:46, 68:45, 77:39, 86:15, 86:16, 105:2
pcple. pass. 52:42
LL, V7, p: 166, 167 (Source; underline emphasis ours)
My Response:
- 39 -
Any reader can see that Shamoun has just picked a few translations, which look
bad, when not taken in context. We can also see that this verse also means to
intend, to wish etc, to plot.
Indeed the intentions, wills and plans of Allah (SWT) do always come to pass,
because he is the true God and has power over all things. Allah (SWT) does not
deceive the pagans, as he himself says that they deceive themselves (Surah al-
Anam 6:123, which has been misused by Shamoun and explained, in this
response, above). This is because they do not get the agenda they expect and wish
to get, and are left deceived and perplexed, not because of Allah (SWT), but
because of their own wickedness.
He wrote:
The Quran furnishes plenty of examples that exemplify the negative aspect and nature of
this term, e.g. those who use kayd are deliberately intending something evil which results
in their judgement for employing such wicked schemes:
What, have they feet wherewith they walk, or have they hands wherewith
they lay hold, or have they eyes wherewith they see, or have they ears
wherewith they give ear? Say: 'Call you then to your associates; then try
your guile (keedooni) on me, and give me no respite. S. 7:195 Arberry
My Response:
Yes, but this does not prove anything. In order to analyse this verse, one must
read the context, i.e. one must read the verses from verse 191 up till 196:
What! They associate (with Him) that which does not create any thing, while they are
themselves created!
And they have no power to give them help, nor can they help themselves.
And if you invite them to guidance, they will not follow you; it is the same to you whether
you invite them or you are silent.
Surely those whom you call on besides Allah are in a state of subjugation like yourselves;
therefore call on them, then let them answer you if you are truthful.
Have they feet with which they walk, or have they hands with which they hold, or have
they eyes with which they see, or have they ears with which they hear? Say: Call your
associates, then make a struggle (to prevail) against me and give me no respite.
Surely my guardian is Allah, Who revealed the Book, and He befriends the good. (Surah
al-A'raf 7:191-196)
- 40 -
From verse 191, one can see that this whole passage refers to those who associate
partners with God and how believers should respond to them, i.e. the majority of
Christians, who associate Prophet Isa (AS) with Allah (SWT), as his son and other
religions and cults who associate partners with God. Verse 192 states that those whom
they associate as partners with Allah (SWT), do not have power to help them and that
those very people who associate partners with Allah (SWT) cannot help themselves.
Verse 193 states that if you invite them to guidance, they will not follow you. This does
not mean that all Christians and Polytheists will not listen to us, whether we invite them
or not, but only to those who are stubborn, do not open their minds and will never change
no matter what. Verse 194 states that those whom they call upon, for intercession, prayer
and help, are in a state of subjugation like us, meaning that they are bound to physical
limits and cannot do things that only possible with Allah (SWT) or angels and other
beings in the Heavens, which are unseen. Then Allah (SWT) orders the believers to tell
these people to call upon those whom they associate with Allah (SWT) and to see if they
answer them. In the next verse Allah (SWT) commands believers to tell these people, to
call upon these associates, to make a plot or plan against us without any delay. Indeed,
the challenges Allah (SWT) orders us to give to these people who ascribe partners with
him, have never been met and never will be met.
Shamoun's absurd argument is that, these people plot and Allah (SWT) also plots, so they
must be on the same side, since they do the same thing. Allah (SWT) does not say that
these people plot in this verse, but simply orders the believers to tell these people to call
upon those they associate to Allah (SWT), to plot against them, meaning to do something
harsh against them. It is a challenge to Christians, some Jews and other polytheists and I
challenge Shamoun, right now, to call upon Jesus the Messiah, whom he worships in vain
and falsely associates with Allah (SWT), to plot against me and do something negative to
me. But of course, Prophet Isa (AS) will not answer, because he is no more then a
Messenger of Allah (SWT) and not a God.
He wrote:
So when he [Potiphar] saw his [Joseph] shirt torn from behind, he said: Lo! this is of the
guile of you (kaydikunna) women. Lo! the guile of you (kaydakunna) is very great. S.
12:28 Pickthall
My Response:
The verse is simply part of a passage, where Prophet Yusuf (AS), is being accused of
adulterating with the wife of the Aziz of Egypt. However, it is proven that the wife of the
Aziz is guilty and she plotted against Prophet Yusuf (AS).
Shamoun's argument again is that, Allah (SWT) plotted and this woman also plotted,
therefore they must both be wicked.
- 41 -
Again, this woman plotted against a Prophet of Allah (SWT), and one of the greatest
Prophets. He was an innocent, pure and chaste man whom she tried to seduce, because of
his beauty [in Islamic tradition, Allah (SWT) gave half of the beauty of mankind to
Prophet Yusuf (AS) and the other half, he distributed among mankind.]. Then she tried to
accuse Prophet Yusuf (AS) of seducing her, however she was refuted.
What Allah (SWT) did was plot against the plots of the accursed people who planned to
do harm to his innocent and pure Prophets.
Using Shamoun's ridiculous logic, a man who kills an innocent child is the same as a man
who legally executes a felon, who murdered 30 men and raped 60 women, for instance.
This is just an example, but it clearly proves that Shamoun either has a very limited mind,
is not applying his mind to his article and is blindly misrepresenting verses from the Holy
Qur'an or knows the truth, but simply wishes to deceive his readers.
He wrote:
So gather your guile (kaydakum); then come in battle-line. Whoever today gains the
upper hand shall surely prosper. S. 20:64 Arberry
My Response:
There is not need to quote the whole passage here. It is easier to understand if the reader
just reads verses 56-64 of this Surah, Surah at-Taha. Allah (SWT) had shown the Pharaoh
clear signs of proof, i.e. miracles, but the Pharaoh still rejected. Then the Pharaoh told
Prophet Musa (AS): ?So we too will produce before you magic like it' (Surah at-Taha
20:58). Therefore he told Prophet Musa (AS) to fix a certain meeting, so that his men and
Prophet Musa (AS) could compete with each other and whoever shows the best signs is
the victor. In Verses 63-64, when everyone was summoned, the people said that those 2,
the men of the Pharaoh, were also magicians and that the competitors should arrange
their plans, come to the battle line and whoever overcomes will be prosperous. In the next
verses, up till 70, Prophet Musa (AS) is shown as the victor and his signs overcome the
signs of the 2 magicians. The competition is to cast down rods onto the floor. The
magicians cast their rods down and it appeared to Prophet Musa (AS) that they were
moving. He feared a little, but Allah (SWT) told him not to fear and guaranteed that his
rod would devour the rods of the magicians. When this happened, the magicians went
into prostration and bore witness in the Lord of Prophet Harun (AS) and Prophet Musa
(AS).
This verse does not say that the enemies of Allah (SWT) planned. It simply says that the
people told the competitors to arrange their plans, i.e. to get ready and compete. This
does not denote anything negative, but simply says that Prophet Musa (AS) and the
magicians were told to arrange their plans to compete with each other. All the verses
Shamoun quotes simply show his ignorance.
He wrote:
- 42 -
the day when their guile (kayduhum) shall avail them naught, and they shall not be
helped. S. 52:46 Arberry
if you have a trick, try you now to trick Me (kaydun fa keedooni)!' S. 77:39 Arberry
My Response:
Shamoun quoted Surah at-Tur 52:46. The reader should read the passage from verse 42
till verse 46. What it is saying is that those who associate partners with Allah (SWT), will
never turn to Allah (SWT), even if they see a portion of the Heavens falling down on
them (i.e. meteorites etc.), the will just think that it is a bunch of clouds. Allah (SWT)
orders us to leave them till the day they will be terrified, and that their schemes shall not
make them prevail, meaning that no matter how much scheming they try to perform on
that day they will not prevail and will be among the losers. Shamoun's argument is the
same over and over again and any reader can see that it is a completely useless argument,
after reading this response, because they scheme to save their wicked souls from Allah
(SWT) after their wickedness and treachery, but Allah (SWT) plans against the wicked,
when they try to kill his Prophets or do other evil acts.
Shamoun also quoted Surah al-Mursalat 77:39. If the reader reads from verse 37 till verse
39, he will see that this refers to the rejecters. Allah (SWT) tells them that if they have a
plan, they should plan against him now. This is a challenge to those accursed people who
continued their sick, filthy ways even after being given clear signs. Again, Shamoun has
no argument.
He wrote:
Allah is even portrayed as stooping down to the level of the deceivers and liars by acting
like them in his use of guile:
They are devising guile (ya keedoona kaydan), and I am devising guile
(Wa akeedu kaydan). S. 86:15-16
My Response:
Shamoun quoted, Surah at-Tariq 86:15-16, which up till verse 17 reads:
Surely, they plan a plan,
And I also plan a plan. (Surah at-Tariq 86:15-16)
If the reader reads a few verses ahead he will see that it refers to those who
disbelieve and plan against Islam. Allah (SWT) tells us to endure their injustice
for a little while, because indeed Allah (SWT) would eventually counter their
- 43 -
wicked agendas and the believers would prevail. This is not going down to the
level of deceivers and liars, as falsely asserted by Shamoun, but is simply
countering the plans of the wicked. As said many times before, the disbelievers
are left bewildered and deceived in the end, but only because of their evil actions.
He wrote:
There is more to the story. The Quran uses yet another word in describing the deception
of Allah, that word being khida/khuda/khada:
Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives

them (Inna al-munafiqeena yukhadiaaoona Allaha wahuwa
khadiaauhum). And when they stand up for As-Salat (the prayer), they
stand with laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember
Allah but little. S. 4:142 Hilali-Khan
Here, once again, is the lexical meaning of this specific word:
Kh-Dal-Ayn = To hide/conceal, double or fold, deceive or outwit,

pretend, to enter, vary in state/condition, refrain or refuse, relinquish, to be
in little demand of, deviate from the right course,
resist/unyield/incompliant, turn away and behave proudly.
khada'a vb. (1)

impf. act. 2:9, 8:62
pcple. act. 4:142
khada'a vb. (3) impf. act. 2:9, 4:142
LL, V2, p: 344, 345, 346, 347 (Source)
My Response:
Is there anything wrong with deceiving evil hypocrites, who plan and perform
wicked deeds? It is not Allah (SWT) who directly deceives these hypocrites but
indirectly they are deceived, because what they expect does not happen and their
evil plans do not come to pass, as Allah (SWT) is most great and most wise and
uproots their plans.
Let us look at the verse:
Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah, and He shall requite their deceit to
them, and when they stand up to prayer they stand up sluggishly; they do it only
to be seen of men and do not remember Allah save a little. (Surah an-Nisa 4:142)
- 44 -
As said in verse 141, these are the hypocrites who pretend to be on the side of the
believers when they are victorious, but whenever the disbelievers have an
advantage they turn to their side. They intend to deceive Allah (SWT) and in this
verse Allah (SWT) says that he shall throw their deception back at them, meaning
that they will be deceived for their wicked actions and attempted deception. They
will be deceived because what they expect will not occur but an evil course of
action will take place against them, for their cruel actions. Also, Shamoun only
underlined the meanings, which look negative, though they are not really negative
when a reader sees the reality behind it. Some other meanings from the Lexicon
are also, incompliant (rebellious), turn away and behave proudly. I believe that
the word Khada as used by Allah (SWT) in this verse does not just refer to the
hypocrites attempting to deceive Allah (SWT) but also them being rebellious,
arrogant and turning away from Allah (SWT). Because of this treachery Allah
(SWT) they will be deceived, meaning that their ambitions and hopes, which they
expected, would not come true and for them would be an evil destination, i.e. hell,
because of their wicked behaviour and actions that are mentioned above.
He wrote:
Lest there be any confusion concerning the fact that this word means that Allah is a
deceiver notice how this term is used in the following references:
They (think to) deceive Allah (Yukhadiaaoona) and those who believe,
while they only deceive (yakhdaaoona) themselves, and perceive (it) not!
S. 2:9 Hilali-Khan
And if they would deceive thee (yakhdaaooka), then lo! Allah is Sufficient
for thee. He it is Who supporteth thee with His help and with the believers,
S. 8:6 Pickthall
Is there any doubt that the unbelievers were using deception as they tried to
deceive Muhammad and his companions? Just as there is no doubt that Allah also
uses deception in deceiving them!
My Response:
Sam also quoted Surah al-Baqara 2:9, which like Surah al-Anam 6:123 helps
prove my case and make my response more meaningful, as I have divine proof,
that Allah (SWT) does not directly deceive these hypocrites but it is they who
deceive their own selves because they are left deceived by their own actions.
The best explanations of verses from the Holy Qur'an are other verses from the
Holy Qur'an, in order to show the reality behind certain misconceptions, like this.
Shamoun himself has given me two verses (Surah al-Baqara 2:9 and Surah al-
Anam 6:123) to help me prove my claim that it is not Allah (SWT) who directly
deceives these hypocrites but it is they who deceive themselves.
- 45 -
I am afraid that Shamoun is wrong in what he is saying and is ignorant of the
truth. The disbelieving hypocrites were trying to deceive the Holy Prophet
Mohammad (SAWW) and his companions and were using deception. That part is
true. But Shamoun is false in believing that the method of Allah (SWT) against
these hypocrites was the same.
The Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and his companions were not guilty and
did nothing wrong. All they did was practice and preach Islam and encouraged
people to give up idolatry and to only worship Allah (SWT). The pagans were
guilty of punishing them, persecuting them, killing them, driving them out of
there homes and stealing their possessions for the sole reason that they practiced
and preached Islam. The pagans were using deception against innocent, Holy,
monotheists, who did not commit any crime. Allah (SWT) was not directly using
deception at these guilty people, whose lifestyle was so barbaric (they used to
bury their own daughters, inherit woman and beat slaves and do dozens of other
cruel actions) and who wanted to persecute people, just because of encouraging
(not enforcing) them to give up their criminal lifestyle. What Allah (SWT) did
was uproot their methods of deception, so that the Holy Prophet Mohammad
(SAWW) and his companions would be saved from their wickedness. This had
left them deceived and bewildered by their own actions. I apologise to the reader
because I know I have repeated myself many times on this issue, but the only
reason for this is that Shamoun is also repeating himself and I am simply
responding to all of these repetitions.
He wrote:
It gets worse. Satan accused Allah of misleading or deceiving him:
He said: Now, because Thou hast sent me astray (aghwaytanee), verily I

shall lurk in ambush for them on Thy Right Path. S. 7:16 Pickthall
[Iblis (Satan)] said: "O my Lord! Because you misled me (aghwaytanee),

I shall indeed adorn the path of error for them (mankind) on the earth, and
I shall mislead (walaoghwiyannahum) them all. S. 15:39 Hilali-Khan
What makes this last reference rather interesting is that Satan promises to do to mankind
what Allah did to him, namely, pervert/deceive/mislead people from the path!
My Response:
Shamoun quoted Surah al-A'raf 7:16. Let us analyse the verse:
He said: As Thou hast caused me to remain disappointed I will certainly lie in wait for
them in Thy straight path. (Surah al-A'raf 7:16)
- 46 -
The translation Shamoun used was that of Pickthall, which is not accurate, as it does not
match the context of this entire passage. The reader should himself read verses 12
through to verse 16 and see that this entire passage speaks about Satan's refusal in bowing
to Prophet Adam (AS), just because of his arrogance. Allah (SWT) did order Satan to do
something, which he was too arrogant to do and that is why Satan went astray. Indeed,
that is not the doing of Allah (SWT) but the doing of his own arrogance.
If the owner of a restaurant orders his workers to cook, and one of them refuses (because
he is arrogant) but the owner keeps persisting, then rejects him, whose fault is that? Is it
the owner's fault or the worker who did not perform his duty? This scenario speaks for
itself in showing that Allah (SWT) did not lead Satan astray, but it was his own arrogance
that led him astray, just like in the scenario I mentioned, it is not the restaurant owner
who led the cook off track but his own arrogance.
Shamoun also quoted Surah al-Hijr 15:39, which reads:
He said: My Lord! because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil)
fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate. (Surah al-
Hijr 15:39)
Once again, the reader should read from verse 35 till 39 to see the whole context. Let's
assume Satan did believe that Allah (SWT) sent him astray. That would just be his own
belief and not the truth. Does Shamoun think that the beliefs of Satan are true?
If he did think that, he would have thought so because of his own arrogance. He would
have though that it was Allah (SWT) who ordered him to do something, which he was
too high for and that the order of Allah (SWT) is the reason for him being astray.
However Satan's belief is false, because nowhere in the Holy Qur'an does it say that
Allah (SWT) led Satan astray and it was Satan's own arrogance that led him to reject the
order of Allah (SWT). Of course Satan believes he is right and Allah (SWT) is wrong.
Does Shamoun also believe that?
Shamoun's logic in both cases is very stupid and both verses he quotes have the same
response.
He wrote:
Lest a Muslim say that these are the lies of Satan, that the enemy was merely slandering
Allah, here is a text where the Quran acknowledges that the Devil was right since Allah
does pervert/deceive/mislead people from the way:
And my sincere counsel will not profit you, if I desire to counsel you
sincerely, if God desires to pervert you (yughwiyakum); He is your Lord,
and unto Him you shall be returned.' S. 11:34 Arberry
To say that this is amazing would be a wild understatement.
- 47 -
My Response:
Here we will see the hypocrisy and inconsistency of Shamoun. Let's assume the text says
that Allah (SWT) deceives and misleads people, directly, just for the sake of argument
(though it is a lie). Even then, that does not prove that Satan was right. The verse itself is
talking about the people of Prophet Nuh (AS) who rejected him and wanted him to prove
himself to be true, by letting affliction and disaster come to them. For proof, the reader
should occupy himself in reading the context, i.e. reading Surah al-Hud 11:28-34. Let us
see the verse:
And if I intend to give you good advice, my advice will not profit you if Allah intended
that He should leave you to go astray; He is your Lord, and to Him shall you be
returned. (Surah al-Hud 11:34)
In verse 33 Allah (SWT) quoted Prophet Nuh (AS) and continues to do so until the end of
this verse. Here Prophet Nuh (AS) is telling the rejecters that even if he gives them good
advice it will not help them if Allah (SWT) leaves them to go astray. The reason Allah
(SWT) leaves them to go astray is because of their rejection and their foul deeds in
rejecting the Prophet sent to them, persecuting him and denying the message of Allah
(SWT).
Shamoun is clearly false and is taking most verses out of context and misinterpreting a
few verses.
He wrote:
Concluding Remarks
Our analysis has shown that Muhammad's deity is a deceiver who cannot be trusted since
he lies without hesitation.
A Muslim may contend that Allah only deceives unbelievers who deserve it. The problem
with this assertion is that the Muslim scripture teaches that Allah doesn't merely deceive
unbelievers but also his followers.
My Response:
This response has shown that Shamoun is a deceiver who cannot be trusted since he is
quick to completely add his own meaning to a verse, which is clearly saying something
else (just like he did to Surah Bani Israel 17:16, where he falsely claimed that it was
Allah (SWT) who was ordering people to transgress, though the verse clearly says that
the people committed transgression). Shamoun is also a deceiver who claims that Allah
(SWT) lies without hesitation, and he never gives one bit of proof. Out of all the verses
from the Holy Qur'an he quoted, the word ?lie', ?lying' or ?lied' was not even used and
- 48 -
there was not a single instance in the Holy Qur'an of Allah (SWT) ever telling something
that is not true, in Shamoun's article.
Let us see now how the Bible says that God is a deceiver:
Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and Jerusalem,
saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the soul. (Jeremiah 4:10)
Unlike the verses Shamoun quoted in the Holy Qur'an, which have all been explained
properly, here the Bible depicts God as a liar who tells Jerusalem that they shall have
peace, while the sword reached the soul.
This shows the deception of the God of the Bible and the hypocrisy of Shamoun.
Let us see some more examples:
In the Bible, God is also shown sending lying spirits into the mouths of Ahab's Prophets,
in order to persuade him to attack Romath Gilead and be victorious:
And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a
lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and
prevail also: go forth, and do so.
Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy
prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee. (1 Kings 20:22-23)
Here we can see that the God of the Bible ordered people to lie to achieve his agenda.
This is not something I would use against Shamoun however, because God Almighty can
create confusion among enemies, in order for good to prevail. The purpose of these
verses is to show the inconsistency of Shamoun, because he accuses Allah (SWT) of
uprooting the evil plans of the disbelievers and leaving them astray, though the God of
the Bible uses lies to uproot the wicked plans of the disbelievers.
But here is a verse in the Bible, which is extremely absurd and shows the God of the
Bible, as a wicked, deceiver to a Prophet:
And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived
that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the
midst of my people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:9)
Here the God of the Bible says that if a Prophet will be deceived when he says
something, it is he, the Lord, who deceived him and that he will destroy him. Why would
God, deceive a Prophet and then destroy him? Both acts show the God of the Bible as a
deceiver and a criminal.
Shamoun also claims that Allah (SWT) deceives believers in the Holy Qur'an, which is so
ridiculous. His claim will be examined in the next response.
- 49 -
He wrote:
For example, Allah deceived Muhammad into thinking that the fighting men at Badr were
fewer in number than they actually were:
When Allah showed them to you in your dream as few; and if He had
shown them to you as many you would certainly have become weak-
hearted and you would have disputed about the matter, but Allah saved
(you); surely He is the Knower of what is in the breasts. And when He
showed them to you, when you met, as few in your eyes and He made you
to appear little in their eyes, in order that Allah might bring about a matter
which was to be done, and to Allah are all affairs returned. S. 8:43-44
Shakir
My Response:
Allah (SWT) was not deceiving his followers in this verse, but looks after his
followers by keeping their morale up. As the verse says, if he had shown the
pagan soldiers to the believers as many they would have become weak-hearted,
but Allah (SWT) made them appear as a few in their eyes, to boost their
confidence, because these people had been the victims of constant persecution,
slaughter, assassination, theft, attempted murder, captivation and deception, for 13
years by the pagans, for no other reason than practicing and preaching Islam. This
was act of grace by Allah (SWT) and not deception. None of the believers were
claimed to be deceived and were actually thankful to Allah (SWT) for his grace,
so what right does Shamoun has to make up his own false conclusion?
The believers needed some form of victory to increase their confidence in

themselves and to strengthen their belief in Allah (SWT). It was not deception
that Allah (SWT) used here, but he aided them and showed them his grace and
mercy as a reward for their belief and endurance. There was deception used here,
but aid. If a group of Iraqi freedom fighters (real freedom fighters, not the
insurgents or terrorists), fighting for freedom in Iraq, for instance, are given
advanced weapons by Iranian Muslims (assuming that they do not know the
power of these weapons), then are they being deceived or aided? They are being
aided of course. Allah (SWT) also aided the believers from the tyrannous pagans.
Shamoun has no case and no substance.
He said:
Hence, Allah lies and deceives both believers and unbelievers without discrimination.
Now contrast this with how the true God Yahweh operates:
"Early in the morning, Jerub-Baal (that is, Gideon) and all his men
camped at the spring of Harod. The camp of Midian was north of them in
the valley near the hill of Moreh. The LORD said to Gideon, ?You have
- 50 -
too many men for me to deliver Midian into their hands. In order that
Israel may not boast against me that her own strength has saved her,
announce now to the people, "Anyone who trembles with fear may turn
back and leave Mount Gilead."' So twenty-two thousand men left, while
ten thousand remained. But the LORD said to Gideon, ?There are still too
many men. Take them down to the water, and I will sift them for you
there. If I say, "This one shall go with you," he shall go; but if I say, "This
one shall not go with you," he shall not go.' So Gideon took the men down
to the water. There the LORD told him, ?Separate those who lap the water
with their tongues like a dog from those who kneel down to drink.' Three
hundred men lapped with their hands to their mouths. All the rest got
down on their knees to drink. The LORD said to Gideon, ?With the three
hundred men that lapped I will save you and give the Midianites into
your hands. Let all the other men go, each to his own place.' So Gideon
sent the rest of the Israelites to their tents but kept the three hundred, who
took over the provisions and trumpets of the others. Now the camp of
Midian lay below him in the valley." Judges 7:1-8 NIV
My Response:
No, Shamoun, you lie and deceive and Allah (SWT) does neither. Allah (SWT)
aids and shows grace towards the believers. About him disgracing the accursed
tyrannous rejecters and leaving them deceived, that has already been discussed
many times previously. Shamoun has little knowledge on this issue, as he himself
has shown. Allah (SWT) does not deceive believers and does not deceive
unbelievers directly. It is they who deceive themselves (Surah al-Baqara 2:9,
Surah al-Anam 6:123, which Shamoun misinterpreted and I explained earlier in
this response). Allah (SWT) does indirectly deceive them by deceiving their
wicked plans, of killing Prophets, but does not directly deceive them, by making
them, for instance, think that paganism is the truth. It is their arrogance and lust
for power and wordly goods, that makes them believe in paganism and it is the
same thing, which makes them deceived in the end.
Anyway, it is very good for Shamoun to quote an action done by God in the
Bible. Perhaps this may be an uncorrupted part in the Bible, because it shows the
something good about Yahweh, God, and not lies, attributed to him in other
places of the Bible. Just to make things a little clearer about me saying Yahweh is
God, the Jewish Encyclopedia says that Yahweh means, the ever living, the
sustainer of all things. This is an exact title given to Allah (SWT) in the Holy
Qur'an, which in Arabic is al-Hayy al-Qayyum (Surah al-Baqara 2:256). For more
details on that see this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=sjFdEv8mzyQ&feature=channel_page
Anyway, back to the Bible's false claims against Yahweh. The Bible falsely
claims that Yahweh is the one who ordered the Israelites to kill all the Amalekites
men, women, infant, suckling and animals (1 Samuel 15:24). It also says that
- 51 -
Moses was angry with the commanders of the army for allowing all the woman to
live, in the Battle against the Midianites and that Moses then ordered them to slay
all the males and save for themselves all the virgin females (Numbers 31:16-18).
Later, when the Battle was won, and the booty was being collected, it says that
Yahweh was given 32 people out of the 16 000 given to the Israelites. Now only
the virgins were to be kept alive, by order of Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) so
obviously this verse is saying that Yahweh was given 32 virgins. Here the Jews
that corrupted the Bible attributed the killing of innocent living-beings (women,
children, babies, infants and animals) to Yahweh and also attributed 32 virgin
girls to Yahweh. This is the filthiness that the word of God had been turned into.
As for Yahweh showing proof of his divinity by only using three hundred men to
win a battle, I do not deny that, and believe that this may have been a still-divine
part in the Bible. However a similar event took place in the history of Islam,
during the Battle of Khaybar. In this Battle, the Jews had a gate blocking people
from entering their fort and they continually threw arrows, fire and stones at the
Muslims who tried to liberate the Fort (this was the Fort, which the treacherous
Jews used in all their assaults against the Muslims, including their help to the
Polytheists of Mecca. It had about 14 000 soldiers in total inside). The Muslim
leaders, who were given the flag to go to battle, were constantly unsuccessful,
until the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) chose his cousin, Imam Ali ibn Abi
Talib (AS), whom he said loved Allah (SWT) and his apostle and they loved him,
to be the leader of the Muslim army (Sahih Muslim, Book 31, Number 5915).
Imam Ali (AS) killed a leader of the Jews at Khaybar, named al-Harith, who was
a Jewish champion that constantly won against his sieges on the Muslims in
Khaybar. The other leader of the Jews, named Marhab, was the last military
leader and strong warrior of the Jewish army. He was very angry and sad for the
death of al-Harith and wanted to get revenge on Imam Ali (AS). Marhab went to
him and attacked, while Imam Ali (AS) was swiftly dodging and blocking until he
finally killed with a single blow. Then the Muslims attempted to close their gate.
There were 40 Muslims who were trying to stop the gate from closing, but there
was far too much force required. Imam Ali (AS) told them to step aside and he
himself lifted the gates and threw them aside, which even 40 men could not lift,
according to a number of Islamic sources. For more on the Battle of Khaybar, see
this movie on the Battle, which is based on Islamic traditions:
youtube.com/watch?v=LZ7-pIMdQwA
When he lifted the gates of Khaybar, he did it alone and did not need other men,
and like the Bible quote from Sam Shamoun, this event is very similar and shows
the faithfulness of Imam Ali (AS) and his belief in Allah (SWT), which was an
act to show the divinity of Allah (SWT) to the believers.
Also, there is another act in the Bible, which I should repeat:
And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have
deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy
him from the midst of my people Israel. (Ezekiel 14:9)
- 52 -
Here the Jews attribute another false characteristic to Yahweh, making him into a
liar and deceiver, who deceives a Prophet, into saying something and then
destroys him for it. Why would Yahweh destroy the Prophet and what did the
Prophet do wrong, except be deceived? The truth as that Yahweh would not do
either and that those who corrupted the Bible, have attributed this to him, falsely.
He wrote:
If this weren't bad enough, one of the greatest lies and deceptions that Allah pulled over
the world is the crucifixion of Christ. According to the Quran Jesus wasn't crucified but
Allah made it seem that way, thereby foisting Biblical Christianity on the masses!
And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus),
son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not,
nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over
another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are
full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but
conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of
Maryam (Mary)]: S. 4:157 Hilali-Khan
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the
Apostle of God"; - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was
made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts,
with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety
they killed him not:- Y. Ali
Thus, Allah duped the followers of Christ into believing that Jesus died by crucifixion
and further deceived them into thinking that he was then raised back to life on the third
day. They then went out preaching this message boldly, with some of them dying as
martyrs as a result of it!
My Response:
Allah (SWT) pulled no lie or deception over the crucifixion of Christ, to any disciple but
had uprooted the plans of the evil and wicked Jews, who attempted to crucify the Holy
Messiah, Prophet Isa (AS). The verse itself says that the Jews boasted that the killed, the
Messiah Isa son of Maryam but they really did not kill him, nor crucify him, but it was
made to appear that way to them.
Where does this verse say that Allah (SWT) duped the followers of Christ into believing
Jesus had died by crucifixion? Nowhere. Shamoun is just adding that and also adding the
part where he says that Allah (SWT) further deceived the followers of Christ into
thinking that he was raised back to life on the third day. This shows he is a liar and
making things up. No part of that verse says that the crucifixion was made to appear to
the followers of Jesus. It says that the crucifixion was made to appear to those who
boasted that they killed Jesus, not to those who followed Jesus. Allah (SWT) made this
- 53 -
appear to these Jews, so that he could save his Holy Messiah, Prophet Isa (AS) from
death and crucifixion. The followers of Prophet Isa (AS) did not preach the crucifixion. It
was Paul who preached it, a man who came after the ascension of Prophet Isa (AS).
The Bible itself says that Jesus had offered up prayers with strong cries and tears, to him
that was able to save from death and he was heard:
Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with
strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in
that he feared; (Hebrews 5:7)
Here God is called as him that was able to save from death, indicating that Jesus
was indeed praying to be saved from death. In the end it says that he was heard
because of his fear, meaning that he was not killed and he was not crucified.
He wrote:
Interestingly, Allah's schemes or deceptions are so troublesome that they even scared
Muhammad. Islam's prophet was so afraid of the schemes of his god that he prayed that
Allah would not deceive him but deceive on his behalf:
3551. Ibn Abbas said: "The Prophet used to supplicate, saying: ?My Lord,
aid me and do not aid against me, and grant me victory and do not grant
victory over me, plot (scheme/connive/deceive) for me and do not plot
(scheme/connive, deceive) against me, guide me and facilitate guidance
for me, grant me victory over those who transgress against me. My Lord,
make me ever-grateful to You, ever-remembering of You, ever-fearful of
You, ever-obedient to You, ever-humble to You, oft-turning and returning
to You. My Lord, accept my repentance, wash my sin, answer my call,
make firm my proof, make firm my tongue, guide my heart, and remove
the treachery of my chest (Rabbi A?inni Wa La Tu?in ?Alayya, Wansurni
Wa La Tansur ?Alayya, WAMKUR Li Wa La TAMKUR ?Alayya, Wahdini
Wa Yassir Lil-Huda, Wansurni ?Ala Man Bagha ?Alayya. Rabbij?alni
Laka Shakkaran, Laka Dhak-karan, Laka Rahhaban, Laka Mitwa?an,
Laka Mukhbitan, Ilaika Awwahan Muniba. Rabbi Taqabbal Tawabati,
Waghsil Hawbati, Wa Ajib Da?wati, Wa Thab-bit Hujjati, Wa Saddid
Lisani Wahdi Qalbi, Waslu Sakhimata Sadri).'" (Sahih) .
[Abu ?Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan Sahih. (English Translation of

Jami? At-Tirmidhi, Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ?Eisa Mohammad Ibn ?
Eisa At-Tirmidhi, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited and
referenced by Hafiz Tahir Zubair ?Ali Za'i [Darussalam Publishers &
Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 6, From Hadith No.
3291 to 3956, Chapter 45. The Book Of Supplications From The
Messenger Of Allah, pp. 258-259; capital and underline emphasis ours)
- 54 -
My Response:
Where does it say in this Hadith that the actions of Allah (SWT) scared the Holy
Prophet Mohammad (SAWW)? Nowhere. That is just an addition and a false
interpretation by Shamoun.
Also the words, scheme, connive and deceive are just added in brackets to this
source and are not part of the original text. The original text clearly says that the
Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) asked Allah (SWT) to plot for him, meaning
to plan for him. What this means is that, he wanted Allah (SWT) to be with him at
all times and be there for him. He did not want Allah (SWT) to forsake him at
anytime. Planning for him refers to saving him from his enemies, by planning
against them.
He wrote:
Muhammad wasn't the only person troubled by Allah's lies since his closest companion
was deftly afraid of his lord's schemes. If one is still in doubt as to the meaning of the
term makr consider Abu Bakr's testimony who, despite being promised paradise by
Muhammad, was rather uncertain about his status in the hereafter because of how
unreliable and fickle his god is:
"Although he had such a faith, which was too great to suffice all the
inhabitants of the earth, he was afraid that his heart might go astray. So, he
used to utter, while weeping: ?Would that I have been a bitten tree!'
Whenever he was reminded of his position in Allah's sight, he would
say: ?By Allah! I would not rest assured and feel safe from the deception
of Allah (la amanu limakr Allah), even if I had one foot in paradise.'"
(Khalid Muhammad Khalid, Successors of the Messenger, translated by
Muhammad Mahdi al-Sharif [Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut Lebanon,
2005], Book One: Abu Bakr Has Come, p. 99; bold and italic emphasis
ours)
My Response:
Notice how Shamoun keeps lying and saying ?Allah's lies', though the word lie
hasn't been used in anything he quotes. Truly he is a liar and Allah (SWT) is the
true one (Surah al-Anam 6:62, Surah al-Hajj 22:6, Surah al-Mu'minun 23:116,
Surah an-Nur 24:25). He is truly a deceiver who has proven to be a hypocrite
throughout this article.
The translation deception of Allah as used in that source, may not be an accurate
translation, since Makr also means planning, plotting, scheming etc. Either way,
that is the way Abu Bakr (RA) felt. Even if the Holy Prophet Mohammad
(SAWW) promised him paradise, he would not have to feel 100% secure. People
have doubts at times and feel insecure. Perhaps it was something he did during his
- 55 -
Caliphate (Leadership) that felt wrong to him (perhaps what he thought was a
wrong judgement) that led him to feel unsafe and believe that Allah (SWT) would
plan against him for this and leave him deceived. Either way, his thought, does
not mean that Allah (SWT) is a deceiver. It is just his thought. Furthermore, this
saying attributed to Abu Bakr (RA) does not have to be true. It could be a
fabrication. There were a few fabricated stories invented by people who wanted to
destroy Islam from within, long after the death of the Holy Prophet Mohammad
(SAWW).
He wrote:
Now if both Muhammad and Abu Bakr were afraid of Allah's schemes shouldn't
Muslims also be fearful of their god's lies and deception?
My Response:
As said earlier in this response, the Hadith that Shamoun quoted never said that
the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) was afraid of the actions of Allah (SWT).
That was an addition added by Shamoun. All it said was that the Holy Prophet
Mohammad (SAWW) prayed to Allah (SWT) to plot for him and not against him,
meaning that he wanted Allah (SWT) to be with him at all times to help him
through hardships and to endure hard times and not forsake him. Also the source
Shamoun quoted about Abu Bakr (RA) allegedly fearing the actions of Allah
(SWT) may be fabricated. As said earlier, even in Abu Bakr (RA) thought this
way, what does it prove? It does not prove anything. Perhaps he thought that way
because of something he did, that he felt was wrong, during his Caliphate (for
instance, a wrong judgement or act).
He wrote:
This very unflattering picture of God is quite embarrassing to say the least. After
all, which person would be proud of a god who is described as the best deceiver, a
beguiler who schemes and deliberately plots evil in order to accomplish his
purposes?
My Response:
But all these are just the false, twisted interpretations of Shamoun. Why would
Shamoun be proud of a God, who orders the killing of innocent women, infants,
suckling, animals and who is given 32 virgins (1 Samuel 15:24, Numbers 31:40)?
Why would Shamoun be proud of a God who said that if a Prophet was deceived
while saying something, he, the Lord, would have deceived him and destroyed
him for being deceived (Ezekiel 14:9)?
- 56 -
As for Allah (SWT), his description is the best of planners, not deceivers. Indeed,
the wicked people, who attempt to kill Prophets and destroy the Message of Allah
(SWT) are left bewildered and deceived at the end, because they do not get the
results they desire and expect, because their plans are uprooted and destroyed by
the plans of Allah (SWT).
Allah (SWT) does not directly beguile them, i.e. lead them astray. They are left
beguiled because of their own actions and their own deceptive nature (Surah al-
Baqara 2:9, Surah al-Anam 6:123, which Shamoun misinterpreted and I explained
earlier in this response). They are left beguiled, because the result they desire and
expect does not come to pass, the Message of Islam survives and the Prophet they
try to slay is not slain, because Allah (SWT) protects him, thus uprooting their
plans. Allah (SWT) does scheme against these people's scheme, in order that he
may save the Prophets. And Allah (SWT) does not plot evil, but plots against their
wicked, evil actions, such as attempts at killing Prophets or the miracles they were
given by Allah (SWT), making the plotting good. This leaves them deceived and
beguiled, indeed, but not by Allah (SWT), rather by their actions, as repeated for
the umpteenth time.
We Muslims worship Allah (SWT) and believe in Islam, because of the great
reforms and destruction of barbarianism Islam had brought as well as the kindness
of Allah (SWT) and his justness. I do not even need to speak about it. The reader
should just read the 99 names of Allah (SWT) and see the truth about him, here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_the_Qur'an
This will show the truth of Allah (SWT) and his great virtues.
He wrote:
Such a depiction of the Deity is unbefitting the majesty and glory of the One who called
Himself the Truth and who does not lie or change his mind since it is impossible for him
to do so:
"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should
change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and
not fulfill?" Numbers 23:19
"He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is
not a man, that he should change his mind." 1 Samuel 15:29
"Into your hands I commit my spirit; redeem me, O LORD, the God of
truth." Psalm 31:5
"Jesus answered, ?I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to
the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
- 57 -
"a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God,
who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time," Titus 1:2
"Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very
clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God
did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for
God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be
greatly encouraged." Hebrews 6:17-18
My Response:
I agree that God does not lie not change his mind, and in the whole of Shamoun's
article he has not been able to provide one single bit of proof that Allah (SWT)
lies or changes his mind.
Also in the Bible, Paul says that God sends people a strong delusion, so that they
can believe a lie:
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a
lie (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
In the Bible, God sends people, who are deceivers and do not receive the truth, a
strong delusion so that they can believe a lie. Isn't this act, deceiving them?
As proved above, Allah (SWT) does not directly make people believe lies, but
forsakes them, if they rejected the truth and the Prophet sent to them after being
given clear signs or truth.
Also Shamoun believes, as the Bible says in the verses he quoted, that God does
not change his mind. However in the Bible itself God does change his mind in
quite a few instances. For instance in Ezekiel 4:12-15, God, as shown in the Bible,
tells Ezekiel to cook his bread over dung, but after Ezekiel protests God changes
his mind. This is a clear contradiction in the Bible.
He wrote:
The Quran's description of Allah best fits the one whom the Lord Jesus identified as the
father of all lies:
"You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your
father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the
truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native
language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:44
My Response:
- 58 -
This description does not match Allah (SWT) one bit rather it completely matches
Shamoun. Allah (SWT) is indeed the true one (Surah al-Anam 6:62, Surah al-Hajj
22:6, Surah al-Mu'minun 23:116, Surah an-Nur 24:25).
There is no truth in Shamoun but complete lies, misinterpretations, hypocrisy,

inconsistency and ignorance, as proven throughout this response. Shamoun is a
liar and the father of lies. Shamoun just falsely adds the word ?lie' to Allah (SWT)
and none of the quotes he uses even have the word lie, proving that he is a
deceiver.
He wrote:
In light of the foregoing it seems rather hard to deny that the spirit who spoke to
Muhammad, the entity who is revealed in the Muslim scripture, is none other than Satan,
the enemy of our souls, masquerading as God in order to deceive people away from the
truth of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ:
"I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one
husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. But
I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your
minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to
Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the
Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you
received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up
with it easily enough. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen,
masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself
masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his
servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what
their actions deserve." 2 Corinthians 11:2-4, 13-15
"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other

than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we
have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a
gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!"
Galatians 1:8-9
My Response:
Now let me prove, that according to Sam Shamoun, he should be a Muslim. In his
opening statement, when he debated Brother Nadir Ahmed, Shamoun stated that
he did not believe that the Holy Qur'an was revealed to the Holy Prophet
Mohammad (SAWW). He further stated that if he believed that Islam was
revealed to the Holy Prophet Mohammad (SAWW), he would have been a
Muslim. Yet here he states that he believes Satan revealed the Message of Islam.
There are 2 points here worth noting:
- 59 -
1. Notice the hypocrisy of Shamoun, which is not a surprise. Shamoun
stated in his debate that he did not believe, Islam was revealed to the Holy
Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) and here he says it was revealed to him, but
by Satan and not by Allah (SWT). Which is it Shamoun?
2. He said there that if he believed Islam was revealed to the Holy Prophet
Mohammad (SAWW) he would have been a Muslim. Yet, here he clearly
states that he believes it was revealed to him, by Satan but not by Allah
(SWT). So according to his own claim, he should be a Muslim. I feel so
sorry for Shamoun, because he is getting humiliated in this world and
Insha Allah (God willing), he will also be humiliated in the hereafter, lest
he changes his ways.
Anyway, getting back on topic, let us prove that it is impossible for anyone, other
than those who have limited brains, to associate the message given to the Holy
Prophet Mohammad (SAWW) with Satan, the accursed. With Shamoun's absurd
belief, let us see whether he believes Satan is the one who brought the following
reforms for baby-girls, little children, orphans, women and slaves as well as
reforms to society in general [such as reforms to drunkenness, idolatry, gambling
and may other filthy acts (Note that these reforms are not even a page of the great
reforms Islam brought to not just Arabia but to the world)]:
- Prior to Islam, the pagans had a tradition of burying used to get so grieved
and angered when a newly born girl was born, that they would hide
themselves from the people because of shame and wonders whether he
should keep her with disgrace or bury her alive. Islam stopped this
barbaric action. Allah (SWT) talks about this incidence in the Holy Qur'an
as an evil act. He also says in the Holy Qur'an he shall ask the baby child-
girl, who was buried alive, why this had happened to her and what crime
she committed (as a witness against the criminals who committed this
barbaric act). Also and also forbids us from killing our children out of
financial worry, saying that he will provide them and us with bounty and
that killing them is a great sin:
And when a daughter is announced to one of them his face becomes black and
he is full of wrath.
He hides himself from the people because of the evil of that which is
announced to him. Shall he keep it with disgrace or bury it (alive) in the dust?
Now surely evil is what they judge. (Surah an-Nahl 16:59-60)
And when the female infant buried alive is asked
For what sin she was killed.
Every soul shall (then) know what it has prepared.
(Surah at-Takwir 81:8-9, 14)
- 60 -
And do not kill your children for fear of poverty; We give them sustenance
and yourselves (too); surely to kill them is a great wrong. (Surah Bani Israel
17:31)
- Prior to Islam, the woman was not given her wedding gift (dowry) from
her husband for free. In the Holy Qur'an Allah (SWT) ordered us to give
women their wedding gifts (dowries) for free, unless they themselves give
up a portion of it to you (as an act of charity):
And give women their dowries as a free gift, but if they of themselves be
pleased to give up to you a portion of it, then eat it with enjoyment and with
wholesome result. (Surah an-Nisa 4:4)
- The Arabs prior to Islam, used to inherit women. There was a tradition
that the son would inherit his stepmother or his father's slave-girl after the
father dies. Also the pagans prior to Islam took back the wedding gifts
they gave to their women and also did not treat their women kindly. Islam
prohibited the inheritance of women and ordered believers not to take
back the wedding gifts that they gave to women, unless they are guilty of
sexual immorality, and to treat them with kindness:
O you who believe! It is not lawful for you that you should take women as
heritage against (their) will, and do not straighten them in order that you may
take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest
indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you
dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it. (Surah an-Nisa
4:19)
- The Arabs did not allow women any rights of inheritance prior to Islam.
They were no better than slaves to their husbands or those who owned
them. The Arabs were astonished that the Holy Prophet Mohammad
(SAWW) gave women rights of inheritance, because this was very new
and just to them. Islam ordered a definite right of inheritance for woman,
whether the deceased person, whose wealth was being handed out, was
poor or rich:
Men shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave, and
women shall have a portion of what the parents and the near relatives leave,
whether there is little or much of it; a stated portion. (Surah an-Nisa 4:7)
- Prior to Islam, there was it was OK for the Arabs to consume the property
of orphans and substitute worthless things for their good property. Islam
forbade this act and Allah (SWT) condemned to hell, those who consumed
the property of orphans:
And give to the orphans their property, and do not substitute worthless
(things) for (their) good (ones), and do not devour their property (as an
- 61 -
addition) to your own property; this is surely a great crime. (Surah an-Nisa
4:2)
(As for) those who swallow the property of the orphans unjustly, surely they
only swallow fire into their bellies and they shall enter burning fire. (Surah
an-Nisa 4:10)
- Before Islam came, the Arabs would not allow their slaves to write a
written document for their freedom, they could they could only be freed at
the will of the master and were sold to other masters. Also prior to Islam,
the Arabs forced their slave-girls into prostitution. Islam allowed slaves to
write a document, whereby they would work for a certain period, and
would then be freed. After freedom, Muslims were to give them from their
own wealth [the wealth given to them by Allah (SWT)]. Also, Allah
(SWT) ordered the masters not to compel their slave girls into prostitution
and said that even after this compulsion, he was most-forgiving (i.e. to the
slave-girl):
And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right
hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give
them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your
slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek
the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after
their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Surah an-Nur 24:33)
- The Pagans were drunkards, who used to get drunk and sleep with many
women every night. They also used to play games of chance (gambling)
and Islam forbade both gambling and alcohol (which created a just and
civil society, where there were no brawls or deaths, due to drunkenness):
O you who believe! Intoxicants and games of chance and (sacrificing to)
stones set up and (dividing by) arrows are only an uncleanness, the Shaitan's
work; shun it therefore that you may be successful. (Surah al-Ma'idah 5:90)
- The Pagans were people, who used to get drunk so many times. Islam
forbade alcohol. See verse quoted above, Surah al-Ma'idah 5:90.
- They were people who eat meat from animals, which died themselves and
were not killed by them (meaning the meat was rotten and thus very
harmful for the body, which is one of the many reasons why disease was
very common in the middle-east prior to Islam, but after Islam it was
heavily reduced), drink the blood of animals (which is very filthy and
harmful for the body as well), eat from animals which were beaten or
strangled to death (which would be very cruel and barbaric) and animals
that were eaten by other animals (which had the germs and saliva of the
other animal) and eat food sacrificed to idols (which is idolatry and is
forbidden in Islam, Judaism and Christianity). Islam forbade any type of
meat for believers, which was from an already dead animal, forbade
- 62 -
drinking blood of animals, forbade eating animals, which were beaten or
strangled to death and only allowed meat (other than pig flesh), forbade
eating animals, who were eaten by other animals and only allowed meat
(other than pork) which was slaughtered in the name of Allah (SWT) and
no idol, unless a believer was in need and did not have the intention of
sinning:
Forbidden to you is that which dies of itself, and blood, and flesh of swine,
and that on which any other name than that of Allah has been invoked, and
the strangled (animal) and that beaten to death, and that killed by a fall and
that killed by being smitten with the horn, and that which wild beasts have
eaten, except what you slaughter, and what is sacrificed on stones set up (for
idols) and that you divide by the arrows; that is a transgression. but whoever
is compelled by hunger, not inclining willfully to sin, then surely Allah is
Forgiving, Merciful. (Surah al-Ma'idah 5:3)
- The pagans used to have women wear little or no clothes, when

performing dances or stripping and used to force women into rape. There
was no punishment for this filthy, unjust act upon an innocent woman/girl.
Islam ordered women to dress modestly, covering their body parts, which
attract men (i.e. everywhere except the face, hands and feet) so that they
would not be molested and recognised (i.e. known for they abilities and
virtue rather than their outward beauty) and ordered that if the people in
hypocrites did not desist, then they would be killed ruthlessly for their
filthy, disgusting actions against those innocent women (i.e. molesting
them):
O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that
they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may
be known, and thus they will not be given trouble; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city
do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your
neighbors in it but for a little while;
Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a
(horrible) murdering. (Surah al-Ahzab 33:59-61)
- In that pagan society the men were allowed to committing adultery

against their wives, but not the other way around. The men were not guilty
for sleeping with 20 women every night, but the women were guilty if the
even slept with 1 other man. This was the sexism in that sick society, to
which Islam was sent as a grace from Allah (SWT) and was sent for
mankind. Islam made it clear that both the adulterer and adulteress would
be lashed 100 times, with believers witnessing their punishment (as a sign
of humiliation for their vile and disgraceful act) but would be forgiven and
not punished if they repented. Also, slave-girls who committed adultery
were only given half the punishment, unless of course they repented.
- 63 -
However repenting means that the crime cannot be re-committed under
any case, or else it will prove that the criminal was not sincere in his
repentance previously and will thus be lashed 100 times.
(As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a
hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of
obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of
believers witness their chastisement.
Except those who repent after this and act aright, for surely Allah is
Forgiving, Merciful. (Surah an-Nur 24:2, 5)
And whoever among you has not within his power ampleness of means to
marry free believing women, then (he may marry) of those whom your right
hands possess from among your believing maidens; and Allah knows best
your faith: you are (sprung) the one from the other; so marry them with the
permission of their masters, and give them their dowries justly, they being
chaste, not fornicating, nor receiving paramours; and when they are taken in
marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the
punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women.(Surah an-Nisa 4:25 Bold
emphasis mine)
- In pagan society they prayed to idols and not to Allah (SWT). Allah
(SWT) forbade idol-worship (see above, Surah al-Ma'idah 5:90) and
ordered the believers to pray (i.e. to him):
This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).
Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what
We have given them. (Surah al-Baqara 2:2)
Keep up prayer from the declining of the sun till the darkness of the night and
the morning recitation; surely the morning recitation is witnessed. (Surah
Bani Israel 17:78)
- Before Islam, there was no compulsory charity and people could be

excused and ignored even if they were dying of hunger or disease. Islam
ordered charity to relatives (kindred), orphans, the poor, the needy, the
traveller (wayfarer), the beggars, for the emancipation of slaves and
captives, the ones who collect them and those who are inclined to
converting to Islam. It is a duty upon Muslims:
It is not righteousness that you turn your faces towards the East and the West,
but righteousness is this that one should believe in Allah and the last day and
the angels and the Book and the prophets, and give away wealth out of love
for Him to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer
and the beggars and for (the emancipation of) the captives, and keep up
prayer and pay the poor-rate; and the performers of their promise when they
- 64 -
make a promise, and the patient in distress and affliction and in time of
conflicts -- these are they who are {rue (to themselves) and these are they who
guard (against evil). (Surah al-Baqara 2:177 Bold emphasis mine)
Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and the officials (appointed) over
them, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth) and the
(ransoming of) captives and those in debts and in the way of Allah and the
wayfarer; an ordinance from Allah; and Allah is knowing, Wise. (Surah at-
Tawba 9:60)
All that proof and reform being given, it is proven that according to Shamoun's
absurd belief, out of all the places in the world, including the Christian and
Jewish world, Satan had chosen to reveal himself to misguided barbaric
pagans, who buried their daughters alive, did not give women their wedding
gifts for free, inherited their women, took back the wedding gifts they gave,
did not treat women kindly, did not allow women any rights of inheritance,
consumed the property of orphans, did not allow slaves to an agreement for
their freedom, sold slaves, forced slave-girls into prostitution, gambled, made
themselves drunk with alcohol, worshiped idols, ate from already dead
animals whose meat was probably rotten, drank the blood of animals, ate
from animals who were strangled or beaten to death, ate food sacrificed to
idols, had their women wear little or no clothes when performing a dance or
stripping, allowed rape, allowed the male to commit adultery, but not the
female and did not give charity at all, even if people were starving and dying.
And according to Shamoun, Satan taught these people, not to bury their
daughters alive, to give women their wedding gifts for free, not to inherit
women, not to took back the wedding gifts they gave, to treat women kindly,
to allow women definite rights of inheritance, not to consume the property of
orphans, to allow slaves an agreement for their freedom, not to allow
believers to force slave-girls into prostitution, not to gamble, to abstain from
drinking alcohol, not to worship idols, not to eat from already dead animals
whose meat was probably rotten, not to drink the blood of animals, not to eat
from animals who were strangled or beaten to death, not to eat food
sacrificed to idols, to order women to dress decently so that they may not be
molested and be recognised (for their ability and not their beauty), to
ruthlessly kill accursed people who do not abstain from molesting women,
did not allow anyone to commit adultery (regardless of his/her gender), to
give charity to relatives (kindred), orphans, the poor, the needy, the traveller
(wayfarer), the beggars, for the emancipation of slaves and captives, the ones
who collect them and those who are inclined to converting to Islam.
I wonder, who in the world can ever think like this. If he does, then he must think
of Satan as a being who is concerned for women, orphans and equality and a
being that wants to stop idolatry and the sick barbaric practices of idolaters to
females, the poor, the orphans and slaves. I wonder, who can every think that?
- 65 -
In the end Shamoun just quotes some links, and there is no need to deal with that.
However, he does write a few endnotes.
He wrote:
Endnotes
(1) It needs to be pointed out that the Muslim translator has deliberately distorted the
original text of Muhammad Khalid's book. Instead of translating the Arabic words limakr
Allah as "the deception of Allah" he has decided to render it as, "from Allah's
punishment," in order to obscure the real meaning. It seems that the Muslim translator
was rather embarrassed by Abu Bakr's statement that Allah is a deceiver whose promises
of granting eternal bliss to the faithful cannot be trusted.
If the reader is interested in seeing what the original text really says we suggest that they
turn to page 70 of the Arabic version of Muhammad Khalid's book.
My Response:
The Muslim translator probably did that, to show the true meaning and not just the word-
for-word translation of the Arabic limakr Allah. It refers to the planning of Allah (SWT)
and in the end of the day, those who planned against the Holy Prophets, to kill them, will
indeed be deceived and get the punishment of Allah (SWT). His translation is inaccurate,
but the meaning he is trying to show is accurate. He should have put Allah's punishment
and explained it in his footnotes.
He wrote:
Moreover, the author conveniently forgot to mention that the reason why Abu Bakr was
afraid that his heart might turn away from the faith is because this close companion of
Muhammad knew what the Quran says about Allah misleading and turning people away
from the guidance:
Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties
about the hypocrites? Allah has cast them back (to disbelief) because of
what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allah has made
to go astray? And he whom Allah has made to go astray, you will never
find for him any way (of guidance). S. 4:88
And We sent not a Messenger except with the language of his people, in
order that he might make (the Message) clear for them. Then Allah
misleads whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the All-
Mighty, the All-Wise. S. 14:4
- 66 -
Abu Bakr was therefore fearful of Allah turning his heart away and thereby condemning
him to hell since he knew that his god was a deceiver who couldn't be trusted to do as he
says. This is despite the fact that Muhammad had personally guaranteed his salvation!
My Response:
So what? People forget things. What about Shamoun? He lied, proved himself to be a
hypocrite, deceived and according to his own words he should have been a Muslim (see
above). There is no harm if someone forgets to show the interpretation of a certain Hadith
or narration. There may have been others who showed the real meaning of that Hadith.
Either way, the position of Abu Bakr (RA) was discussed above. It may have been a
decision or judgement, during his Caliphate that he felt was wrong and thus he may have
felt that Allah (SWT) may plan against him for this and leave him deceived. Let us
discuss the verses from the Holy Qur'an that Shamoun quoted in his endnotes.
The first verse, Surah an-Nisa 4:88 says that whoever Allah (SWT) has made astray will
not turn to guidance. This issue was discussed at the start of this response, or perhaps a
little later, though this verse in particular was not discussed, I think. Anyway, it is indeed
true that if Allah (SWT) makes leaves people to go astray they will not be guided ever.
But he does not make them born astray. They are given proof of the truth over and over
again but they keep rejecting and rebelling, so Allah (SWT) punishes them by forsaking
them and letting them go astray. As discussed previously, near the end of this response, I
think, it was proven that the God of the Bible also leaves people to go astray and that the
God of the Bible deceives. That is simply a punishment for those who are cursed by their
nature and nothing unjust.
He also quoted Surah al-Ibrahim 14:4. Indeed, Allah (SWT) does mislead whom he wills
and guide whom he wills. But his will is based on the deeds of the people. He misleads
people who reject and rebel against Prophets and are unjust towards them. He guides
those who are with Islam from the start, are loyal to the Prophet sent to them and are
persecuted for the sake of righteousness and justice. Indeed, these people are blessed in
both the Bible (see Matthew, Chapter 5) and in Islam. It does not mean that Allah (SWT)
picks and chooses people whom he wants. Indeed, Allah (SWT) is most wise.
Abu Bakr (RA) was not fearful that Allah (SWT) would allegedly deceive him. This has
already been discussed right here, a little above.
So Shamoun's entire article has nothing of substance and has all been refuted. All Praise
Belongs to Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
******************************************
Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "Qur'an
- 67 -
Contradiction: Pharaoh's Magicians - Muslims or
Rejecters of Faith?"
by
Bassam Zawadi
NOTE: Readers are strongly advised to first read this article and then read this article in order to
understand and grasp what this article is talking about.
There is a possible explanation to make this alleged contradiction go away.
Commentators are not sure whether the word "Qawmihee" in Surah 10:83 refers to the people of Pharaoh or the
people of Israel.
A possible explanation is that it refers to the people of Pharaoh.
Great scholars like Suyuti believed that it referred to the people of Pharaoh.
Al Jalalayn says...
"ÝóãóÇ Âãóäó áöãõæÓóì ÅáøóÇ ÐõÑøöíøóÉ" ØóÇÆöÝóÉ "ãöäú" ÃóæúáóÇÏ "Þóæúãå" Ãóíú
ÝöÑúÚóæúä.........
None believed in Moses except a 'Dhurriya', "a small number from" the offspring "of his people" that is Pharaoh...
(Jalal ud-Din Siyuti, Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Commentary on Surah 10:83, Source)
It is also possible that Ibn Abbas believed that it referred to the people of Pharaoh as well...
- 68 -
Ibn Kathir has in his commentary...
ÞóÇáó ÇáúÚóæúÝöíø Úóäú ÇöÈúä ÚóÈøóÇÓ " ÝóãóÇ Âãóäó áöãõæÓóì ÅöáøóÇ ÐõÑøöíøóÉ ãöäú
Þóæúãå Úóáóì ÎóæúÝ ãöäú ÝöÑúÚóæúä æóãóáóÆöåöãú Ãóäú íóÝúÊöäåõãú " ÞóÇáó ÝóÅöäøó
ÇáÐøõÑøöíøóÉ ÇáøóÊöí ÂãóäóÊú áöãõæÓóì ãöäú ÃõäóÇÓ ÛóíúÑ Èóäöí ÅöÓúÑóÇÆöíá ãöäú
Þóæúã ÝöÑúÚóæúä
Al Awfi reported that Ibn Abbas: "NONE believed in Moses except some of the children of HIS people in fear of
Pharoah and his people harming them" He (Al Awfi) said that the offspring that believed in Moses are from people
besides the people of Israel, they are the people of Pharaoh. (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah
10:83, Source)
Tabari has it in his commentary...
ÍóÏøóËóäöí ãõÍóãøóÏ Èúä ÓóÚúÏ , ÞóÇáó : Ëóäöí ÃóÈöí , ÞóÇáó : Ëóäöí Úóãøöí , ÞóÇáó : Ëóäöí ÃóÈöí
, Úóäú ÃóÈöíåö , Úóäú ÇöÈúä ÚóÈøóÇÓ : { ÝóãóÇ Âãóäó áöãõæÓóì ÅöáøóÇ ÐõÑøöíøóÉ ãöäú
Þóæúãå Úóáóì ÎóæúÝ ãöäú ÝöÑúÚóæúä æóãóáóÆöåöãú Ãóäú íóÝúÊöäóåõãú } ÞóÇáó : ßóÇäóÊú
ÇáÐøõÑøöíøóÉ ÇáøóÊöí ÂãóäóÊú áöãõæÓóì ãöäú ÃõäóÇÓ ÛóíúÑ Èóäöí ÅöÓúÑóÇÆöíá ãöäú
Þóæúã
ÝöÑúÚóæúä
Muhammad ibn Sa'ad informed me...(the whole chain of narration). that Ibn Abbas said: The "Dhurria" that believed
in Moses were from people other than Bani Israel, they were from the people of Pharaoh.
æóÞóÏú Ñõæöíó Úóäú ÇöÈúä ÚóÈøóÇÓ ÎóÈóÑ íóÏõáø Úóáóì ÎöáóÇÝ åóÐóÇ ÇáúÞóæúá
There was another reported narration from Ibn Abbas that contradicted this view. (Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Jami' al-
bayan fi ta'wil al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 10:83, Source)
- 69 -
As we see, it is possible that Ibn Abbas might have said this. This was also the opinion of Suyuti as I showed above.
Scholars are not unanimous on which people the word "Qawmihee" is referring to. However, it is possible that it is
the people of Pharaoh since Surah 10:85 shows that all or the majority of the people of Israel believed in Moses.
Answering Islam present some arguments to try and show that not all the people of Israel believed.
They show verses from the Quran where the people of Israel made a calf and worshipped it, therefore showing that
they were disbelievers. This occurred after their proclamation of faith in Surah 10:85. But this shows no problem.
Isn't it possible that they believed in Surah 10:85 and then they disbelieved (apostatized) later on when they
worshipped the calf? Maybe they truly believed in Allah as their God at the time when they were desperate to be
saved (10:86) but then once they were saved they went back to their old ways. Isn't that a possibility?
Answering Islam also present Surah 28:76-82 to show that Qarun (was from the people of Israel) was a disbeliever.
However, we do not know exactly when the earth swallowed up Qarun.
This story of Qarun might have taken place before they get out of Egypt for
Allah the Almighty says: {So, We caused the earth to swallow him and his
dwelling place}, or it might have taken place after that during the Diaspora.
Allah knows best! (Ibn Kathir, Stories of the Quran, Chapter 6: The Story of Qarun (Korah): Translated by
Ali As-Sayed Al Halawani)
But either way we do not have a problem. Because if it was before they left Egypt then Qarun was already
dead when the people of Israel said they believed in Surah 10:85. Or if it was after they left Egypt, then
its possible that he became an apostate like the other Jews who worshipped the calf.
Answering Islam also present Surah 40:28-35, 38-46 to show that only one man from the people of Pharaoh
believed, thus disproving that some believed according to Surah 10:83. However, anyone who reads the verses
cannot see that. The verse in no way states that only one person ever believed in Moses from the people of Pharaoh.
It is talking about the story of one man who believed in Moses and tried to warn Pharaoh and his followers to stop
their ways and worship Allah. It does not in any way indicate that he was the only follower. When verse 46 says that
the people of Pharaoh will be cast into the fire, it is only referring to the believers in Pharaoh.
- 70 -
Qurtubi says in his commentary...
æóÂá ÝöÑúÚóæúä : ãóäú ßóÇäó Úóáóì Ïöíäå æóÚóáóì ãóÐúåóÈå
And the followers of Pharaoh are those who followed his religion and his ways... (Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi,
Tasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 46:40, Source)
Answering Islam try to present Surah 43:46-56 to show that all of Pharaoh's people were disbelievers. However, we
have to understand that the believer (from Surah 40:28) was hiding his faith all this time and made it seem like he
believed in Pharaoh.
But Ibn Kathir has it in his commentary...
Narrated by Ibn Hatim and there person used to conceal his faith from his Coptic people and he did not disclose it
until the day Pharaoh said, "Let me kill Moses" (Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, Commentary on Surah 40:28, Source)
Conclusion
It is most likely that the people in Surah 10:83 refers to the people of Pharaoh. This is because some of the people of
Pharaoh did indeed believe in Moses.
Surah 10:85 shows that all or the majority of the people of Israel believed in Moses at a particular point in time and
then after they were saved they apostatized. Surah 10:85 did not state that they remained believers forever.
Maybe another potential explanation is that Surah 10:83 only refers to the people that believed in Moses at that
specific point in time (during the magic show) and that maybe the magicians were from the people of Israel. We
have no evidence to suggest that the magicians were necessarily from the people of Pharaoh. Maybe they were from
the people of Israel but supporters of Pharaoh. Maybe they supported Pharaoh and went against their people so that
they can be safe. So Pharaoh would just simply use them because they were really good in magic.
Now we have two possible explanations. If there is a possible explanation then Answering Islam cannot provide
100% evidence that there is a contradiction in the Quran. In order for them to do so, they would have to refute all
- 71 -
possible explanations.
The Bani Quraytha Jews

Traitors or Betrayed?
Introduction
When Mohammed first entered Yathrib (Al-Madina Al-Munawwarah), he was

counting on the support of its people. One particular ethnic group he thought
would give more authority to his prophethood were the Jews because they had
the Torah and all the previous Prophets were Jewish.
The Jews were many in Yathrib and its suburbs. There were the Bani Al-Nadheer
Jews, the Bani Qaynuqa' Jews, the Bani Quraytha Jews, and several more. The
Jews were rich and successful in their businesses. A great asset to the young
Islamic Nation.
At first, Mohammed was trying to befriend the Jews and get them on his side. He
insisted that the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) worship the same God
[Quran Surah 29:46]. He said that the same God sent down the Torah [Quran
Surah 5:48]. He ordered the Muslims to fast Aashoora' or the Passover [Saheeh
Bukhari - 2004]. Even the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) was
towards Jerusalem - the same direction the Jews faced in prayer [Saheeh
Bukhari - 41].
But no matter how hard Mohammed tried to convince them that he is a prophet
he just couldn't. Once he even barged into a Jewish Synagogue in Yathrib (Al-
Madina Al-Munawwarah) and said that if only twelve Jews would believe in him
then Allah would spare them his wrath [Musnad Ahmad - 23464].
When he realized that the Jews wouldn't believe in him, and that their unbelief
would turn against him, because they have the Torah which has the criteria for
any prophet, he realized that they should be eliminated. So at first he switched
the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) from Jerusalem to Mecca
[Quran Surah 2:144 and Saheeh Bukhari - 41]. Then warned them; they either
become Muslims and be safe, or sell their possessions and leave their land
[Saheeh Muslim - 1765 & 1767 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3003].
Mohammed marched towards the Jews in order to either exile them or make a
- 72 -
treaty with them. The Bani Al-Nadheer Jews refused to make a treaty with
Mohammed so they fought against him, lost, and subsequently were exiled. The
Bani Quraytha Jews saw the fate of their Bani Al-Nadheer brethren so they had
no choice but to make a peace treaty with him [Saheeh Muslim - 1766 and
Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004].
Yet Mohammed was determined that all Jews should be either exiled or killed -
he was set on their elimination. He cannot simply break the treaty with Bani
Quraytha though because it would be bad for his image as a Prophet who's
supposed to keep his promises and treaties. He strongly emphasized the
importance of keeping treaties [Quran Surah 9:4 and Saheeh Bukhari - 33]. So
his only way out was to make it appear as though Bani Quraytha were the ones
who broke the treaty.
Ghazwat Al-Khandaq (The Battle of the Trench or Ditch) came. The Pagan Arab
tribes retreated and Mohammed was ready for battle. Mohammed went to the
Bani Quraytha Jews and eliminated them because it was claimed that they
betrayed the Muslims and renounced the treaty, but did they?
The Battle of Al-Khandaq (Trench) and The Battle of Bani Quraytha
Quraysh and Ghatfan, encouraged by the exiled Bani Al-Nadheer Jews, wanted
to eliminate Mohammed once and for all. They gathered up a great army and put
Yathrib under siege [Saheeh Bukhari - 4103]. Mohammed , based on a
suggestion by Salman Al-Farisi, dug a trench around Yathrib [Saheeh Bukhari -
2837], except for the Bani Quraytha side that is, because they had great
fortresses and it would be practically impossible for the Pagan Arabs to get
through their fortresses unless Bani Quraytha allowed it. Now since Mohammed
and Bani Quraytha had a treaty, Mohammed had nothing to fear [Saheeh Muslim
- 1766 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004]. Thus all was set.
Now the siege has started, Mohammed was running low on food and resources
[Saheeh Bukhari - 4101 and Musnad Ahmad - 13808], his companions were
terrified [Saheeh Bukhari - 4103 and Musnad Ahmad - 10613], and above all that
it was rumored that Bani Quraytha were going to break the treaty between them
and Mohammed and let the Pagan Arabs come through their side. But after a
while, a sandstorm hit the armies of the Pagan Arabs, and since Bani Quraytha
refused to let them in through their fortresses, the armies had no choice but to
retreat [Musnad Ahmad - 22823].
Mohammed on the other hand was ready for battle, he had a full army equipped
and eager to fight in the name of Allah. The rumors that Bani Quraytha wanted to
betray him were his only excuse, that and an order sent from Allah via Jibreel
(Gabriel). He went to them, put them under siege for 14 days. Finally they
surrendered. So Mohammed killed all their men, enslaved their women and
children [Saheeh Muslim - 1769]. Now there was one less Jewish tribe to worry
about.
- 73 -
Now it all comes down to this; are the Bani Quraytha Jews traitors or were they
betrayed?
First of all, how do we know if a treaty is broken? We cannot simply assume that
a treaty is broken because of mere rumors [Quran Surah 49:12]. We can only
assume that a treaty is broken if:-
1. The other side officially renounces the treaty
2. The other side does an action which is a direct violation of the treaty
Does any one of the former apply to the Bani Quraytha Jews?
I've searched the nine books of Hadeeth (Saheeh Bukhari, Saheeh Muslim,
Sunan Al-Tarmithi, Sunan Al-Nasa'i, Sunan Abi Dawood, Sunan Ibn Majah,
Musnad Ahmad, Muwatta' Malik, and Sunan Al-Darimi). In my search I did not
find any single Hadeeth which indicates that Bani Quraytha either officially (or
even unofficially) renounced the treaty, nor did I find a Hadeeth which indicates
that Bani Quraytha violated the treaty in any way.
As a matter of fact, the only Hadeeth I found regarding Bani Quraytha's position
was one Hadeeth [Musnad Ahmad - 22823] which says that Bani Quraytha
actually refused to assist the Pagan Arabs in any way in their assault against
Mohammed.
The Conclusion
We saw how much Mohammed wanted to get the Jews on his side, but since he
couldn't he had to eliminate them. We saw that the Bani Quraytha Jews actually
refused to aid the Pagan Arabs or even let them in through their fortresses. Yet
Mohammed was determined to eliminate all non-Muslims from Arabia. The Jews
were innocent yet that didn't stop him, he marched to Bani Quraytha and
ruthlessly slaughtered all their men, enslaved their women and children. He
violated the treaty himself, and he was the one who always preached how
treaties should be kept.
History is written by the victors, thus the Muslims have throughout history
claimed that the Bani Quraytha Jews were the traitors. Yet because the nine
Hadeeth collectors (From Bukhari to Al-Darimi) were men who feared Allah, they
couldn't include in their books any Hadeeth which wasn't authentic, thus they
couldn't find any Hadeeth to put in their books which talks about the treachery of
Bani Quraytha.
It all comes down to this, does a true Prophet of God break his treaties?
- 74 -
* See also the issue of the treaty of Hudaybiyya
The Bani Quraytha Jews

The Hadeeths
Notes on the Translation
• All of the Hadeeths are translated by me personally, and I am not an

expert in translation. So if you find any errors or have any comments,
please do email me.
• The numbering systems I use are: Fath Al-Bari for Saheeh Bukhari, Abd
Al-Baqi for Saheeh Muslim, Muhyi Al-Deen for Sunan Abi Dawood, and
Ihya' Al-Turath for Musnad Ahmad.
• The phrases enclosed in parentheses () are in the original Arabic
Hadeeth, while those enclosed in square brackets [] are my personal
comments and interpolations.
• The Arabic Hadeeths are complete, but the English ones only include the
significant part.
• SAW is the acronym for "Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam".
Saheeh Bukhari - 2004
Narrated Ibn Abbas:
When the Prophet (SAW) came to Al-Madinah and saw the Jews fasting the day of
Ashoora' [Passover], he said,
"What is this [day]?"
They replied,
"This is the day which Allah saved the children of Israel from their enemy , thus Moses
fasted it."
- 75 -
He said,
"I have more right to Moses than you."
So he fasted it and ordered fasting it.
View Notes / The Article
Saheeh Bukhari - 41
Narrated Al-Baraa' bin Azeb:
The Prophet (SAW) when he first came to Al-Madinah visited his grandparents or uncles
of the Ansar [the Muslims of Al-Madinah who supported him]. He also faced Bayt Al-
Maqdis [Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem] during prayer for sixteen months or seventeen
months, and he liked it if the Qiblah [the direction he faces] were Al-Bayt [here meaning
Al-Ka'ba in Mecca]. So the first prayer he prayed [facing Mecca] was an Asr [afternoon]
prayer with a group of people. So when a man who prayed with him [that Asr prayer]
went out, he [the man] passed by some people in a mosque kneeling [in prayer] and he
[the man] said [to the people in the mosque - because they were still facing Jerusalem],
"I witness [swear] by Allah that I prayed with the Messenger of Allah (SAW) in the
direction of Mecca [referring to the Asr prayer]."
So they turned [towards Mecca] from their position which was facing Al-Bayt [Al-Aqsa
Mosque in Jerusalem]. The Jews liked it that he [Mohammad] prayed towards Bayt Al-
Maqdis [Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem], so did the People of the Book. Thus when he
[Mohammad] turned his face away from Al-Bayt [Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem] they
condemned it.
[The rest is irrelevant]
- 76 -
Musnad Ahmad - 23464
Narrated Awf bin Malik:
The Prophet (SAW) and I with him went one day until we entered a Jewish Synagogue in
Al-Madinah on a holiday of theirs. They hated our entrance on them. So the Messenger
of Allah (SAW) said,
"O ye Jews, show me twelve men [among the Jews] who believe that there is no God but
Allah and that Mohammad is his messenger, and Allah will spare all the Jews under
heaven his wrath the wrath he has."
They [the Jews] silenced everyone and no one answered him. So he repeated what he said
and no one answered. So he repeated it for the third time and no one answered. So he
said,
"You refuse! By Allah, I am the last [Prophet] and I am the final [Prophet] and I am the
chosen Prophet; whether you believe or not."
- 77 -
Saheeh Muslim - 1765
Narrated Abi Hurayrah:
While we were at the Mosque, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came to us and said,
"Go to the Jews."
So we went out with him until we arrived. So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) stood up
and called on them,
"O ye Jewish people, become Muslims and you will be safe."
They replied,
"You have delivered [your message] O Aba Al-Qasim [Mohammad's Kunyah (title)]."
So he said to them,
"That [delivering the message] is what I want. Become Muslims and you will be safe."
They replied,
So he repeated what he said for the third time and said,
"Know that the land is for Allah and his Messenger, and I want to exile you from this
land. So let him he who finds something valuable in his possession sell it; or know that
the land is for Allah and his Messenger."
- 78 -
Narrated Omar bin Al-Khattab:
He [Omar] heard the Messenger of Allah (SAW) saying,
"O I indeed will exile the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula until I
leave no one but a Muslim."
Sunan Abi Dawood - 3003
While we were at the Mosque, the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came to us and said,
"Go to the Jews."
So we went out with him until we arrived. So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) stood up
and called on them,
"O ye Jewish people, become Muslims and you will be safe."
They replied,
- 79 -
So he said to them,
"That [delivering the message] is what I want. Become Muslims and you will be safe."
They replied,
So he repeated what he said for the third time and said,
"Know that the land is for Allah and his Messenger, and I want to exile you from this
land. So let him he who finds something valuable in his possession sell it; or know that
the land is for Allah and his Messenger."
Narrated Ibn Omar:
The Jews of Bani Al-Nadheer and [Bani] Quraytha fought the Messenger of Allah
(SAW). So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) exiled Bani Al-Nadheer and allowed Bani
Quraytha and the ones with them to stay, until [Bani] Quraytha fought after that. So he
killed their men, and divided their women, children and money among the Muslims
except for some [of Bani Quraytha] who followed the Messenger of Allah (SAW) and
became Muslim. And the Messenger of Allah (SAW) [eventually] exiled all the Jews of
Al-Madinah; Bani Qaynuqa' (who are the people of Abdullah bin Salaam), the Jews of
Bani Harithah and any Jew who was in Al-Madinah.
- 80 -
Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004
Narrated Ka'ab bin Malik by a companion of the Prophet:
[The beginning is irrelevant]
The Quraysh [Mohammad's tribe from Mecca] infidels wrote to the Jews after the Battle
of Badr,
"You are the people of the arms and fortresses. You will either fight our friend
[Mohammad], or we will do to you so and so and nothing will come between us and the
- 81 -
servants of your women except for Al-Khalakheel [bracelets for women worn around the
ankle] [in other words, Quraysh is threatening the Jews here]."
So when this letter came to the Prophet (SAW) [meaning he heard about it], Bani Al-
Nadheer was set on treason. So they sent to the Messenger of Allah (SAW),
"Come to us with thirty men of your companions, thirty of our Rabbis will come to you
until we meet midway and they [the Rabbis] will hear what you have to say; if they
believed you and followed you we will follow you."
So he told their story [to his companions]. And when the next day came, the Messenger
of Allah (SAW) came to them with armies and surrounded them and said,
"By Allah you will not be safe from me unless it is by a treaty we make."
They refused to make a treaty with him, so he fought them that very day. Then the day
after he went to Bani Quraytha with his armies and left Bani Al-Nadheer, and he asked
them [Bani Quraytha] to make a treaty with him and so they did, so he left them. Then he
went to Bani Al-Nadheer [again] with his armies and he fought them until they
surrendered and agreed to be exiled. So they were exiled carrying with them what their
camels could carry of their possessions and the doors to their houses and the wood. Thus
the palm of Bani Al-Nadheer was for the Messenger of Allah (SAW) alone, Allah gave it
to him alone.
Saheeh Bukhari - 33
The Prophet (SAW) said,
"The signs of the hypocrite are three; if he talks he lies, if he promises he fails his
promise, and if he's trusted he betrays."
- 82 -
Narrated Aisha:
[In reference to the verse in Quran 33:10] "they came on you from above you
and from below you and behold the eyes became dim and the hearts
gaped up to the throats"
She [Aisha] said that that was the day of Al-Khandaq [The Ditch or Trench].
Narrated Al-Baraa':
I saw the Messenger of Allah (SAW) the day of Al-Ahzaab [which is also the day of the
Trench or Ditch] carrying sand [digging], and the sand had covered the whiteness of his
stomach.
- 83 -
Narrated Jaber:
...then he [Mohammad] stood up and his stomach was tied to a rock [because of the
hunger], and we remained for three days without a taste [of food]...
Narrated Jaber:
When the Prophet (SAW) and his companions dug the trench, they were extremely
exhausted so that the Prophet (SAW) tied a rock around his stomach because of the
hunger.
- 84 -
Narrated the father of Abi Sa'eed Al-Khudri:
On the day of the Trench we said,
"O Messenger of Allah, is there anything we can say [in a sense of prayer]? For the
hearts are gaping up to the throats!"
He replied,
"Yes. O Allah cover our iniquities and remove our fears."
- 85 -
Narrated Huthayfa bin Al-Yaman:
He [Mohammad] said to me,
"O Huthayfa, go and infiltrate the people [the armies against the Muslims] and see what
they're up to, and don't say a word until you return."
So I went and infiltrated the people while the winds and the soldiers of Allah [referring to
the Angels that fought off the armies] were doing what they were doing - not leaving
them [the armies] any cauldron or fire or structure. So Abu Sufyan bin Harb [the leader
of the Pagan Quraysh] stood up and said,
- 86 -
"O ye people of Quraysh, let every person check and see the person sitting next to him
[in fear of spies]."
So I took the hand of the man next to me and said,
"Who are you?"
He replied,
"I am someone the son of someone [an Arabic expression used in narrating events when
the name of the person isn't needed - it is like saying "so and so"]."
So Abu Sufyan said,
"O ye people of Quraysh, by Allah your [current] dwelling isn't a place to be dwelled in
[meaning that their current situation is bad]; the horses [and camels, mules, etc..] have
died, Bani Quraytha has turned us down - we received from them what we don't like
[meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses], and this wind is giving us
what you see [a hard time]. By Allah, our cauldrons aren't standing, the fires aren't
lasting, and the structures aren't holding. So retreat for I am retreating."
Narrated Aisha:
- 87 -
So when the Messenger of Allah (SAW) came back from the trench, he put his weapon
aside and washed up. So Jibreel [Gabriel] came to him while he [Mohammad] was
removing the dust [from the battle] off his head and [Gabriel] said,
"You have laid your weapon aside?! By Allah we won't [lay our weapons aside]. Go out
to [fight] them."
So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said,
"Where [shall I go/fight]?"
So he [Gabriel] pointed to Bani Quraytha. Thus the Messenger of Allah (SAW) fought
them and they surrendered to his judgement, so the Messenger of Allah (SAW) passed
the judgement to Sa'd who said,
"I judge them that the fighters [men - those who are capable of fighting] are to be killed,
the children and women enslaved and the money divided [among the Muslims]."
So the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said,
"You have judged them with Allah's judgement."
Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "The Bani

Quraytha Jews: Traitors or Betrayed?
By
Bassam Zawadi
Answering Islam's article could be located here.
I have already written an article about the issue over here and have shown that the Jews
deserved and even accepted the punishment imposed upon them.
However, there are a few points that I would like to address here that might not have been
addressed in the previous article.
- 88 -
When he realized that the Jews wouldn't believe in him, and that their unbelief
would turn against him, because they have the Torah which has the criteria for
any prophet, he realized that they should be eliminated. So at first he switched
the Qibla (the direction the Muslims face in prayer) from Jerusalem to Mecca
[Quran Surah 2:144 and Saheeh Bukhari - 41]. Then warned them; they either
become Muslims and be safe, or sell their possessions and leave their land
[Saheeh Muslim - 1765 & 1767 and Sunan Abi Dawood - 3003].
My Response:
When the Prophet (peace be upon him) told the Jews that they must become Muslims in
order to be safe, this could have two possible meanings.
First, either it meant that the Jews needed to convert to Islam in order to be safe from
Allah's wrath on the Day of Judgment.
Secondly, it meant that they physically needed to be safe from the Muslims if they didn't
convert to Islam and the Prophet (peace be upon him) also wanted to have them exiled
from their land.
Imam Nawawi in his commentary on the hadith stated...
æÅäãÇ ÞÇá áåã åÐÇ , áÃäåã ÍÇÑÈæÇ ÑÓæá Çááå Õáì Çááå Úáíå
æÓáã ßãÇ ÐßÑå ÇÈä ÚãÑ Ýí ÑæÇíÊå ÇáÊí ÐßÑåÇ ãÓáã ÈÚÏ åÐå
And he uttered this statement to them because they waged war against the
Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) just as Ibn Umar mentioned in his
narration, which Imam Muslim mentions after this. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh
Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Jihad wal Sayr, Bab: Ejlaa' al Yahood min al-
Hijaaz, Commentary on Hadith no. 3311, Source)
And the narration that Imam Nawawi is speaking about is...
Saheeh Muslim
It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar that the Jews of Banu Nadir
and Banu Quraizi fought against the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon
him) who expelled Banu Nadir, and allowed Quraiza to stay on, and granted
favour to them until they too fought against him Then he killed their men, and
distributed their women, children and properties among the Muslims, except that
some of them had joined the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) who
- 89 -
granted them security. They embraced Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace
be upon him) turned out all the Jews of Medlina. Banu Qainuqa' (the tribe of
'Abdullah b. Salim) and the Jews of Banu Haritha and every other Jew who was in
Medina.
Thus, when we now examine the context of when the Prophet (peace be upon him)
uttered this statement it becomes understandable (and justifiable as well).
Mohammed marched towards the Jews in order to either exile them or make a
treaty with them. The Bani Al-Nadheer Jews refused to make a treaty with
Mohammed so they fought against him, lost, and subsequently were exiled. The
Bani Quraytha Jews saw the fate of their Bani Al-Nadheer brethren so they had
no choice but to make a peace treaty with him [Saheeh Muslim - 1766 and
Sunan Abi Dawood - 3004].
My Response:
Banu Al Nadheer already had a peace treaty with the Muslims, until they broke it (see
http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2005/the-expulsion-of-banu-al-nadir/)
So let's not try to portray Banu Al Nadheer as some innocent tribe.
First of all, how do we know if a treaty is broken? We cannot simply assume that
a treaty is broken because of mere rumors [Quran Surah 49:12]. We can only
assume that a treaty is broken if:-
1. The other side officially renounces the treaty
2. The other side does an action which is a direct violation of the treaty
Does any one of the former apply to the Bani Quraytha Jews?
My Response:
Absolutely...
The chief criminal of Bani Nadir, Huyai, headed for the habitations of Banu
Quraiza to incite their chief Ka'b bin Asad Al-Qurazi, who had drawn a pact with
- 90 -
the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to run to his aid in times of war. Ka'b, in the
beginning resisted all Huyai's temptation, but Huyai was clever enough to
manipulate him, speaking of Quraish and their notables in Al-Asyal, as well as
Ghatfan and their chieftains entrenched in Uhud, all in one mind, determined to
exterminate Muhammad [pbuh] and his followers. He, moreover, promised to stay
in Ka'b's fort exposing himself to any potential danger in case Quraish and
Ghatfan recanted. The wicked man went on in this manner until he later
managed to win Ka'b to his side and persuade him to break his covenant
with the Muslims. [Ibn Hisham 3/337] Banu Quraiza then started to launch
war operations against the Muslims especially the secluded garrisons that
housed the women and children of the Muslims. On the authority of Ibn Ishaq,
Safiyah [R], daughter of 'Abdul Muttalib happened to be in a garrison with
Hassan bin Thabit as well as some women and children. Safiyah said: "A Jew
was spotted lurking around our site, which was vulnerable to any enemy
attacks because there were no men to defend it. I informed Hassan that I was
suspicious of that man's presence near us. He might take us by surprise now that
the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] and the Muslims are too busy to come to our aid,
why don't you get down and kill him? Hassan answered that he would not do it, so
I took a bar of wood, went down and struck the Jew to death. I returned and asked
Hassan to loot him but again Hassan refused to do that.[ibid 2/228] This event had
a far reaching effect and discouraged the Jews from conducting further attacks
thinking that those sites were fortified and protected by Muslim fighters. They,
however, went on providing the idolaters with supplies in token of their support
against the Muslims.
On hearing this bad news, the Messenger [pbuh] despatched four Muslim
prominent leaders Sa'd bin Mu'adh, Sa'd bin 'Ubada, 'Abdullah bin Rawaha
and Khawat bin Jubair for investigation but warning against any sort of
spreading panic amongst the Muslims and advising that they should declare
in public that the rumours are groundless if they happen to be so.
Unfortunately the four men discovered that the news was true and that the
Jews announced openly that no pact of alliance existed any longer with
Muhammad [pbuh]. (Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-
Makhtum (THE SEALED NECTAR), Chapter: Al-Ahzab (the Confederates)
Invasion, Source)
So yes, the Muslims verified the rumours and the Jews did do an action that broke the
treaty.

As a matter of fact, the only Hadeeth I found regarding Bani Quraytha's position
was one Hadeeth [Musnad Ahmad - 22823] which says that Bani Quraytha
- 91 -
actually refused to assist the Pagan Arabs in any way in their assault against
Mohammed.
My Response:
This is the main reason why I wrote this article. To expose Answering Islam's distortion
of this hadith from Musnad Ahmad. Read it over here.
The author highlights this specific part of the hadith...
Bani Quraytha has turned us down - we received from them what we don't like
[meaning they refused to let them in through their fortresses],
in order to prove that the Jews of Bani Quraytha refused to assist the pagans against the
Muslims.
This is a perfect example of quoting a statement out of context. Let us read the full story
and see in what context Abu Sufyan uttered this statement...
"You are only one person among us," observed the Prophet. "So go to your people
and act as if you have nothing to do with us for indeed war is treachery."
"Yes, O Messenger of God," replied Nuaym. And if God wills, you shall witness
what pleases you." Without losing any time, Nuaym went to the Banu Qurayzah.
He was, as was mentioned earlier, a close friend of the tribe. "O Bani Qurayzah,"
he said. "You have known my love for you and my sincerity in advising you."
"Yes," they agreed, "but what are you suspicious of so far as we are concerned?"
Nuaym continued: "The Quraysh and the Ghatafan have their own interests in this
war which are different from your interests." "How so?" they queried.
"This is your city," Nuaym asserted. "You have your wealth, your children and
your womenfolk here and it is not in your power to flee and take refuge in another
city. On the other hand, the Quraysh and the Ghatafan have their land,
their wealth, their children and their womenfolk away from this city. They came
to fight Muhammad. They urged you to break the treaty you had with him and to
help them against him. So you responded positively to them. If they were to be
victorious in their encounter with him, they would reap the booty. But if they fail
to subdue him, they would return to their country safe and sound and they would
leave you to him and he would be in a position to exact the most bitter revenge on
you. You know very well that you would have no power to confront him."
"You are right," they said. "But what suggestion do you have?" "My opinion,"
Nuaym suggested, "is that you should not join forces with them until you take a
- 92 -
group of their prominent men as hostages. In that way you could carry on the fight
against Muhammad either till victory or till the last of your men or theirs perish.
(They would not be able to leave you in the lurch)." "You have advised well,"
they responded and agreed to take up his suggestion.
Nuaym then left and went to Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, the Quraysh leader and spoke
to him and other Quraysh leaders. "O Quraysh," said Nuaym, "You know my
affection for you and my enmity towards Muhammad. I have heard some news
and I thought it my duty to disclose it to you but you should keep it confidential
and do not attribute it to me"
"You must inform us of this matter," insisted the Quraysh.
Nuaym continued: "The Banu Qurayzah now regret that they have agreed to
participate in the hostilities against Muhammad. They fear that you would turn
back and abandon them to him. So they have sent a message to Muhammad
saying: 'We are sorry for what we have done and we are determined to return to
the treaty and a state of peace with you. Would it please you then if we take
several Quraysh and Ghatafan nobles and surrender them to you? We will then
join you in fighting them - the Quraysh and the Ghatafan - until you finish them
off.' The Prophet has sent back a reply to them saying he agrees. If therefore the
Jews send a delegation to you demanding hostages from among your men do not
hand over a single person to them. And do not mention a word of what I said to
you."
"What a good ally you are. May you be rewarded well," said Abu Sufyan
gratefully.
Nuaym then went to his own people the Ghatafan, and spoke to them in a similar
vein. He gave them the same warning against expected treachery from the Banu
Qurayzah.
Abu Sufyan wanted to test the Banu Qurayzah so he sent his son to them. "My
father sends greetings of peace to you," began Abu Sufyan's son. "He says that
our siege of Muhammad and his companions has been a protracted affair and we
have become weary...We are now determined to fight Muhammad and finish him
off. My father has sent me to you to ask you to join battle with Muhammad
tomorrow."
"But tomorrow is Saturday," said the Jews of Banu Qurayzah, "and we do not
work at all on Saturdays. Moreover, we would not fight with you until you hand
over to us seventy of your nobles and nobles from the Ghatafan as hostages. We
fear that if the fighting becomes too intense for you would hasten back home and
leave us alone to Muhammad. You know that we have no power to resist him..."
When Abu Sufyan's son returned to his people and told them what he had
heard from the Banu Qurayzah, they shouted in unison!
- 93 -
"Damned be the sons of monkeys and swine! By God, if they were to demand
from us a single sheep as a hostage, we would not give them".
And so it was that Nuaym was successful in causing disharmony among the
confederates and splitting their ranks. (Source)
Apparently, Abu Sufyan's exact statement as recorded in Musnad Ahmad is not presented
in the above citation, however if one refers to Dr. Madhi's Rizqullah Ahmad's book A
Biography of the Prophet of Islam: In the Light of the Original Sources An Analytical
Study, Volume 2, p .560 you would see that he places Abu Sufyan's statement at the same
time when he thinks (due to being deceived by Nu'aym) that the Bani Quraytha betrayed
him.
This exposes the distortion of the facts by the author, for he is trying to use this statement
by Abu Sufyan to show that Bani Quraytha never accepted to help the pagans, which is
false. Abu Sufyan only uttered this statement when he thought that the Bani Quraytha
Jews broke the pact with the pagan Meccans. But thanks to the cleverness of one Muslim
(with Allah's assistance), their plans foiled.
Also, I don't believe that the author properly translated Abu Sufyan's statement when he
said...
Bani Quraytha has turned us down
The Arabic statement is the following...
þæÃÎáÝÊäÇ þ þÈäæ ÞÑíÙÉ
The Arabic word æÃÎáÝÊäÇ should be better translated as either 'deceived' or 'broke
their promise'.
Since it means that someone has not fulfilled his promise.
The Arabic dictionary Al Muheet states...
æÚÏå: áã íÝ ÈæÚÏå.- ÑÌÇÁå: ÎóíøóÈ Ããáå
- 94 -
He didn't keep his promise, he made him lose hope. (Source)
The Arabic diciontary Al Ghanee states...
ÃóÎúáóÝó æóÚúÏóåõ
He didn't keep his promise. (Source)
Looking at the historical context, it seems more appropriate to understand that Abu
Sufyan's statement meant that he believed that the Jews deceived the pagans and were not
willing to keep their agreement with them. This is indirect, yet clear evidence that the
Jews were already conspiring with the Meccan pagans against the Muslims.
Return to Refuting General Articles by Answering-Islam.org
Return to Homepage
Responding to Answering Islam's Criticism of Zakir

Naik's Defense of Polygamy
by
Bassam Zawadi
- 95 -
Polygamy
Q. Why is a man allowed to marry more than one wife in Islam? Or why is polygamy allowed in Islam?
Answer:
1. Definition of Polygamy
Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one spouse. Polygamy can be of
two types. One is polygyny where a man marries more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a
woman marries more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted and polyandry is completely
prohibited. Now coming to the original question, why is a man allowed to have more than one wife?
I accept Dr. Naik's definitions.
2. Qur'an is the only religious scripture in the world that says "marry only one" Qur'an is the only religious
book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase 'marry only one'. There is no other religious book that
instructs men to have only one wife. In none of the religious scriptures like the Vedas, the Ramayan, the
Mahabharat, the Geeta or the Bible does one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these
scriptures one can marry as many as one wishes.
This is an argument of semantic irrelevance. In spite of Naik's attempt to put the Bible in a semantic straight-jacket,
the Scriptures are very clear that monogamy was God's plan for mankind. In the first book of the Bible we read:
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one
flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
Has not [the LORD] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking
godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
(Malachi 2:15)
Jesus said:
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For
this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one
flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
(Matthew 19:4-6 )
It was only later, that the Hindu priests and the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one.
How could the Christian Church restrict the number of wives to one when the first book of the Bible spells out God's
plan of monogamy? I also wonder what significance Hindu marriage customs have on this discussion. Why does
Naik use the beliefs and practices of another religion, which he considers false, to support his belief in Islam - which
he considers to the be truth?
My Response:
- 96 -
No where in any of the verses cited do we see any teachings on polygamy. The verses just simply say that when a
man and woman get married they become one in flesh and spirit. So why can't a man become one in flesh and spirit
with more than one woman? Why can't he become ONE with each one of them? Christians only misinterpret those
verses to mean what they want, they don't prohibit polygamy at all. No where does the Bible prohibit polygamy, see
this detailed article.

Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the
father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives.
Dr. Naik misunderstands his ancestors' religion. Dasharat married three women in order to produce a male heir. He
had a daughter but he wanted a son (or sons) to assume his royal responsibilities. Kausalya did not produce a son, so
he married Sumitra, who also failed to produce a son, and then married Kaikeyi. In spite of Dasharat, polygyny is
not a universal practice in Hinduism or in Hindu mythology. Rama, Lakshmana, Bharatha and Shatrughna were all
monogamous. Krishna had many wives because the women desired to marry him. Hinduism also mentions
polyandry in the case of Draupadi, who had five husbands.
Once again, I must ask Dr. Naik why he appeals to Hindu mythology in order to defend his Islamic beliefs? Do the
legends of Hinduism somehow validate Islam? Why does Dr. Naik appeal to the practices of unbelievers in order to
justify his religion?
My Response:
Well the point is (irrelevant of the reason) polygamy was allowed.
Because it is ironic that people criticize Islam because it permits polygamy and their own religion permits it as well.
That is what Naik is trying to point out. So if your attacking Islam because it permits polygamy then your basically
attacking your own religion. He is just exposing the hypocrisy and illogical criticisms of certain people.

In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no
restriction on the number of wives. It was only a couple of centuries ago that the Church restricted the
number of wives to one.
No, Paul preached monogamy from the beginning of the Christian Church:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to
hospitality, apt to teach; (1 Timothy 3:2 )
Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. (1 Timothy
3:12)
If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (Titus
- 97 -
1:6)
"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become
one flesh." (Ephesians 5 :31)
My Response:
Paul only restricted it to bishops, are all Christians bishops?

Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had 2 wives, and Solomon had
hundreds of wives.
Dr. Naik gives us the story of Solomon - an excellent example of what happens when we refuse to follow God's
plan, and follow our own desires:
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. (1 Kings 11:3-4)
God is not compelled to honor a human institution which is contrary to His Divine Plan. Muhammad's polygamous
lifestyle was hardly a picture of domestic bliss. There were rivalries between his wives and concubines and he once
needed a "revelation" from God to restore peace in his house. For more information on this incident, read Sex,
Oaths, and the "Prophet" (Sura 66).
God made Adam and then created Eve as his companion. This was God's ideal model for the human race. God
established marriage and He honors the union of one man and one woman. Whenever we deviate from God's Divine
Plan (whether in polygyny, polyandry, adultery, pre-marital sex, or homosexuality) we can expect negative
consequences in this life, as well as on the Day of Judgement.
My Response:
Solomon was not in any criticized for marrying more than one wife. However, his mistake was for marrying women
from pagan families.
About the whole Surah 66 issue it had nothing to do with the Prophet having more than one wife. Everyone has
problems with their wives. Are you trying to say that husband don't have problems with their wives in a
monogamous marriage?
For the Surah 66 issue read this article.
- 98 -
The practice of polygyny continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (960 A.D to 1030 A.D) issued an edict
against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as
1950, when an Act of the chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.
Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah agreed with God's plan for humanity.
My Response:
First you have to show where God supposedly made that plan for humanity because it is no where to be found in
your Bible. Secondly, this just goes to show that the prohibition of polygamy was from man and not from God.

3. Hindus are more polygamous than Muslims. The report of the 'Committee of The Status of Woman in
Islam', published in 1975 mentions on page numbers 66,67 that the percentage of polygamous marriages
between the year 1951-1961 was 5.06 among the Hindus and only 4.31 among the Muslims. According to
Indian law only Muslim men are permitted to have more than one wife. It is illegal for any non-Muslim in
India to have more than one wife. Despite it being illegal, Hindus have more multiple wives as compared to
the Muslim. One can imagine what would have been the percentage of polygamous marriages among the
Hindus if the Indian government had made it legal for them. Earlier, there was no restriction even on Hindu
men with respect to the number of wives allowed. It was only in 1954, when the Hindu Marriage Act was
passed that it became illegal for a Hindu to have more than one wife. At present it is the Indian Law that
restricts a Hindu man from having more than one wife and not the Hindu scriptures.
Once again, I am not sure why Dr. Naik appeals to Hinduism [as he considers Hinduism a false religion] in order to
defend his faith. Why not cite the Mormons in the 19th century, or the many indigenous religions which also
practice(d) polygamy? How do these belief systems, which Dr. Naik believes are false, "prove" the "truth" of Islam?
Also, I have traveled across northern India twice during my lifetime and I have never encountered a Hindu with
more than one wife.
My Response:
Because it is ironic that people criticize Islam because it permits polygamy and their own religion permits it as well.
That is what brother Zakir Naik is trying to point out. So if your attacking Islam because it permits polygamy then
your basically attacking your own religion. He is just exposing the hypocrisy and illogical criticisms of certain
people.

Let us now analyse why Islam allows a man to have more than one wife.
4. Qur'an permits limited polygyny As I mentioned earlier, Qur'an is the only religious book on the face of
- 99 -
the earth that says "marry only one". The context of this phrase is the following verse from Surah Nisa of the
Glorious Qur'an: "Marry woman of your choice in twos threes or fours" but if ye fear that ye shall not be able
to deal justly, (with them), then only one" [Al-Qur'an 4:3] Before the Qur'an was revealed, there was no
upper limit for polygyny and many men had scores of wives, some even hundreds. Islam put an upper limit
of four wives. Islam gives a man permission to marry two, three or four women, only on the condition that he
deals with them justly. In the same chapter i.e. Surah Nisa verse 129 says: "It is very difficult to be just and
fair between women". [Al-Qur'an (4:129)]. Therefore polygyny is not a rule but an exception. Many people
are under the misconception that it is compulsory for a Muslim man to marry more than one wife. Broadly,
Islam has five categories of Do's and Dont's.
(i) "Farz" i.e compulsory

(ii) "Mustahab" i.e recommended or encouraged
(iii) "Mubah" i.e permissible
(iv) "Makruh" i.e "not recommended" or discouraged
(v) "Haram" i.e prohibited or forbidden
Polygyny falls in the middle category of things that are permissible. It cannot be said that a Muslim who has
two, three or four wives is a better Muslim as compared to a Muslim who has only one wife.
Why was Muhammad permitted more that 4 wives?
My Response:
As for the Prophet's multiple marriages. The Prophet had privileges and limitations set by God for him. For example,
the use of Miswak, Witr prayer and Qiyam Al Layl (prayer in two thirds of the night) were made obligatory on the
Prophet but not on us Muslims. Similarly, the marrying up to 4 wives were made obligatory on us Muslims but not
on the Prophet.
But you have to realize that with this privilege came a limitation for the Prophet...
Recommended Readings
http://www.call-to-
monotheism.com/why_did_prophet_muhammad__peace_be_upon_him__have_more_than_four_wives__
http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/mohamed/1424/misconception/article10.shtml
http://www.wefound.org/texts/Muhammad_files/Muhammad2.htm

5. Average life span of females is more than that of males. By nature males and females are born in
approximately the same ratio.
During paediatric age however, in childhood itself a female child has more immunity than a male child. A
female child can fight the germs and diseases better than the male child. For this reason, there are more
- 100 -
deaths among males as compared to the females during paediatric age. During wars, there are more men
killed as compared to women. More men die due to accidents and diseases than women. The average life
span of females is more than that of males, and at any given time one finds more widows in the world than
widowers.
In spite of this, the Sex ratio of the world's population is 1.01 male(s)/female (2000 est.) (Source).
The breakdown by age is:
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female

under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.02 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.78 male(s)/female
Therefore, polygyny is practical only if young men are willing to marry old women.
My Response:
Not true. Polygamy could still be practical even if the population of men were greater than women! Because we
must not forget that it is the duty of the man to take care of his wife. Most men today are either poor, in jail, in the
army, killed in battle etc. Therefore, there is still a shortage of men for women to get married to.

6. India has more male population than female due to female foeticide and infanticide.
India is one of the few countries, along with the other neighbouring countries, in which the female population
is less than the male population. The reason lies in the high rate of female infanticide in India, and the fact
that more than one million female foetuses are aborted every year in this country, after they are identified as
females. If this evil practice is stopped, then India too will have more females as compared to males.
Let's look at the numbers:
India 1.07 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Abortions and female infanticide are barbaric and evil, and Indian society deserves to be criticized for killing their
precious little girls. America also should be criticized for its sinful practice of abortion. However, the Indian gender
ratio imbalance is less that many Muslim nations:
Bahrain 1.3 male(s)/female (2000 est.)

Djibouti 1.07 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Jordan 1.1 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Kuwait 1.5 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Oman 1.31 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Qatar 1.93 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
Saudi Arabia 1.24 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
- 101 -
UAE 1.51 male(s)/female (2000 est.)
I would like to ask Dr. Naik why this is also the case in Muslim nations?
My Response:
That means nothing. The reason could simply be because they naturally get more boys as children. Just because a
country has more males than females that does not mean that there is a case of female infanticide in that country.
India is well known for its cases of female infanticide. Those Arab countries are not.

7. World female population is more than male population
The world's female population is less than the male population. There are an estimated 3,059,307,647 males and
3,019,466,887 females on earth (Source). In other words, there are nearly 40 million more men on earth than
women!
In the USA, women outnumber men by 7.8 million.
No, there are approximately 134,774,894 men in American and 140,787,779 women, a difference of 6 million,
However, it must be noted that of these 6 million women, 5.9 million of them are 65 years old or older. (Source)
New York alone has one million more females as compared to the number of males, and of the male
population of New York one-third are gays i.e sodomites.
New York City has 3,437,687 males and 3,884,887 females, a "surplus" of over 447,000 females. (Source) However,
as in the case of the general population, the majority of these women are 65 years old or older. I wonder how Dr.
Naik came to the conclusion that one-third of all males in New York City are gay? There are 3,437,687 males in
New York City. Of these, 1,113,888 males (or 32%) have never been married - the rest are married, divorced, or
widowed. To reach Naik's estimate, we have to assume that all unmarried men in New York City are gay, as well as
some married/divorced/widowed men! Also, perhaps Dr. Naik never thought of this - some females are gay. There
are 1,080,026 unmarried women in New York City, and perhaps some of them are gay!
The USA as a whole has more than twenty-five million gays. This means that these people do not wish to
marry women.
What is the source for this statistic? In spite of Dr. Naik's apparent expertise concerning "Gay America", he
continues to ignore the existence of Gay females!
Great Britain has four million more females as compared to males.
There are 29,303,077 men in the U.K. and 30,208,387 women, with nearly 1.6 million more women than men over
the age of 65.
Germany has five million more females as compared to males.
- 102 -
Germany has 40,451,865 males and 42,345,543 females, or 1,893,678 more females than males. However, there are
over 3 million more women than men in the 65 years old and above group! (Source)
Russia has nine million more females than males. God alone knows how many million more females there
are in the whole world as compared to males.
Again, the majority of these women are over 65 years old.
8. Restricting each and every man to have only one wife is not practical
Even if every man got married to one woman, there would still be more than thirty million more females in
USA who would not be able to get husbands (considering that America has twenty five million gays). There
would be more than four million females in Great Britain 5 million females in Germany and nine million
females in Russia alone who would not be able to find a husband.
In the United States, there are 28,200,083 men who have never been married and 23,434,118 women! (Source) How
can we have polygyny with this difference? Also, I would like to know Dr. Naik's sources for data on homosexuals.
For Naik's numbers to be correct, we must accept the fact that there are only 3 million straight single men in the US!
My Response:
Like I said before. Polygamy could still be practical even if the population of men were greater than women!
Because we must not forget that it is the duty of the man to take care of his wife. Most men today are either poor, in
jail, in the army, killed in battle etc. Therefore, there is still a shortage of men for women to get married to.

Suppose my sister happens to be one of the unmarried women living in USA, or suppose your sister happens
to be one of the unmarried women in USA. The only two options remaining for her are that she either
marries a man who already has a wife or becomes public property. There is no other option. I have posed this
question to hundreds of non-Muslims and all opted for the first. However a few smart people before
accepting, said they would prefer their sisters to remain virgins.
Public property!??! I do not believe that Dr. Naik's sister (or any woman or man) is the "property" of anyone! The
Bible tells us:
The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body
does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. (1 Corinthians 7:4)
My Response:
It seems like the author misunderstood what Dr Zakir Naik said. When Dr Zakir Naik said "public property" he
meant that she would go and sleep around with a bunch of men who would use her for sexual pleasure. Its kind of
how like a bench is public property in the sense that any one can go and sit on it. So if a woman is public property
- 103 -
then men just go around sleeping with her.

Biologically, it is not possible for an average man or a woman to remain celibate throughout life. It may be
possible in exceptional cases of one in ten thousand. In the vast majority, the person either gets married or
performs illicit sex or indulges in other sexual perversions. Sex hormones are released in the adult body
every day. That is the reason why Islam has prohibited monasticism.
The human sex drive does not justify polygyny nor does it justify any other sexual perversions. God gave us a sex
drive, however, God also gave us a model, in the form of marriage, where we are to channel these drives. Whenever
we deviate from God's plans, whether in the form of polygyny or other perversions, we can expect to pay the
consequences of our actions. The Bible tells:
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot
control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. To the married I
give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she
must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. (1
Corinthians 7:8-11)
My Response:
The main argument that Zakir Naik put forth for polygamy was not even properly addressed by the author! What
solutions does Christianity give to this rising problem of there being more women available for marriage than men?
Even the verse you quoted says that if you cannot control yourself then you should get married. However, what if
there are not enough men to get married to for a monogamous marriage? The only solution is either for a woman to
marry a married man or to go and commit fornication. Your Bible gives no solutions to this problem.

In Western society it is common for a man to have mistresses and/or multiple extra-marital affairs, in which
case, the woman leads a disgraceful, unprotected life. The same society, however, cannot accept a man
having more than one wife, in which women retain their honourable, dignified position in society and lead a
protected life. Thus the only two options before a woman who cannot find a husband is to marry a married
man or to become public property. Islam prefers giving women the honourable position by permitting the
first option and disallowing the second. There are several other reasons, why Islam has permitted limited
polygyny, but it is mainly to protect the modesty of women.
How does Dr. Naik know that it is "common" for men to have extra-marital affairs - what are his data sources? Dr.
Naik also ignores the fact that women have affairs as well! After all, a man cannot have an affair by himself! He also
ignores the possibility that men with multiple wives might have affairs; and, once again, makes the disgusting
reference to women as "property".
The Qur'an tells us about the "honourable position" of women in Islam:
- 104 -
Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your
souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good
tidings to those who believe. (Sura 2:223)
My Response:
I agree, Dr Zakir Naik should be more careful in his wording and not make a general statement about the western
society being engaged in extra marital affairs.
The author says that men with multiple wives might have affairs. Well of course, any thing is possible. However, it
does greatly reduce the chances.
I already explained what Zakir meant by the 'property' statement.
As for Surah 2:223...
The wisdom of Allah swt for using the words 'Your wives are as a tilth unto you' :
Sex is not a thing to be ashamed off, or to be treated lightly , or to be indulged to the excess. It is as solemn a
fact as any in life. It is compared to as husbandman's tilth; it is a serious affair to him; he sows the seed in
order to reap the harvest. But he chooses his own time and mode of cultivation. He does not sow out of season
nor cultivate in a manner which will injure or exhaust the soil. He is wise and considerate and does not run
riot. Coming from the simile to human beings, every kind of mutual consideration is required , but above all,
we must remember that even in these matters there is a spiritual aspect. We must never forget our souls, and
that we are responsible to Allah ( The Meaning of The Holy Qur'an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, page 90, commentary
note 249)
Commentary of Mawlana-Abul-Ala-Mawdudi:"The farmer sows the seed in order to reap the harvest, but
he does not sow it out of season or cultivate it in a manner which will injure or exhaust the soil. He
is wise and considerate, and does not run riot." (Afzalur Rahman, Quranic Sciences, London 1981, p.285)
(Karim, The Islamic Way Of Making Love To Your Wife!, Source)

Polyandry
Q: If a man is allowed to have more than one wife why does Islam prohibit a woman from having more
than one husband?
Answer: A lot of people, including some Muslims, question the logic of allowing Muslim men to have more
than one spouse while denying the same 'right' to women. Let me first state emphatically, that the foundation
of an Islamic society is justice and equity. Allah has created men and women as equal, but with different
capabilities and different responsibilities. Men and women are different, physiologically and psychologically.
Their roles and responsibilities are different.
I believe that the aforementioned passage from the Qur'an answers this question : women exist for the pleasure of
- 105 -
men.
My Response:
Some people find it unfair that a husband gets to have more than one wife while a wife could not have the same
right. However, we have to understand that this is one of the tests for women here on earth. The woman who pleases
her husband has such great honor that it could lead her straight to paradise. For a Muslim man to achieve that he
would have to die a martyr! So just imagine how much easier it is for the woman to do so in order to attain paradise.
If she is in a polygamous marriage it would actually be easier for her because she has other women helping her in
pleasing her husband. Only if women truly understood this they would all want to be in a polygamous marriage.
Earning paradise is not easy and requires the woman to be patient. This is her test in life. Just look at the magnificent
awards that an obedient and pleasing wife could get out of something that she should be happy doing anyways...
A woman's being patient in obeying her husband is one of the means of entering Paradise, as it says in the hadeeth
narrated by Ibn Hibbaan: "If a woman offers her five daily prayers and fasts her month (i.e., Ramadaan) and guards
her chastity and obeys her husband, it will be said to her: 'Enter Paradise from whichever of the gates of Paradise
you wish.'" (This hadeeth was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami' al-Sagheer, no. 660, Cited
here)
Umm Salamah (May Allah be pleased with her) said:
"The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Àny woman who dies, and her husband is pleased with her, will
enter Paradise.'" (Ibn Majah, 1/595, Kitab al-nikah, bab haqq al-zawj 'ala'l-mar'ah; al-Hakim, 4/173, Kitab al-
birr wa'l-silah; he said its isnad is sahih, Cited here)
A woman came to ask the Prophet (peace be upon him) about some matter, and when he had dealt with it, he asked
her, "Do you have a husband?" She said, "Yes." He asked her, "How are you with him?" She said, "I never fall short
in my duties, except for that which is beyond me." He said, "Pay attention to how you treat him, for he is your
Paradise and your Hell."13 (Reported by Ahmad and al-Nisa'i with jayyid isnads, and by al-Hakim, who said
that its isnad was sahih. See al-Mundhiri, Al-Targhib wa'l-Tarhib, 3/52, Kitab al-nikah, Cited here)

The following points enumerate the reasons why polyandry is prohibited in Islam:
1. If a man marries more than one wife, the parents of the children born of such marriages can easily be
identified. The father as well as the mother can easily be identified. In case of a woman marrying more than
one husband, only the mother of the children born of such marriages will be identified and not the father.
Islam gives tremendous importance to the identification of both parents, mother and father. Psychologists tell
us that children who do not know their parents, especially their father undergo severe mental trauma and
disturbances. Often they have an unhappy childhood. It is for this reason that the children of prostitutes do
not have a healthy childhood. If a child born of such wedlock is admitted in school, and when the mother is
- 106 -
asked the name of the father, she would have to give two or more names! I am aware that recent advances in
science have made it possible for both the mother and father to be identified with the help of genetic testing.
Thus this point was applicable for the past, and may not be applicable for the present.
Does living in a polygamous household have a psychological impact on children, especially young girls?
My Response:
The author did not explain why it would. Why does it have to be a polygamous household? Each wife has her own
separate house.

2. Man is more polygamous by nature as compared to a woman.
Man is sinful by nature, do we need to invent sinful institutions such as polygyny to rationalize our nature? Does
God accept one sin as being "less" than another sin?
My Response:
First you fail to show why it is a sin. Secondly, its not a sin according to your Bible. Third your God of the Bible
even permitted it! See Deuteronomy 21:15 and Exodus 21:10.

3. Biologically, it is easier for a man to perform his duties as a husband despite having several wives. A
woman, in a similar position, having several husbands, will not find it possible to perform her duties as a
wife.
I wished that Dr. Naik could have elaborated more on this point, it really does not make sense!
My Response:
Well men are more sexually active than women. It would not be possible for a woman to sexually gratify
more than husband. She also has her period in which men are prohibited to have sex with their wives. She
can't go and do all the chores for each husband such as cleaning the house, cooking for them, watching after
their kids etc. Men are physically stronger and more capable of handling more than one woman.

4. A woman who has more than one husband will have several sexual partners at the same time and has a
high chance of acquiring venereal or sexually transmitted diseases which can also be transmitted back to her
husband even if all of them have no extra-marital sex. This is less likely in a man having more than one
sexual partner, and none of them having extra-marital sex. The above reasons are those that one can easily
- 107 -
identify. There are probably many more reasons why Allah, in His Infinite Wisdom, has prohibited
polyandry.
This makes no sense at all. If these people lived in this arrangement with no extra-marital relations, by what vector
would venereal diseases be transmitted? How would any veneral disease enter this group with no sexual relations to
outside partners?
In conclusion, monogamy is God's plan for humanity. When we deviate from God's plan, we suffer. Pointing to the
practices of other polygamous societies does not provide a defense for the practice of polygamy in Islam. Justifying
the sin of polygyny, as a remedy for the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and fornication is absurd
My Response:
In conclusion you proved absolutely nothing. Your criticizing something that your own religion permits.
Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "On The

Philosophical Necessity of the Trinity Based On The
Attributes Of God"
by
Bassam Zawadi
The article could be located here.

Muslims often argue for the unity of God from the viewpoint that more than one God
would bring chaos and fighting between the gods.
This is true if we think of many separate gods, but Christians only believe in ONE God,
not many gods. But we believe that there is more "inner structure" to the Godhead that a
unitary one.
My Response:
No we don't, we argue that there is only true God just like how Jesus made it clear that
the Father is the only true God...
- 108 -
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and
Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
Therefore, when you call Jesus God you associate partners with God. That is our
problem. It is the problem of polytheism. Islam is a monotheistic faith. The trinity is not.
Christians THINK that they believe in one God but they really don't.

The following explanation is actually a very classical one used by St. Augustine in his
book "On the Trinity" [De Trinitate] in the 5th century.
We read in the Word of God, in 1 John 4:8 that "God is Love".
What are the necessary conditions that this can be a true statement?
For any event of "love" we do need the subject who loves, we need an object which is
loved, and we need an expression of this love in some way, i.e. an interaction between the
first two.
I cannot love when I am "just by myself". Focussing only on myself is egotism, not love.
Now, how can God BE Love if he was solitary in "unitary aloneness" from eternity past?
None of the attributes of God are dependent on his creation. If God could only start
loving after he had created us then his attribute of love would be dependent on us. He
would not be self-sufficient in his attributes. But if he is unitary as Muslims believe, then
love necessarily cannot be an attribute of his [nor can justice or mercy or any other
relational attribute] because he is not in any relationship for eternity before he creates.
If God is not relational, how would he come to the idea to create anything ? How would
he come to the desire to have an extension of his relationality beyond the Godhead if
relationality is not part of his nature/attributes?
No, we all believe God created and he communicates with his creation. God is a
communicator. God is love. But this can only be if he is love from eternity and hence
there must be some relationality and expression and exchange of love within God
himself.
- 109 -
That is where the trinity [or some kind of plurality] becomes philosophically necessary
for God. Yes there is one God only but this God is love and is relational. And hence there
needs to be "interaction of giving and receiving within the Godhead". That is why we
need something like the Trinity.
Augustine then says that Father and Son are eternally in love with each other, giving and
receiving, and that the Spirit is maybe like the personalization of this 'dynamic
relationship', the transporting the love of the one to the other.
Note again: This is a model, an analogy again. No analogy is perfect. But think about it,
and let me know how you think God can have relational attributes if he was a solitary
unity from eternity past.
My Response:
Allah describes himself in the Quran as all loving...
Surah 85:14
and He is the All-forgiving, the All-loving
Answering Islam said...
God is love. But this can only be if he is love from eternity and hence there must be some
relationality and expression and exchange of love within God himself.
This logic is very weak. Because then I could argue the following:-
There was no one for the Unitarian God to love in the beginning and therefore he
was not All Loving. But also, there was no one for God to forgive before he created
us, so that also means that God is not All Forgiving!
Anyone can see this fallacious argument crumbling already. Are Christians trying to also
say that since God is triune then that means that each member of the God head forgave
the other so that God could be All Forgiving? Of course not. For someone to be forgiven
he would have had to commit a sin right? Well does any member of the Godhead commit
sins? Christian will respond back and say no.
- 110 -
Answering Islam said...
For any event of "love" we do need the subject who loves, we need an object which is
loved, and we need an expression of this love in some way, i.e. an interaction between the
first two.
Similarly:-
For any event of "forgiveness" we do need the subject who forgives, we need an
object which is forgiven, and we need an expression of this forgiveness in some way,
i.e. an interaction between the first two.
I could also argue that God was not a creator before he created anything (1). I could also
argue that God was not many things before he created anything if I were to use this
fallacious and illogical missionary way of thinking.
SO JUST BECAUSE GOD DID NOT EXHIBIT OR IMPLEMENT HIS ATTRIBUTES

BEFORE HIS CREATION THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE DID NOT HAVE
THOSE ATTRIBUTES. SO JUST BECAUSE GOD HAD NO CREATION TO LOVE
BEFORE HE CREATED THEM THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE DID NOT
HAVE THE ATTRIBUTE OF BEING ALL LOVING. IT IS JUST THAT HE DID NOT
EXHIBIT OR IMPLEMENT IT YET.

[This was a very quick and sketchy few paragraphes, any of my Christian brothers and
sisters who would like to improve on this, is most welcome to do so. Just send me the
article and I will put it up.]
My Response:
It is very obvious that you wrote it quickly. Because you did not even think about what
you were saying.
Appendix
- 111 -
Sam Shamoun wrote two separate articles in response to mine. The first one could be
found here
http://www.answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/zawadi_allah_needs_sinners.htm
Sam Shamoun quotes some hadith from Sahih Muslim and then concludes that the hadith
say that Allah MUST create human sinners in order to display his attribute of
forgiveness.
This is absurd; the hadith in no way says that God needed to create sinners. First of all,
God has the power to forgive and it is His gift to us. He does not lose anything or gain
anything from His Kingdom if people were to reject Him for He is not in need of us. The
following hadith makes this clear...
Narrated Abi Dhar:

Allaah, the Exalted, says, "My servants, all of you are misguided except
whoever I have guided, so ask Me for guidance and I will guide you. And
all of you are poor except whoever I have made rich, so ask Me for
sustenance. All of you are sinners except whoever I have pardoned, so
whoever of you knows that I possess the power of forgiveness, then
asked Me for forgiveness, then I have forgiven him, and I do not
mind. And if the first of you and the last of you and your living and your
dead and your strong and your weak were all to unite on the heart of the
most pious slave of My slaves, this would not have added to My
kingdom the wing of a mosquito. And if the first of you and the last of
you and your living and your dead and your strong and your weak were all
to unite on the heart of the most wretched slave of My slaves, this would
not have subtracted from My kingdom the wing of a mosquito. And if the
first of you and the last of you and your living and your dead and your
strong and your weak were all to come together in one clearing, then each
person of you asked for what would fulfill his desires, then I gave to each
asker of you what he asked for, this would not have diminished My
kingdom except as if one of you passed by the sea then dipped a
needle into it then lifted it to himself. This is because I am Generous
(jawwaad), Exalted, I do whatever I wish. My gift is nothing but My
command, My punishment is nothing but My command. Rather, My
command to something if I willed it is to say 'Be', so it becomes."(At-
tirmidhi, Kitaab Sifat Al-Qiyaama wa Ar-raqaa'iq wal-war3, Number
2419: A reference is found in the following hadeeth which al-
Uthaimeen says is hasan:, Source)
The reason God creates human sinners is so that they can come back and repent to Allah,
for Allah loves those who repent...
Saheeh Muslim
- 112 -
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as

saying: Allah is more pleased with the repentance of His servant when he
turns penitently towards Him than one of you would be on finding the lost
camel.
So Shamoun needs to stop adding his false interpretation to the text of the hadith.
The Qur'an makes it absolutely clear that Allah is in no need of His creation and wants...
Surah 14:8
And Moses said: "If ye show ingratitude, ye and all on earth together, yet is God free of
all wants, worthy of all praise.
Surah 64:6
That was because there came to them their Messengers with clear proofs (signs), but they
said: "Shall mere men guide us?" So they disbelieved and turned away (from the truth),
and Allah was not in need (of them). And Allah is Rich (Free of all wants), Worthy of
all praise.
Surah 3:97
In it are clear signs, the standing place of Ibrahim, and whoever enters it shall be secure,
and pilgrimage to the House is incumbent upon men for the sake of Allah, (upon) every
one who is able to undertake the journey to it; and whoever disbelieves, then surely
Allah is Self-sufficient, above any need of the worlds.
Surah 35:15
O mankind! it is you who stand in need of Allah, but Allah is Rich (Free of all wants
and needs), Worthy of all praise.
It even comes in a qudsi hadith...
Allah (SWT) said: Ì am so self-sufficient that I am in no need of having an associate.

Thus he who does an action for someone else's sake as well as Mine shall have that action
renounced by Me to the one whom he associated with Me." (Sahih Muslim, 18/115,
Kitab al-zuhd, bab tahrim al-riya', cited here)
Allah is clearly in no need of an associate, however Shamoun believes that God does
need an associate to love from eternity. This shows how weak Shamoun's concept of God
is.
- 113 -
As for Shamoun's second article, which could be found here
http://www.answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/zawadi_trinity_love.htm
Shamoun says...
For instance, being able to create doesn't necessitate a relationship

between two parties. After all, God doesn't have to create something in
order to be all-powerful or self-sufficient since his ability to create doesn't
depend on the existence of more than one entity. It merely depends on his
having enough power to create whatever he pleases.
I never said that God was not eternally All Powerful, but that He is not eternally having
the title of "The Creator" if we were to remain consistent. That means that before
creation, it would be incorrect of us to say that God was "The Creator". But then in this
way you're denying that God is "The Creator" from all eternity, which is false. Shamoun
fails to escape my refutation.
He continues on to say...
Yet forgiveness is not required for God to be perfectly loving provided

that those he loves are living in perfect union and fellowship with him. It
is only when such persons sin that God would need to show forgiveness,
provided that he does love them. Thus, Zawadi's counter-arguments fall to
the ground and fail to refute anything.
Just as forgiveness is not a requirement for God to exhibit and can choose to do so when
He wills, similarly with love God can choose to exhibit His attribute of love whenever He
wills. I challenge Shamoun to show me a single verse from the Bible that says that God
was exhibiting His attribute of love even before creation. He cannot. Why is it that God
can choose to exhibit his attribute of forgiveness and ability to create at a specific point in
time but that He has to exhibit His attribute of love from eternity? The statement "God is
love" does not prove that God was exhibiting his attribute of love before creation. It
means that He is the source of love and his love is infinite in abundance. The Bible also
says that God is a merciful God (Deuteronomy 4:31) but whom was He being merciful to
before creation? Does that mean that he was not eternally Merciful? Of course not. He
had the attribute but just never exhibited it. The same thing is with love.
Christians are not being consistent in their arguments; therefore they need to drop it.
After quoting the following forged hadith...
3. Allah says, "I was a hidden treasure, and I wished to be known, so I created a creation
(mankind), then made Myself known to them, and they recognised Me." (Source)
- 114 -
Shamoun says...
Thus, here we find additional corroboration that Allah was in dire need of
creatures that could love and worship him! Allah is clearly not like the
God of the Holy Bible in this regard, and in many other aspects as well.
This is absolutely absurd. Nowhere does the forged hadith even say that God NEEDED
to be known but WISHED to be known. Shamoun needs to stop twisting the meaning of
statements.
1) Orthodox Muslims believe that Allah has been creating from eternity since creation is
one of His attributes. We believe that God has created his creation from eternity but
creation came into being later on at some point in time. I am only using this argument
because Christians don't believe that God was creating from eternity and I am only
pointing out their inconsistencies.
Muhammad And Execution On Suspicion
Narrated Salama bin Al-Akwa:
"An infidel spy came to the Prophet while he was on a journey. The spy sat with
the companions of the Prophet and started talking and then went away. The
Prophet said (to his companions), 'Chase and kill him.' So, I killed him." The
Prophet then gave him the belongings of the killed spy (in addition to his share of
the war booty).
Seemingly, there was no trial, no attempt to find out whether he really was a spy or if he
had any other reason to leave. There was suspicion from Muhammad, and the command
to kill him based on that suspicion.
Is that just judgement based on knowledge of truth? Is it just to condemn and execute
people without giving them the right to speak for themselves first and explain?
Refuting Answering Islam's Article "Muhammad And

Execution On Suspicion"
- 115 -
by
Bassam Zawadi
Answering Islam's article could be accessed here
This took place during the time of the Battle of Hawazin.
The fact that the Prophet just ordered the killing of this man only based on suspicion is a lie. Why would the Prophet
do such a thing? It has been narrated that a man told the Prophet that the individual was a spy. He must have
recognized him by seeing him with the enemy tribe. Indeed after the man was killed it was discovered that the man
was indeed a spy. The Prophet would not have just simply ordered the killing of this man for absolutely no reason.
We were not there at the time to know exactly how the Muslims knew this man was a spy, but they knew. There is
no proof to charge the Prophet with cold blooded murder of an innocent person. Answering Islam titled their article
saying that Prophet Muhammad ordered the killing of the individual only based on suspicion. Yet, they provide no
proof for such an assertion.
The complete commentary of this hadith can be accessed here.
ANSWERING ISLAM SAYS……
Bukhari 5.638).
Curses of Muhammad
Muhammad cursed some of the people around him, and he was also cursed by his
enemies.
The Prophet faced the Ka'ba and invoked evil on some people of Quraish, on Shaiba bin
Rabi'a, 'Utba bin Rabi'a, Al-Walid bin 'Utba and Abu Jahl bin Hisham. I bear witness, by
Allah, that I saw them all dead, putrefied by the sun as that day was a very hot day.
(Sahih Bukhari 5.297)
"A Jew had thrown a curse on the Prophet of God, as a result the Prophet kept forgetting
and became absent minded. Then God sent him these two Surahs (113, 114) to break the
curse." (Mohammed Farid Wagdi, in his analysis of Surat Al-Nas and Al-Falaq chapter
113 and 114)
These stories are almost certainly the basis of some superstition in folk Islam (see for
example, Muawwdhatan for more details). Note: The suras that were like charms were
rejected by some of the companions of Muhammad, most notably ibn Masùd, who had
his own compilation of the Qur'an. The story behind those verses certainly raise a
theological question about the power and unity of Allah. Were the breaking of the curse
- 116 -
the result of the Qur'anic verses, or Allah? Recall that Muslims believed that the Qur'an
was uncreated, and yet not Allah himself, so from whence does the power come from? If
Allah gave it that power, then the Qur'an did not exist in the same state before this event,
which means that a new creation was made. If it had been in the same state (in harmony
with its uncreated state), then it was not by Allah that the curse was broken. If the Qur'an
were changing, then it had to be living by virtue of its uncreation, which means there
were two beings that were uncreated -- Allah and the Qur'an. If the breaking of the curse
had no relation to the two suras, then it is a sad truth that many Muslims through the ages
had been misled.
see also curses.
Muhammad and Satan
See this separate entry.
Was anyone called Muhammad before him?
Some Muslims assert that no Arabs were called by the name Muhammad before the
Prophet of Islam, Muhammad b. Abdullah. This, however, is not true. In the year of the
Elephant, a man by the name of Muhammad b. Khuzaì b. Khuzaba al-Dhakwani, al-
Sulami, and his brother Qays, went to Abraha, king of Yaman. He was made amir of
Mudar and was later killed, and this led to the campaign of the Elephant. (Ibn Ishaq, Life
of Muhammad, tr. Guillaume, 1967, p. 22-23). Sura 105 of the Qur'an was named "The
Elephant" after this incident. Muhammad b. Abdullah, was supposedly born in that year.
Was Muhammad illiterate?
Muslims believe that Muhammad was illiterate, on the basis that the Qur'an gave him the
title "an-nabi al-ummi" (al-A`raf 7:157-158; al-Jumàh 62:2), nowadays commonly
translated "The Unlettered Prophet", a translation suggested by Kenneth Cragg. In the
story concerning the incident in the cave of Hira, when told to read, Muslims translate
Muhammad's response to "I do not know how to read."
However, the following hadiths suggest that Muhammad did know how to read.
Narrated Yazid ibn Abdullah:
We were at Mirbad. A man with dishevelled hair and holding a piece of red skin in his
hand came.
We said: You appear to be a bedouin. He said: Yes. We said: Give us this piece of skin in
your hand. He then gave it to us and we read it. It contained the text: "From Muhammad,
Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), to Banu Zuhayr ibn Uqaysh. If you bear witness
that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah, offer prayer,
pay zakat, pay the fifth from the booty, and the portion of the Prophet
- 117 -
(peace_be_upon_him) and his special portion (safi), you will be under by the protection
of Allah and His Apostle."
We then asked: Who wrote this document for you? He replied: THE APOSTLE OF
ALLAH (peace_be_upon_him). (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2993)
Narrated Al-Bara:
When the Prophet went out for the 'Umra in the month of Dhal-Qa'da, the people of
Mecca did not allow him to enter Mecca till he agreed to conclude a peace treaty with
them by virtue of which he would stay in Mecca for three days only (in the following
year). When the agreement was being written, the Muslims wrote: "This is the peace
treaty, which Muhammad, Apostle of Allah has concluded."
The infidels said (to the Prophet), "We do not agree with you on this, for if we knew that
you are Apostle of Allah we would not have prevented you for anything (i.e. entering
Mecca, etc.), but you are Muhammad, the son of 'Abdullah." Then he said to 'Ali, "Erase
(the name of) 'Apostle of Allah'." 'Ali said, "No, by Allah, I will never erase you (i.e.
your name)." Then Allah's Apostle took the writing sheet...and he did not know a
better writing..and he wrote or got it the following written: "This is the peace treaty
which Muhammad, the son of 'Abdullah, has concluded: "Muhammad should not bring
arms into Mecca except sheathed swords, and should not take with him any person of the
people of Mecca even if such a person wanted to follow him, and if any of his
companions wants to stay in Mecca, he should not forbid him." (excerpt from Sahih
Bukhari 5.553)
Narrated 'Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with 'Aisha while she was six years old and
consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with
him for nine years (i.e. till his death). (Sahih Bukhari 7.88)
Narrated Anas bin Malik :

Once the Prophet wrote a letter or had an idea of writing a letter. The Prophet was
told that they (rulers) would not read letters unless they were sealed. So the Prophet got a
silver ring made with "Muhammad Allah's Apostle" engraved on it. As if I were just
observing its white glitter in the hand of the Prophet ... (Sahih Bukhari 1.65)
Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "When the ailment of the Prophet became worse, he said, 'Bring for me
(writing) paper and I will write for you a statement after which you will not go astray.'
But 'Umar said, 'The Prophet is seriously ill, and we have got Allah's Book with us and
that is sufficient for us.' But the companions of the Prophet differed about this and there
was a hue and cry. On that the Prophet said to them, 'Go away (and leave me alone). It is
not right that you should quarrel in front of me." Ibn 'Abbas came out saying, "It was
most unfortunate (a great disaster) that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing
that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise. (Sahih Bukhari
1.114) [One really has to ask why is it so unfortunate if Muhammad doesn't know to read and write]
- 118 -
Narrated Said bin Jubair:
Ibn 'Abbas said, "Thursday! What (great thing) took place on Thursday!" Then he started
weeping till his tears wetted the gravels of the ground . Then he said, "On Thursday the
illness of Allah's Apostle was aggravated and he said, "Fetch me writing materials so that
I may have something written to you after which you will never go astray." The people
(present there) differed in this matter and people should not differ before a prophet. They
said, "Allah's Apostle is seriously sick.' The Prophet said, "Let me alone, as the state in
which I am now, is better than what you are calling me for." The Prophet on his death-
bed, gave three orders saying, "Expel the pagans from the Arabian Peninsula, respect and
give gifts to the foreign delegates as you have seen me dealing with them." I forgot the
third (order)" (Ya'qub bin Muhammad said, "I asked Al-Mughira bin 'Abdur-Rahman
about the Arabian Peninsula and he said, 'It comprises Mecca, Medina, Al-Yama-ma and
Yemen." Ya'qub added, "And Al-Arj, the beginning of Tihama.") (Sahih Bukhari 4.288)
Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Thursday! And how great that Thursday was! The ailment of Allah's Apostle became
worse (on Thursday) and he said, fetch me something so that I may write to you
something after which you will never go astray." The people (present there) differed in
this matter, and it was not right to differ before a prophet. Some said, "What is wrong
with him ? (Do you think ) he is delirious (seriously ill)? Ask him ( to understand his
state )." So they went to the Prophet and asked him again. The Prophet said, "Leave me,
for my present state is better than what you call me for." Then he ordered them to do
three things. He said, "Turn the pagans out of the 'Arabian Peninsula; respect and give
gifts to the foreign delegations as you have seen me dealing with them." (Said bin Jubair,
the sub-narrator said that Ibn Abbas kept quiet as rewards the third order, or he said, "I
forgot it.") (See Hadith No. 116 Vol. 1) (Sahih Bukhari 5.716)
Narrated Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:

Ibn Abbas said, "When Allah's Apostle was on his deathbed and there were some men in
the house, he said, 'Come near, I will write for you something after which you will not
go astray.' Some of them ( i.e. his companions) said, 'Allah's Apostle is seriously ill and
you have the (Holy) Quran. Allah's Book is sufficient for us.' So the people in the house
differed and started disputing. Some of them said, 'Give him writing material so that he
may write for you something after which you will not go astray.' while the others said
the other way round. So when their talk and differences increased, Allah's Apostle said,
"Get up." Ibn Abbas used to say, "No doubt, it was very unfortunate (a great disaster) that
Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing for them that writing because of their
differences and noise." (Sahih Bukhari 5.717)
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people
among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you
a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill
and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in
the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write
for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar
said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go
away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that
- 119 -
Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their
disagreement and noise." (Sahih Bukhari 7.573)
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

When the time of the death of the Prophet approached while there were some men in the
house, and among them was 'Umar bin Al-Khatttab, the Prophet said, "Come near let me
write for you a writing after which you will never go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet
is seriously ill, and you have the Quran, so Allah's Book is sufficient for us." The people
in the house differed and disputed. Some of them said, "Come near so that Allah's
Apostle may write for you a writing after which you will not go astray," while some of
them said what 'Umar said. When they made much noise and differed greatly before the
Prophet, he said to them, "Go away and leave me." Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was a great
disaster that their difference and noise prevented Allah's Apostle from writing that
writing for them. (Sahih Bukhari 9.468)
Narrated Said bin Jubair:

that he heard Ibn 'Abbas saying, "Thursday! And you know not what Thursday is? After
that Ibn 'Abbas wept till the stones on the ground were soaked with his tears. On that I
asked Ibn 'Abbas, "What is (about) Thursday?" He said, "When the condition (i.e. health)
of Allah's Apostle deteriorated, he said, 'Bring me a bone of scapula, so that I may
write something for you after which you will never go astray.'The people differed in
their opinions although it was improper to differ in front of a prophet, They said, 'What is
wrong with him? Do you think he is delirious? Ask him (to understand). The Prophet
replied, 'Leave me as I am in a better state than what you are asking me to do.' Then the
Prophet ordered them to do three things saying, 'Turn out all the pagans from the Arabian
Peninsula, show respect to all foreign delegates by giving them gifts as I used to do.' "
The sub-narrator added, "The third order was something beneficial which either Ibn
'Abbas did not mention or he mentioned but I forgot.' (Sahih Bukhari 4.393, also Ibn
Sa'd's biography, Vol. II, p. 302)
It is apparent that, even though the hadiths have slight variations, upon the authority and
witness of ibn Àbbas, they all indicated that Muhammad wanted to write at his
deathbed. In fact, that some of the onlookers agreed to give him writing materials for him
to write indicates that he must know how to write. If it were not the case, the response
clearly was quite meaningless. Had Muhammad been illiterate, he would have asked for
scribes so that he can dictate to them.
Similarly, if Muhammad was illiterate, his writings will be unintelligible anyway, so why
did ibn 'Abbas regret that Muhammad was prevented from writing? There is a contrary
hadith where Ibn 'Abbas used to say when narrating the Hadith that he had not witnessed
the event personally (see Fath Al-Bari Vol. 1, p.220 footnote, See Hadith No. 228, Vol.
4), but the overwhelming number of hadiths indicate that he was there.
Others argue, not very convincingly, that "write" can also include "dictate".
Some Muslims pointed out concerning during the first meeting between Muhammad and
Gabriel,
- 120 -
Gabriel came to the prophet and said, "Iqra'" [read]. The Prophet in reply said, "I cannot
read" ("Maa ana bikaarin"). Gabriel once again said, "Iqra'" [Read]. And once again the
Beloved Prophet replied, "I cannot read" ("maa ana bikaarin") Gabriel said for a third
time, "Iqra'" [Read]. Once again the prophet replied, "I cannot read" ("Maa ana
bikaarin"). Then Gabriel said, "Iqraa bismi Rabbikalladhee khalaq" [Read in the name of
your Lord who created]. And the Prophet read "Iqraa bismi Rabbikalladhee khalaq".
that the translation of "Maa an bikaarin" into "I cannot read" is an open breaking of the
rules of Arabic. The question is asked that how was it that, Muhammad was unable to
read a single word (Iqra') three times, and all of a sudden, he was able to read five words
without hesistation. Some Muslims say that this sort of translation is inconsistant and
wrong and that the correct meaning of the prophet's reply should have been "I will not
read." He did not read the single word, Iqra', but read the five words, "Iqra bismi
Rabbikalladhee khalaq" because the name of his Lord was mentioned.
Incidentally, the reciters of the Qur'an are called "qara", from the same root word, and it
does not at all mean that they are literate, since a reciter can do it through rote-learning
without actually knowing how to read.
Some Muslims also quote from Isaiah 29:12 as a proof that the Bible prophesied about
Muhammad being illiterate. However, the context of that passage is:
10 The LORD has brought over you a deep sleep: He has sealed your eyes (the prophets);
he has covered your heads (the seers).
11 For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. And if you give the
scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I
can't; it is sealed."
12 Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, "Read this, please," he
will answer, "I don't know how to read."
13 The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with
their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of
rules taught by men. (Isaiah 29:10-13)
Clearly, the "someone" in v. 12 does not refer to a definite person, but any person who
can read in v. 11 and any person who cannot read in v.12. Also, the "you" in v. 12 was
not the angel Gabriel, but the same "you" in vv. 10 and 11. v.13 clearly shows that the
people refered to in vv. 11-12 are those who "honor [God] with their lips, but their hearts
are far from me [Him]. Their worship of me [God] is made up only of rules taught by
man. If Muslims claim that v. 12 refers to Muhammad, then v. 13 must also apply to him,
which means that his worship of God was just man-taught (in this case, either through the
Jews and Christians he encountered, or formed through his own ideas). Therefore, if the
Bible did indeed prophesy about Muhammad's illiteracy, it also clearly prophesied that
his idea of God was man-made.
Khalifites, on the other hand, believe that Muhammad was not illiterate, but that he,
together with other writers, wrote down the Qur'an after it was revealed. They argue that
since the first revelation to Muhammad was "READ" (al-Àlaq 96:1-4) and the second
- 121 -
was the "PEN" (al-Qalam 68:1), it is inconceivable that he should tell his followers to
learn to read, but he himself continued in illiteracy. See, for example, this article.
As for the word "ummi", it was used six times in the Qur'an as a term for those who are
not Jews and Christians. In particular, in Âl 'Imran 3:20, the word "ummi" (translated
"those who read not" by Pickthall, "unlearned" by Yusuf Ali, Shari, Sher Ali, "those who
did not (received scriptures) by Rashad Khalifa) is used to describe the Meccan idol
worshippers, in contrast to those who had received the scriptures. Also in Âl 'Imran 3:75,
the contrast is again between those who have the scriptures and the ummiyeen. Those
who had received scriptures were the Jews and the Christians, and thus "ummi" is in a
loose sense, gentile (not the usual meaning of "non-Jews", but "those without
scriptures"). In al-Jumàh 62:2, a messenger was sent among the unlettered ones
(ummiyeen). In al-Baqarah 2:78, it is "Among them are unlettered folk who know the
Scripture not except from hearsay. They but guess."
It was also pointed out that Arabs used letters as numbers and if Muhammad was a
successful merchant, he ought to know this number system. This system was replaced by
the "Arabic numerals" in the 9th century, adapted from the Indians. The first revelation,
which starts with "Read" (Recite) clearly encourages reading, and if Muhammad remain
illiterate for the 23 years that he was supposed to receive revelation, that is quite
unthinkable.
As seen above, many traditions showed that Muhammad most likely knew how to read
and write. As a result, Muslims have tried to reconcile these by saying that Muhammad
learned to read and write later in his life. See here for more discussion. Also, see
Ignorance and Illiteracy.
Did Muhammad perform miracles?
The Qur'an says that Allah did not give Muhammad power to perform miracles (al-
Anàm 6:109-112; bani Isra'il 17:92-97; al-Kahf 18:10; al-Ànkabut 29:49-50), that he
was a mortal like anyone else (Ha Mim Sajdah 41:6) and that he was an ordinary man,
(bani Isra'il 17:90-96).
Nonetheless, many Muslim Traditions speak of Muhammad performing many different

miracles. These included :
1. water for about 80 people to perform ablution (Sahih Bukhari 1.170, Sahih
Bukhari 1.194, also Sahih Bukhari 1.199)
2. water for a whole army of 1500 as narrated by Jabir (in Bukhari and Muslim), and
the whole miracle occurred more than once.
3. water during travel, Sahih Bukhari 1.340
4. moaning of trunk when Muhammad gave a sermon away from it, and Muhammad
embraced it to calm it down, which was later buried. (Abu Awanah and Ibn
Khuzaima).
5. curing the eye of Qatadah ibn an-Nu'man which felled out in the battle of Uhud,
and Muhammad was supposed to have put it back in place (al-Bayhaqiyy).
- 122 -
6. curing Ali of an eye trouble, Sahih Bukhari 5.51
7. comforted a camel who was overworked and underfed (ibn Shahin).
8. splitting the moon into two and seen by the Quraish. (Sahih Bukhari vol 6, no
387).
9. stone saluting Muhammad when he passed by it.
10. two trees responded when he called them. In another instance, a tree witnessed
that he is a prophet.
11. a tree's branch turning into a sword for Abdullah ibn Jahsh in the battle of Uhud.
12. food praising God when Muhammad held it. A piece of meat given by a Jew told
him that it was poisonous.
13. multiplying of food.
14. met with Gabriel
15. ascended into heaven
16. prophesied.
17. casting out demons
18. enable Abu Huraira to remember hadiths without forgetting anything, see ABU
HURAIRA.
which clearly contradict the Qur'an verse (note: items 14-16 are not usually associated
with miracles). If these miracles occurred before those verses were revealed, then it
seems odd that the verse should say no power was given for performing them. On the
other hand, if these miracles occurred after the revelations, then clearly the revelation of
Allah failed to account for a future event. If the hadiths of Muhammad's miracles were
not true, this casts a great doubt on many other details of Muhammad's life, since even
the two sahihs (supposedly the most authentic of the traditions) recorded some of them.
Did Muhammad keep slaves and concubines?
There has been much controversy about whether Muhammad had kept concubines. It is
pretty certain that he had kept slaves. Even before his ministry, Khadija gave him Zaid,
whom he later freed and adopted as his son (which is not legal in Islam).
Some contend that among his women, Maria the Copt was his concubine but not his wife,
but others vehemently defend that indeed she was his wife.
The incident of Muhammad's marriage to one Safiyaa,
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet stayed for three days at a place between Khaibar and Medina, and there he
consummated his marriage with Safiyya bint Huyay. I invited the Muslims to a banquet
which included neither meat nor bread. The Prophet ordered for the leather dining sheets
to be spread, and then dates, dried yogurt and butter were provided over it, and that was
the Walima (banquet) of the Prophet. The Muslims asked whether Safiyya would be
considered as his wife or as a slave girl of what his right hands possessed. Then they
said, "If the Prophet screens her from the people, then she is the Prophet's wife but if he
does not screen her, then she is a slave girl." So when the Prophet proceeded, he made a
place for her (on the camel) behind him and screened her from people. (Sahih Bukhari
7.89)
- 123 -
which was reported in many places in Bukhari and other traditions, is very interesting.
Even though it was clear that it was a marriage between Muhammad and Safiyaa bint
Huyay, a Christian captured by Muhammad and whose husband was killed, it was not
clear to the believers whether she would become a real wife or just another slave girl (yet
in marriage. This can mean only concubine). Suffice it to say that if Muhammad did not
keep slaves nor concubines, such a question need never be asked among his believers.
Interestingly, this hadith throws light that even marriage doesn't mean that a women
becomes a wife with all the privileges (if any) of being one. It is also clear that slavery
was sanctioned. In fact, Muhammad himself kept slaves, and also sold his enemies into
slavery after defeating them. For example, the men of Banu Qurayza were massacred,
and the women and children sold as slaves.
Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children of B. Qurayza among the
Muslims, and he made known on that day the shares of horse and men, and took out the
fifth. [1/5 of all booty in all raids/wars was the personal property of Muhammad.] ...
Then the apostle sent Sa`d b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of b. Àbdu'l-Ashhal with some of
the captive women of B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.
[page 466] (What really happened with the Banu Qurayza? quoting the ibn Hisham's
"Life of Muhammad", tr. Guillaume).
see also Behind the Veil, Chapter 5.
Did the Bible prophesy about Muhammad?
see also AHMAD.
Muslims believed that Muhammad was prophesied in the Bible. Hence, some Muslim
theologians have written treatises that dealt with these "prophecies":
• Isaiah 9:6:
"Unto us a child is born, and unto us a son is given, whose government is on his
shoulder." .. In Hebrew it is said "The sign of prophecy [1] is on his shoulder."
This what the Muslims call "The seal of prophecy." This is, therefore, a clear
allusion to the portraiture of the Prophet -- may God bless and save him -- and a
reference to his face and his moles. (Ali Tabari, trans. Mingana, pp. 95) (See also
Seal of Prophethood).
The translators says in the footnotes [1]: "The Hebrew also has 'government' [then
the hebrew word for government])"
• Isaiah 10:
"Thou wilt come from the country of the South [1], from a remote country, and
from the land of the desert, hastening and passing through like tempests and
stroms from the winds. We have seen a grievous and and dreadful vision; the
- 124 -
treacherous dealer dealeth treacherously and the spoiler spoileth. Go up, O
mountains of Elam, and mountains of Media [2]. All the object of your desire and
of your dispute hath ceased...." (Ali Tabari, pp. 95-96)
The translator says in footnotes: "The author is playing here on the Arabic word
tayammana, meaning to go to Yaman, or in the direction of the right hand, ie. for
the Northern Arabs: Yamanwards or southwards." [Unfortunately, the book of
Isaiah was written in Hebrew.]
• Isaiah 24:16-18
"We have heard, from the ends of the earth, the voice of Muhammad." (Ali
Tabari, pp. 98)
The translator says in footnotes: "There is no such thing in the Hebrew Massoretic
text. The only difference between the Syraic and Hebrew texts is that the former
has 'the force of the righteous,' while the latter exhibits 'glory to the righteous.'"
• Isaiah 16: (or Isaiah 35:1-2?)
"Let the inhabitants of the arid desert rejoice, and let the wilderness and the desrt
be glad; let them blossom like the autumn goat, because they will be given by
Ahmad the glory of Lebanon...." (Ali Tabari, pp. 99)
The translator says in the footnotes: "The Syriac is simply 'And in glory it (ie. the
desert) will be given the honour of Lebanon.'"
• Isaiah 20 (or Isaiah 41:8-16)
"..Thou shalt do likewise; thou shalt make the mountains low and thresh them,
and thou shalt make the towns and the hills as chaff that winds carry away and
whirlwinds shall scatter; and thou shalt rejoice then and rest in the Lord, and
become Muhammad in the Holy One of Israel." (Ali Tabari, pp. 102)
The translator says in footnotes: "Syr. 'Thou shalt be glorified.'"
• Psalm 48:1
on the phrase "In His mountain there is a Holy One and a Muhammad." "This
mention by name is sufficient for the man not overcome by his stupidity, and the
period of whose aberration is not lengthened....If a sophist quibbles and says that
the saying of the Most High God "O Muhammad, O Holy One," refers to the
"dwellings" which He had mentioned, the Syriac text would contradict him,
because if "dwellings" were intended, it would have exhbited "Holy Ones and
Muhammads," and it would not have said "Holy One and Muhammad." (Ali
Tabari, pp. 115-116)
- 125 -
The translator says in the footnotes: "Strictly speaking, The Syriac text yields the
interpretation given to it by the author, because the word meaning 'dwelling'
(mediara) is, as he says, in singular; but the Hebrew text, by having suffix-
pronoun in the second member of the status constructus, renders 'Ali's
interpretation improbable."
• Psalm 48:1-2
"Great is our Lord, and He is greatly Mahmud; and in the city of our God and in
His mountain, there is a Holy One and Muhammad; and the joy hath come to the
whole earth." (Ali Tabari, pp. 88:
The translator said in the footnotes: "A not very natural rendering of a Syriac
sentence meaning 'In the city of our God and in His holy and glorious mountain.'
Strictly speaking, however, it can have the meaning given to it by the author."
• Psalm 50:2-3
"God hath shown from Zion a Mahmud crown. God then shall come and shall not
be idle; and fires shall devour before Him, and they shall be very tempestous
round about Him." (Ali Tabari, trans. Mingana, pp. 88-89)
• John 14,
see Paraclete and Periklutos
It is clear Ali Tabari was using the Syraic translation in his treatise instead of using
Hebrew, the original language of most of the Old Testament. That, in itself, rendered
much of his arguments invalid.
Muhammad does not only claim the existence of prophecies about himself in the Jewish
and Christian Scriptures, but inserts into the Qur'an a prayer of Abraham at the Kaaba, of
which he considers himself to be the answer:
"Our Lord! send amongst them a Messenger of their own, who shall rehearse Thy
Signs to them and instruct them in scripture and wisdom, and sanctify them: For
Thou art the Exalted in Might, the Wise." (al-Baqarah 2:129)
Lo! those of mankind who have the best claim to Abraham are those who
followed him, and this Prophet and those who believe (with him); and Allah is
the Protecting Guardian of the believers. (Âl 'Imran 3:68)
A thorough discussion of Muhammad's understanding of his own role is found in Arthur

Jeffery's The Qur'an as Scripture, Part II.
- 126 -
Prayers of Muhammad
The prayers of Muhammad are interesting as they provide insights into his mind. In
particular, he prayed for
• his sins to be cleansed,
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle used to keep silent between the Takbir and the recitation of Qur'an
and that interval of silence used to be a short one. I said to the Prophet "May my
parents be sacrificed for you! What do you say in the pause between Takbir and
recitation?" The Prophet said, "I say, 'Allahumma, ba'id baini wa baina khatayaya
kama ba'adta baina-l-mashriqi wa-l-maghrib. Allahumma, naqqim min
khatayaya kama yunaqqa-ththawbu-l-abyadu mina-ddanas. Allahumma, ighsil
khatayaya bil-ma'i wa-th-thalji wal-barad (O Allah! Set me apart from my sins
(faults) as the East and West are set apart from each other and clean me from sins
as a white garment is cleaned of dirt (after thorough washing). O Allah! Wash off
my sins with water, snow and hail.)" (Sahih Bukhari 1.711)
God gave this assurance,
"Come now, let us reason together," says the LORD. "Though your sins are like
scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall
be like wool. (Isaiah 1:18)
• himself to escape punishment in the grave,
Narrated Masruq:
'Aisha said that a Jewess came to her and mentioned the punishment in the grave,
saying to her, "May Allah protect you from the punishment of the grave." 'Aisha
then asked Allah's Apostle about the punishment of the grave. He said, "Yes,
(there is) punishment in the grave." 'Aisha added, "After that I never saw Allah's
Apostle but seeking refuge with Allah from the punishment in the grave in every
prayer he prayed." (Sahih Bukhari 2.454, Sahih Bukhari 2.458)
This incident also showed that Muhammad may not have been very conscious
about the punishment of the grave, but when reminded of this by the Jewess,
Muhammad was afraid and kept praying for himself to escape its punishment.
However, this raises a question: if Muhamamd is faultless, as Muslims believed
him to be, why does he need to be afraid about punishment?
Narrated Abu Huraira :

Allah's Apostle used to invoke (Allah): "Allahumma ini a'udhu bika min 'adhabi-
l-Qabr, wa min 'adhabi-nnar, wa min fitnati-l-mahya wa-lmamat, wa min fitnati-
l-masih ad-dajjal. (O Allah! I seek refuge with you from the punishment in the
grave and from the punishment in the Hell fire and from the afflictions of life and
- 127 -
death, and the afflictions of Al-Masih Ad-Dajjal (i.e. Anti-Christ)." (Sahih
Bukhari 2.459)
• non-believing Uncle who raised him, but he was not allowed (at-Taubah 9:113).
This showed that Muhammad did things that he wasn't sure about and had to be
reprimanded later. see also ABU TALIB.
• admonished for
o avoiding sex with wives due to problems with them, at-Tahrim 66:1
o hiding a particular revelation, al-Ahzab 33:37
o tempted by Quraysh to compromise the message, bani Isra'il 17:73-75
o turning away from a blind man while persuading politically powerful
Àbasa 80:1-10
o verbalizing revelations in progress too hastily, al-Qiyamah 75:16-19
• advised to turn to those with earlier scriptures, Yunus 10:95; al-Anbiya' 21:7
It is certain that Muhammad failed to consult with the Jews and Christians
regarding the earlier scriptures. As such, the Qur'an continues to have much that is
different from the Bible.
• almost tempted to corrupt the message, bani Isra'il 17:73. see also SATANIC
VERSES
o punishment had he, bani Isra'il 17:75
• and
o Banu Qurayza.
o blind man, Àbasa 80:1-11
It is said that these verses came down concerning Abdullah Ibn Maktoom,
he is Abdullah Ibn Shareeh Ibn Malik Ibn Rabi'a al-Fihri from (the tribe
of) Bani 'Amir Ibn Louay.
He came to the Messenger of Allah while he was trying to convert these

people to Islam: Utbah Ibn Rabi'ah, Abu Jahl Ibn Husham, al-Abbas Ibn
Abd al-Muttalib, Ubay and Umayyah sons of Khalaf. The blind man said:
"O Messenger of Allah read me and teach me from what Allah has taught
you." He kept calling the Prophet and repeating his plea, not knowing that
the Prophet was busy facing someone else, until the hatred appeared on
the face of the Messenger of Allah for being interrupted. The Prophet said
to himself these great people will say that his followers are but the blind
and the slaves, so he turned away from him and faced the people he was
talking to. Then the verses were revealed.
After that the Messenger used to be kind to him and if he sees him he
would say "welcome to the one whom my God reproached me in him". He
used to ask him if he needed anything and kept him behind as the deputy
- 128 -
on Medina twice during wars. (mentioned al-Suyuti in "al-Durr al-
Manthoor" with some minor differences)
Others, however, take a more moderate view that the displeasure was
directed against the disbelievers (eg. Abul Ala Maududi, Commentary of
Quran, under the commentary of verse Àbasa 80:17, Islamic Publications,
Lahore, p. 1005). Some Shiites believed that these verses were actually
directed at Uthman, who later became the third Caliph.
o Moses,
The Claim that Muhammad was the Prophet like Moses
o Joseph,
 Muhammad cursed the tribe of Mudar to have famines like those
during Joseph's time, Sahih al-Bukhari 1.768, 2.120, 2.121, 4.183,
4.600, 6.083, 6.122, 6.215, 8.402, Sahih Muslim 4.1428, 4.1429,
4.1430, 4.1431
 Muhammad cursed the Quraish to have famines like those during
Joseph's time for their delay in accepting Islam, Sahih al-Bukhari
6.297, 6.333, for standing against Muhammad, Sahih al-Bukhari
6.346, 6.347, 6.348, 6.349,
 greeted Muhammad on his Night Journey, Sahih al-Bukhari 4.429,
5.227
 most honorable, Sahih al-Bukhari 4.572, 4.593, 4.596, 4.597,
4.603, 4.696, 6.210, 6.211
 Muhammad would accept offer of freedom if he had to stay in
prison as long as Joseph did, Sahih al-Bukhari 4.591, 4.601. 6.216.
9.121
o Jonah, Sahih Bukhari 65.4,5, Hanbal 1.205,242,440, 2:405,451,468
o the people of 'Ukl, see ÙKL.
o Zaid's wife allowed to marry so that it is not sinful for believers to marry
wife of adopted sons, al-Ahzab 33:37. However, adoption is not allowed
in Islam! See ZAID for more details. Thus, this rule applied only
Muhammad.
• angry at people asking too many questions, Sahih Bukhari 008.075.373
• appealed to
o Christians to believe his confirmation, an-Nisa' 4:171
o earlier scriptures to confirm Qur'an, ar-Ra`d 13:36; ash-Shuàra' 26:192-
197; al-Ahqaf 46:10. see also prophesied in the Bible? and AHMAD.
• as judge for followers, an-Nisa' 4:65
• became more critical of Christians who reject his message, al-Ma'idah 5:14
• dare not alter the Qur'an nor act contrarily, Yunus 10:15; an-Najm 53:11; al-
Haqqah 69:44-47
• divorce, al-Ahzab 33:52
• dreams of, Sahih Bukhari 2.468
• dyed his hair red and failed to keep it free of lice, Sahih Bukhari vol 9, 130
• exemptions from "regular" marriage laws, al-Ahzab 33:51
- 129 -
Muhammad was exempted on the basis of al-Ahzab 33:51 to be able to take more
than 4 wives, which is the maximum for all other Muslims. This does raise a mild
question : why should a submitter of God be exempted from submitting as other
submitters are commanded?
• fight against those who refused to accept Islam, at-Taubah 9:29-30

These verses have been used to justify fighting against unbelievers.
• followers smear body water left from his washings to receive blessings,
Narrated Abu Juhaifa:

Allah's Apostle came to us at noon and water for ablution was brought to him.
After he had performed ablution, the remaining water was taken by the people and
they started smearing their bodies with it (as a blessed thing). The Prophet offered
two Rakat of the Zuhr prayer and then two Rakat of the 'Asr prayer while an
'Anza (spear-headed stick) was there (as a Sutra) in front of him. Abu Musa said:
The Prophet asked for a tumbler containing water and washed both his hands and
face in it and then threw a mouthful of water in the tumbler and said to both of us
(Abu Musa and Bilal), "Drink from the tumbler and pour some of its water on
your faces and chests." (Sahih Bukhari 1.187, Sahih Bukhari 1.480)
• followers fought over water left from his washings,
Narrated Ibn Shihab:

Mahmud bin Ar-Rabi' who was the person on whose face the Prophet had ejected
a mouthful of water from his family's well while he was a boy, and 'Urwa (on the
authority of Al-Miswar and others) who testified each other, said, "Whenever the
Prophet performed ablution, his companions were nearly fighting for the remains
of the water." (Sahih Bukhari 1.188)
• given keys of treasures of earth, Sahih Bukhari 2.428

• habits of Muhammad,
In emulating the example of Muhammad, many Muslims also follow the same
steps in their daily life, including dressing, using which hands, etc.
o like to start from right side,
Narrated 'Aisha:
The Prophet used to like to start from the right side on wearing shoes,
combing his hair and cleaning or washing himself and on doing anything
else. (Sahih Bukhari 1.169)
• had more doubt than Abraham had, Sahih Bukhari 6.61

• ill comes from himself, an-Nisa' 4:79
• intercession of ~.
various traditions give Muhamamd the power to intercede in the Last Days, Sahih
Bukhari 1.588 Sahih Bukhari 2.553.
• learn from Christians, al-Ma'idah 5:82; Yunus 10:95
- 130 -
• like of a pretty woman, al-Ahzab 33:52
• marriage
o kinship allowances in, al-Ahzab 33:50
o restrictions, al-Ahzab 33:52
• mixed freely with Christians, al-Ma'idah 5:82; Yunus 10:95
• most honorable, resurrected first, Hanbal 1.5, 5.540,388
• mystical ascension, an-Najm 53:6-18, see ASCENSION
• not
o a madman, al-A`raf 7:184; at-Tur 52:29; an-Najm 53:2; al-Qalam 68:2; at-
Takwir 81:22
o a poet, al-Haqqah 69:41
It was said that when Muhammad was visited by Angel Gabriel, he was
afraid that he had become one of the poets. The poetical nature of the
Qur'an cannot be unnoticed.
o a soothsayer, at-Tur 52:29; al-Haqqah 69:42

• offsprings do not take what is given in charity, Sahih Bukhari 2.562, 2.568
• only a
o plain warner, al-Ahzab 33:45; al-Fatir 35:24; al-Ahqaf 46:9; al-Fath 48:8
o prophet, Âl 'Imran 3:144; al-Anàm 6:50; al-A`raf 7:188
• ordered Muslims to fight nonbelievers till they worship Allah or pay special tax
called Al-Jizya.
• orphanhood and poverty, ad-Duha 93:6-8
• Seal of the prophets.
• relics of,
Narrated Ibn Sirrn:

I said to 'Ablda, "I have some of the hair of the Prophet which I got from Anas or
from his family." 'Abida replied. "No doubt if I had a single hair of that it would
have been dearer to me than the whole world and whatever is in it." (Sahih
Bukhari 1.171)
• some alleged actions: The following were provided by Khalifites concerning the
humanness of Muhamamd:
o trying to hide revelation concerning Zaid's wife, al-Ahzab 33:37
o favoritism, Àbasa 80:1-11
o speculation of Qur'an, Ta Ha 20:114; al-Qiyamah 75:16-19
o devil's interference, al-Hajj 22:52-55
o tendency to compromise with enemies, bani Isra'il 17:74
• some of his red hair kept to show others after he died, Sahih Bukhari vol. 4, 747
• summons from, an-Nur 24:63
• taught by Gabriel the Qur'an, Sahih Bukhari 1.5
• taking leave of, an-Nur 24:62
o by pre-revelatory philosophical questions? ad-Duha 93:7; al-Inshirah 94:1-
3
• turned away the blind man, Àbasa 80:1-10
- 131 -
• unaware of the import of some revelation given him, Yusuf 12:3; ash-Shura 42:52
• visiting wives, Âl 'Imran 3:51
• Waraqa's words concerning Muhamamd,
see words given .... , under WARAQA.
• white man, see BLACK SKIN.
• widowed wives not allowed to remarry, al-Ahzab 33:53.
This restriction is for the wives of Muhammad only, and ensured that the widows
remained his, although Muhammad married many widows.
• wore a ring, Sahih Bukhari 1.630

• 9 or 11 wives, see Wives of Muhammad
• Âl 'Imran 3:144; al-Ahzab 33:40; Muhammad 47:2; al-Fath 48:29
Brief Reply To Answering Islam's

"Curses"
by
Bassam Zawadi
Basically they are making a big deal about Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)
invoking the curse of God on his enemies. Even though there is absolutely nothing wrong
with this at all. They are just too desperate to find any arguments against our beloved
Prophet. There is even no point for me to try to justify having some one invoking the
curse of God on his enemies.
Let's see what Paul said though...
1 Corinthians 16:22
If anyone does not love the Lord - a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!
- 132 -
So Paul even invoked a curse on those who don't love the Lord. Let's see Christians
condemning Paul now.
File not found on
Welcome to Answering Islam!
Thank you for your interest in our information.
If you reached this particular page on our server, it means usually that the file name
(URL, web page address) was not spelled corrrectly.
Most of these errors occur, because there is a lower case character where an upper case
should be. For example, if the page you wanted to reach was
http://answering-islam.org/Books/Muir/index.htm
but you followed a link that spelled the address of this page as
http://answering-islam.org/books/muir/index.htm
you will get this Error 404 : File not found message.
For most of our web page addresses we follow the rule that directory names begin with
an upper case letter, while the file names are in lower case only. Please retry after
correcting the address according to this rule. We hardly ever remove or relocate pages on
our web site.
There is one exception to the last statement. We recently moved the complete folders of some of
our authors, i.e. the individual file names remained the same:
Old folder location New folder location
www.answering-islam.org/Dawud/ ---> www.answering-
islam.org/Authors/Dawud/
www.answering-islam.org/Memsuah/ ---> www.answering-
islam.org/Authors/Memsuah/
www.answering-islam.org/Perez/ ---> www.answering-
islam.org/Authors/Perez/
www.answering-islam.org/Taghlibi/ ---> www.answering-
islam.org/Authors/Taghlibi/
www.answering-islam.org/TWOR/ ---> www.answering-
islam.org/Authors/Sene/
Our file names may have the extension ".htm" or ".html", so that you could try also the
other extension alternative to see whether that works.
- 133 -
If all of these suggested attempts to correct the address still lead you to this error page,
take away the last part of the address (the individual parts are separated by "/") and retry.
If this does not help you to locate the desired page, feel free to contact us. You may also
utilize our search page.
If you came to this page following a link from another web site, please tell the webmaster
of that web site that their link is not correct. Thank you very much.
Clearing up Answering Islam's Article on "The death

of Ibn Sunayna"
by
Bassam Zawadi
Answering Islam's article could be located here.
Brother Hesham has already refuted this argument...
Despite the fact that this story is mentioned in Sunan Abu Dawood, it is weak and unreliable. Concerning isnad (i.e.
chain of reporters), this Hadith was narrated by servant of Zaid Ibn Thabet on authority of daughter of Muhayyisah.
Servant of Zaid is Muhammad Ibn Ibi Muhammad and he is unreliable, and daughter of Muhayyisah is unknown.
Concerning matn (i.e. text), it says that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) ordered to kill all Jews which is
illogical even if Christian missionaries want to believe it! Because the Jews had a treaty with Muslims and there was
no evidence that Muslims indulged in killing any Jew other than this Hadith. Moreover, Ibn Hesham himelf who
edited the work of Ibn Ishaq suggests that the incident of Huwayyisah and Muhayyisah occurred during slaughter of
Bani-Qurayzah, not after murder of Ka'b(11). Needless to say, there is no such thing as "Kill any Jew that come
under your power".
(11) As-Sirat-un-Nabawiyyah, Volume 3, page 18 (Hesham Azmy, Refuting Emotionalism, Source)
Muhammad and the Treaty of Hudaybiyya
Abstract
During 628 A.D. Muhammad attempted to make a pilgrimage to the Kaba in Mecca. As
he neared Mecca Meccan troops opposed him and forbid him to proceed to Mecca.
However, the Meccans entered into negotiations with him. About ten miles outside of
Mecca, by the spring of Hudaybiyya, Muhammad and the Meccans concluded a treaty
- 134 -
known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. This treaty humiliated the Muslims and Muhammad.
Later as he journeyed home, Muhammad told his followers that the affair at Hudaybiyya
was in fact a "victory". As proof of the victory Muhammad promised his followers that
they would have the "booty" of the Jewish settlement of Khaibar. A few weeks later
Muhammad attacked and plundered Khaibar.
Introduction
In March of 628 A.D., (6 A.H.), Muhammad attempted to make the lesser pilgrimage to
Mecca. Muhammad had had a vision of going to Mecca and venerating at the Kaba[1].
The Arabs in charge of Mecca refused to allow Muhammad to enter Mecca and sent their
army out to stop him. They did not want it to appear that they were weak and Muhammad
had done something against their will. Instead of entering Mecca, Muhammad and the
Meccans made a treaty known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. This treaty was humiliating
to the Muslims. Both Umar and Abu Bakr complained about the treaty's provisions.
Surprisingly, as he returned to Medina, he proclaimed the Meccan rejection of his

pilgrimage, and the humiliating treaty, a "victory". Muhammad attempted to mask his
degrading compromise with the Meccans by claiming to have a revelation found in Sura
48:1 -
"We have given you a glorious victory so that God may forgive you your past and future
sins".
To insure his followers that he had indeed won a victory Muhammad even found a source
for the spoils of war. Muhammad promised them the booty of Khaibar. Six weeks later
Muhammad attacked Khaibar, conquered the Jews there, and distributed the spoils of
war.
Note [1] - I did not find any reference to this vision at the beginning of the story of
Hudaybiyya, however, this vision is referred to twice in source material. Further, the
Quran mentions the dream Muhammad had to go to the Kaba in 48:27 (given later).
PRESENTATION OF ISLAMIC SOURCES.
NOTE: comments in brackets [ ] are mine.
BEGINNING OF THE JOURNEY
"Then the apostle stayed in Medina during the months of Ramadan and Shawwal and
went out on the little pilgrimage in Dhul-Qada with no intention of making war. He
called together the Arabs and neighboring Bedouin to march with him, fearing that
Quraysh [the people of Mecca] would oppose him with arms or prevent him from visiting
the temple, as they actually did." - Sirat Rasul Allah, page 499.
- 135 -
"Then he [Muhammad] marched till he reached al-Hudaybiyya which lies at the limit of
the Haram [sacred territory of Mecca] area at a distance of nine miles from Mecca." -
Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, page 118.
Bukhari in 5.495 states that Muhammad intended to enter Mecca when he left, and that
he would fight to enter it:
"Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan bin Al-Hakam: (one of them said more
than his friend): The Prophet set out in the company of more than one-thousand of his
companions in the year of Al-Hudaibiya, and when he reached Dhul-Hulaifa, he
garlanded his Hadi (i.e. sacrificing animal), assumed the state of Ihram for 'Umra from
that place and sent a spy of his from Khuzi'a (tribe). The Prophet proceeded on till he
reached (a village called) Ghadir-al-Ashtat. There his spy came and said, "The Quraish
(infidels) have collected a great number of people against you, and they have collected
against you the Ethiopians, and they will fight with you, and will stop you from entering
the Ka'ba and prevent you." The Prophet said, "O people! Give me your opinion. Do you
recommend that I should destroy the families and offspring of those who want to stop us
from the Ka'ba? If they should come to us (for peace) then Allah will destroy a spy from
the pagans, or otherwise we will leave them in a miserable state." On that Abu Bakr said,
"O Allah Apostle! You have come with the intention of visiting this House (i.e. Ka'ba)
and you do not want to kill or fight anybody. So proceed to it, and whoever should stop
us from it, we will fight him." On that the Prophet said, "Proceed on, in the Name of
Allah!"
THE CAMEL STOPS
Muhammad proceeded a little further. Then, Muhammad's camel unexpectedly stopped

and knelt. Muhammad took that as a sign from God.
"The Muslims said "Pass on! Pass on! to chide it [Muhammad's camel]. But it did not
rise. .... Thereupon the prophet said, "It has not stopped but it has been prevented (from
moving forward) by Him who had prevented the people of elephants. By Allah, if they
ask me for anything that retains the sanctity of Allah, I shall grant. - Kitab al-Tabaqat al-
Kabir, page 119.
But the Sirat records Muhammad's words slightly different:
"Today whatever condition Quraysh make in which they ask me to show kindness to
kindred I shall agree to". - Sirat Rasul Allah, page 501.
Bukhari adds in 3.891:
"Narrated Al-Miswar bin Makhrama and Marwan: (whose narrations attest each other)
Allah's Apostle set out at the time of Al-Hudaibiya (treaty), ... The Prophet went on
advancing till he reached the Thaniya (i.e. a mountainous way) through which one would
go to them (i.e. people of Quraish). The she-camel of the Prophet sat down. The people
tried their best to cause the she-camel to get up but in vain, so they said, "Al-Qaswa' (i.e.
the she-camel's name) has become stubborn! Al-Qaswa' has become stubborn!" The
- 136 -
Prophet said, "Al-Qaswa' has not become stubborn, for stubbornness is not her habit, but
she was stopped by Him Who stopped the elephant." Then he said, "By the Name of Him
in Whose Hands my soul is, if they (i.e. the Quraish infidels) ask me anything which will
respect the ordinances of Allah, I will grant it to them."
"I left Kab bin Luai and 'Amir bin Luai residing at the profuse water of Al-Hudaibiya and
they had milch camels (or their women and children) with them, and will wage war
against you, and will prevent you from visiting the Kaba." Allah's Apostle said, "We have
not come to fight anyone, but to perform the 'Umra. No doubt, the war has weakened
Quraish and they have suffered great losses, so if they wish, I will conclude a truce with
them, during which they should refrain from interfering between me and the people (i.e.
the Arab infidels other than Quraish), and if I have victory over those infidels, Quraish
will have the option to embrace Islam as the other people do, if they wish; they will at
least get strong enough to fight. But if they do not accept the truce, by Allah in Whose
Hands my life is, I will fight with them defending my Cause till I get killed, but (I am
sure) Allah will definitely make His Cause victorious."
THE MAKING OF THE TREATY OF HUDAYBIYYA
Although Muhammad did not set out to make war upon the Quraysh, the Quraysh
opposed his coming to Mecca. As they found out about Muhammad's approach, they sent
their troops out to stop him. He sent word to the Quraysh about his peaceful intentions,
but they replied,
"He may have come not wanting war but by Allah he shall never come in here against our
will, nor shall the Arabs ever say that we have allowed it." - Sirat, page 501.
The two groups parleyed, finally, the Quraysh sent a man to work out a treaty with
Muhammad.
"Then the Quraysh sent Suhayl brother of Luayy to the apostle with instructions to make
peace with him on condition that he went back this year, so that none of the Arabs could
say that he made a forcible entry ... After a long discussion peace was made and nothing
remained but to write an agreement." - Sirat, page 504.
Suhail refused to conclude the truce with Allah's Apostle except on this condition. The
believers disliked this condition and got disgusted with it and argued about it. But when
Suhail refused to conclude the truce with Allah's Apostle except on that condition, Allah's
Apostle concluded it. Accordingly, Allah's Apostle then returned Abu Jandal bin Suhail
to his father, Suhail bin 'Amr, and returned every man coming to him from them during
that period even if he was a Muslim. The believing women Emigrants came (to Medina)
and Um-Kulthum, the daughter of 'Uqba bin Abi Mu'ait was one of those who came to
Allah's Apostle and she was an adult at that time. Her relatives came, asking Allah's
Apostle to return her to them, and in this connection, Allah revealed the Verses dealing
with the believing (women). Aisha said, "Allah's Apostle used to test all the believing
- 137 -
women who migrated to him, with the following Verse:-- "O Prophet! When the
believing Women come to you, to give the pledge of allegiance to you." (60.12)
'Urwa's uncle said, "We were informed when Allah ordered His Apostle to return to the
pagans what they had given to their wives who lately migrated (to Medina) and we were
informed that Abu Basir ..." relating the whole narration.
DISENCHANTMENT WITH THE TREATY
However, this Treaty was not to the Companions liking:
"Umar jumped up and went to Abu Bakr saying, "Is he not God's apostle, and are we not
Muslims, and are they not polytheists?" to which Abu Bakr agreed, and he went on:
"They why should we agree to what is demeaning to our religion?" - Sirat page 504.
Bukhari writes in 3.891:
Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "I went to the Prophet and said, 'Aren't you truly the Apostle
of Allah?' The Prophet said, 'Yes, indeed.' I said, 'Isn't our Cause just and the cause of the
enemy unjust?' He said, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then why should we be humble in our religion?' He
said, 'I am Allah's Apostle and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.' I
said, 'Didn't you tell us that we would go to the Ka'ba and perform Tawaf around it?' He
said, 'Yes, but did I tell you that we would visit the Ka'ba this year?' I said, 'No.' He said,
'So you will visit it and perform Tawaf around it?' " Umar further said, "I went to Abu
Bakr and said, 'O Abu Bakr! Isn't he truly Allah's Prophet?' He replied, 'Yes.' I said, 'Then
why should we be humble in our religion?' He said, 'Indeed, he is Allah's Apostle and he
does not disobey his Lord, and He will make him victorious. Adhere to him as, by Allah,
he is on the right.' I said, 'Was he not telling us that we would go to the Kaba and perform
Tawaf around it?' He said, 'Yes, but did he tell you that you would go to the Ka'ba this
year?' I said, 'No.' He said, "You will go to Ka'ba and perform Tawaf around it." (Az-
Zuhri said, " 'Umar said, 'I performed many good deeds as expiation for the improper
questions I asked them.'")
At that time 'Umar came (to the Prophet) and said, "Aren't we on the right (path) and they
(pagans) in the wrong? Won't our killed persons go to Paradise, and theirs in the Fire?"
The Prophet replied, "Yes." Umar further said, "Then why should we let our religion be
degraded and return before Allah has settled the matter between us?"
Sahih Muslim writes in volume 3, #4405:
"... Umar b. Khattab came, approached the messenger of Allah and said: "Messenger of
Allah, aren't we fighting for truth and they for falsehood?" He replied, "By all means."
He asked, "Are not those killed from our side in Paradise and those killed from their side
in the Fire?" He replied, "Yes." He said, "They why should we put a blot upon our
- 138 -
religion and return, while Allah has not decided the issue between them and ourselves?"
He said, "Son of Khattab, I am the messenger of Allah. Allah will never ruin me. (The
narrator said), "Umar went away, but he could not contain himself with rage. So he
approached Abu Bakr and said, "Abu Bakr, aren't we fighting for truth and they for
falsehood?" He replied, "Yes." He asked, "Aren't those killed form our side in Paradise
and those killed form their side in the Fire?" He replied, "Why not?" He said, "Why
should we then disgrace our religion and return while God has not yet decided the issue
between them and ourselves?"
Despite their dislike of the agreement, they went along with it, keeping faith in
Muhammad.
Now the terms of the treaty were written, and further humiliation was suffered by
Muhammad and the Muslims:
"Then the Apostle summoned Ali and told him to write "In the name of Allah the
Compassionate, the Merciful." Suhayl said, "I do not recognize this; but write, "In thy
name, O Allah"." The apostle told him to write the latter and he did so. Then he said:
"Write "This is what Muhammad the apostle of God has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr.""
Suhayl said, "If I witnessed that you were God's apostle I would not have fought you.
Write your own name and the name of your father." The apostle said: "Write "This is
what Muhammad b. Abdullah has agreed with Suhayl b. Amr: they have agreed to lay
aside war for ten years during which men can be safe and refrain from hostilities on
condition that if anyone comes to Muhammad without the permission of his guardian he
will return him to them; and if anyone of those with Muhammad comes to Quraysh they
will not return him to him. We will not show enmity one to another and there shall be no
secret reservation of bad faith ... - Sirat page 504.
"Narrated Al-Bara bin 'Azib: When Allah's Apostle concluded a peace treaty with the
people of Hudaibiya, Ali bin Abu Talib wrote the document and he mentioned in it,
"Muhammad, Allah's Apostle." The pagans said, "Don't write: 'Muhammad, Allah's
Apostle', for if you were an apostle we would not fight with you." Allah's Apostle asked
Ali to rub it out, but Ali said, "I will not be the person to rub it out." Allah's Apostle
rubbed it out and made peace with them on the condition that the Prophet and his
companions would enter Mecca and stay there for three days, and that they would enter
with their weapons in cases."
Immediately, the Treaty was put to the test; a Meccan who wanted to join Muhammad
was forcibly taken back to Mecca:
"While the apostle and Suhayl were writing the document, suddenly Abu Jandal appeared
walking in fetters, having escaped to the apostle. The apostle's companions had gone out
without any doubt of occupying Mecca because of the vision which the apostle had seen,
and when they saw the negotiations for peace and a withdrawal going on and what the
apostle had taken on himself they felt depressed almost to the point of death. When
Suhayl saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar,
- 139 -
saying, "Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to
you." He replied "You are right". He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag
him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice,
"Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O
Muslims?" and that increased the people's dejection. - Sirat page 505.
Bukhari says in 3.891:
"Abu Jandal said, "O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a
Muslim? Don't you see how much I have suffered?" Abu Jandal had been [previously]
tortured severely for the Cause of Allah.
"Narrated Marwan and al-Miswar bin Makhrama: (from the companions of Allah's
Apostle) When Suhail bin Amr agreed to the Treaty (of Hudaibiya), one of the things he
stipulated then, was that the Prophet should return to them (i.e. the pagans) anyone
coming to him from their side, even if he was a Muslim; and would not interfere between
them and that person. The Muslims did not like this condition and got disgusted with it.
Suhail did not agree except with that condition. So, the Prophet agreed to that condition
and returned Abu Jandal to his father Suhail bin 'Amr. Thenceforward the Prophet
returned everyone in that period (of truce) even if he was a Muslim.
Later, other Muslims were also returned.
All in all, Muhammad and the Muslims were humiliated at Hudaybiyya. They were
stopped from entering Mecca to worship Allah, they agreed to a one-sided treaty,
Muhammad was forced to re-write parts of the treaty that the Quraysh didn't like, and
some of their fellow Muslims were forcibly taken back to Mecca.
THE "REVELATION" OF VICTORY
Now, another curious part of the affair occurred. About half way back to Medina,
Muhammad received a "revelation" supposedly from God:
"The apostle then went on his way back and when he was half way back the Sura al-Fath
came down: "We have given you a plain victory that God may forgive you your past sin
and the sin which is to come and may complete his favor upon you and guide you on an
upright path." - Sura 48:1,2. - Sirat page 506.
Another "revelation" Muhammad had with regard to the event, is found in Sura 48:27 -
"Now hath God in truth made good to His apostle the dream in which He said 'Ye shall
surely enter the sacred Mosque [Kaba], if God will, in full security, having your heads
shaved and your hair cut: ye shall not fear; for He knoweth what ye know not; and He
hath ordained you, besides this, a speedy victory."
- 140 -
"Narrated Anas: "Verily, We have given you (O Muhammad) a manifest victory.' refers
to Al-Hudaibiya Peace treaty)."
Here, a number of days after the repulse at Hudaybiyya, Muhammad attempted to extract
victory from failure, and proclaimed that Hudaybiyya was a real victory. Somehow,
forgiveness of sins was attached to this victory.
But, Muhammad's followers questioned if it were a real victory.
Bukhari states in 4.406: -
On that 'Umar asked, 'O Allah's Apostle! Was it (i.e. the Hudaibiya Treaty) a victory?'
Allah's Apostle said, "Yes".
In order to prove to his followers that they really did have a true victory, booty was
promised.
"Then he said, "God was pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance to you
under the tree and He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down the Sakina
(tranquillity) upon them and rewarded them with a recent victory and much spoil which
they will take. God is mighty, wise. God has promised you much spoil which you will
capture and has given you this in advance, and kept men's hands from you, that it may be
a sign to the believers and that He may guide you on an upright path, and other (things)
which you have not been able to get."
Note here that Muhammad claims that God promised them "much spoil which you will
capture"
Finally, Ibn Hisham spells out what the victory really was:
"... He (God) has wrought a near victory, the peace of al-Hudaybiyya. No previous
victory in Islam was greater than this. There was nothing but battle when men met; but
when there was an armistice and war was abolished and men met in safety and consulted
together none talked about Islam intelligently without entering it. In those two years
double as many or more than double as many entered Islam as ever before." - Sirat page
507.
In short, the Sirat asserts that Muhammad proclaimed he really won a victory at
Hudaybiyya, the victory of a truce between the Muslims and the Meccans.
On the other hand, the Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir gives a different viewpoint:
"A revelation has dawned upon the apostle of Allah. ... When those of the people whom
he wanted had assembled, he recited: "We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal
victory". A person from the Companions of Muhammad said, "O apostle of Allah, is it a
- 141 -
victory?" He replied, "By Him in whose hand is my soul, it is surely a victory." Then (the
booty of) Khaibar was allotted to the participants of al-Hudaybiyya in eighteen shares.
SUMMATION TO THIS POINT
In sum we see:
1)
Muhammad had a vision to venerate the Kaba.
2)
He fully prepared for the pilgrimage to Mecca and left, determined to go to the
Kaba, but was stopped by the camel and the Meccans.
3)
There he was humiliated and signed onto the treaty. But peace was established
between the Muslims and the Meccans.
4)
On his way back to Medina, he claims that the experience at Hudaybiyya was
really a victory. The Muslims were perplexed at this and asked him about it.
5)
He assured them it a real victory and told them that God promised them the booty
of Khaibar.
MUHAMMAD BREAKS HIS WORD AND THE TREATY OF HUDAYBIYYA
Later, other Meccans came to Muhammad and according to the Treaty asked Muhammad
to return some women. Muhammad refused to honor his word and the Treaty. Instead he
had the Muslims return any dowries that were given to the women.
"Umm Kulthum Uqba Muayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers
Umara and Walid sons of Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in
accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would
not. God forbade it. ..... Sirat page 509.
The Sunan of Abu Dawud in volume 2, #2759 says:
"... Thereafter some believing women who were immigrants came. (Allah sent down: O
ye who believe when believing women come to you as emigrants). Allah most high
forbade them to send them back, but ordered them to restore the dower."
Muhammad claimed that now God allowed him to break the Treaty, stating the
conditions were only a test of the Muslim women's faith. Once again, Muhammad has a
convenient "revelation" justifying his actions [see Sura 60:10]. Once again, Muhammad
puts the responsibility on God's shoulders for his sin, i.e., allowing him to break his word.
DISCUSSION
- 142 -
I've written this level of detail to provide the context and background for Muhammad's
attack and conquest of Khaibar. Initially, I did not intend to study this event, but it proved
to be so interesting that I felt that a paper should be written on it. Thereby I am able to
show how Muhammad's mind really worked.
First of all, because Muhammad proclaimed himself to be a prophet of God, we are

allowed to hold Muhammad up to scrutiny. He exalted himself as God's last prophet. We
have the right to examine his actions and judge them against a high standard.
1)
Ibn Hisham (Sirat) states that the victory was one of peace, and that many people
became Muslims thereafter. This is just apologetic work on Ibn Hisham's part. If
the victory of Hudaybiyya were really a victory of peace between the Meccans
and Muslims, then there would have been no need of booty. The rewards of peace
would have been sufficient. After all, as Ibn Hisham states, people began to
become Muslims more frequently now.
Remember, booty is taken in war. To the Muslims of that day, real victory was
real victory, i.e., your foe was vanquished, you held the field., and you got
plunder or booty. Your foe didn't watch you ride out of town eating humble pie.
That is why they questioned Muhammad about it being a real victory. They had
left Hudaybiyya with their tails between their legs. To assure his followers that
indeed it was a victory, Muhammad promises them the physical aspects of
victory, booty: - booty taken by force. This booty was what they naturally
expected to receive if they had won a real victory, not a metaphysical one.
2)
I find that it was Muhammad who first broke the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, not the
Meccans who are usually blamed via for the event years later. Muhammad ended
up not honoring his word. The fact that he did return some dowry money does not
mitigate the fact that he refused to keep his word. Again, Muhammad had another
convenient "revelation", and God gets stuck with the blame.
3)
I also find that Muhammad is guilty of duplicity. The sources say that he believed
that he had had a vision from God to go on the pilgrimage. He made extensive
preparations to go and he said he was prepared to fight to be able to complete the
pilgrimage. However, once threatened, he changed his tune:
a) - At first, when the camel stops, he says he will agree to a Treaty if it
doesn't harm his people or the ordinances of God. Later, he pledges to
return Muslims to the polytheists. It is obvious that this was harmful for
the Muslims, they suffered for it. And, it is obvious that it was against the
ordinances of God, because Muhammad later claimed that God stopped
him from returning the women.
b) - When he was challenged by his Companions, Muhammad plays

another one of his games. This is similar to the Jon Lovitt character on
Saturday Night Live. When questioned about his vision to go and venerate
- 143 -
the Kaba, Muhammad replies, "Yes, I said I would go, but I didn't say
which year I would go"!
I can hear the Jon Lovitt character saying now, "I didn't say which YEAR
I'd go! That's it, yeah, that's the ticket! I didn't say which "year" I would
go. See, I'll go later, yeah, later!"
It was obvious he intended to do it this year, and that initially he was

willing to fight to go to the Kaba. Later, for whatever reason, he changed
his mind. Instead of leveling with his Companions, he gave them a song
and dance. Fortunately for Muhammad, his followers were devoted to
him, and very gullible.
OTHER REFERENCES
I found a short but concise, write-up concerning the Treaty in the Encyclopaedia of Islam,
under "Hudaybiya", page 539.
QUESTIONS
1)
Muhammad played the shuck and jive. First of all, he claims to have a vision to
go, and fully prepares to go, then, once near, he claims he has a sign to stay.
Then he says he's going to make a treaty with the pagans, if the conditions don't
hurt the Muslims or go against God's ordinances, then he makes a treaty that hurts
the Muslims and goes against God's ordinances.
Then he claims God told him not to honor his word but break the Treaty. Like the
old cliché "The Devil made me do it", Muhammad basically says "God forbid me
to keep my word".
Is this the type of "prophet" that can be trusted?

2)
If the "victory" of Hudaybiyya were one of peace being maintained with the
polytheists in Mecca, couldn't have Islam prospered by making and maintaining
peace with other neighbors? In effect, via the Hudaybiyya treaty, Muhammad was
allowed a more free hand in dealing with other non-Qurayshi tribes living nearer
Medina. We know that the Jews of Khaibar were not a warrior people, but they
were very prosperous.
Couldn't making peace, instead of making war, between other non-Muslim tribes
been a victory as well?
3)
- 144 -
Was it necessary to attack a neighboring tribe (Khaibar) and plunder them to
assure his followers of the "victory"? Even though the Jews disliked him, could he
not have worked out a peace treaty with them as well? Certainly they disliked him
no more than the Qurayshi did.
How is his "victory" attack on Khaibar justified, since many people were killed,
others after capture were executed, women and children were enslaved, and at
least one man was tortured just for Muhammad to attain money? (See my paper
on Kinana).
CONCLUSION
This event clearly portrays the real Muhammad; unable to make up his mind, and
shucking his Companions to hide his humiliation. Later he makes up "revelations" to turn
the sting of failure around in his followers hearts, and even promises a weaker neighbor's
property as "victory booty", taken a few weeks later. Further, he claimed that God told
him to break the very treaty he was earlier led to make. These are the actions of a man
who was not following the instructions of a righteous God, but the actions of a man now
set out on his own, willful, mission in life.
Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article

"Muhammad and the Treaty of
Hudaybiyya""'
By
Bassam Zawadi
Their article could be accessed here.
I only wish to respond to one part of their article. That is when they claim that the
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the one who broke the Treaty of
Hudaybiyya.
Answering Islam says:

MUHAMMAD BREAKS HIS WORD AND THE TREATY OF HUDAYBIYYA
- 145 -
Later, other Meccans came to Muhammad and according to the Treaty asked Muhammad
to return some women. Muhammad refused to honor his word and the Treaty. Instead he
had the Muslims return any dowries that were given to the women.
"Umm Kulthum Uqba Muayt migrated to the apostle during this period. Her two brothers
Umara and Walid sons of Uqba came and asked the apostle to return her to them in
accordance with the agreement between him and Quraysh at Hudaybiyya, but he would
not. God forbade it. ..... Sirat page 509.
The Sunan of Abu Dawud in volume 2, #2759 says:
"... Thereafter some believing women who were immigrants came. (Allah sent down: O
ye who believe when believing women come to you as emigrants). Allah most high
forbade them to send them back, but ordered them to restore the dower."
Muhammad claimed that now God allowed him to break the Treaty, stating the
conditions were only a test of the Muslim women's faith. Once again, Muhammad has a
convenient "revelation" justifying his actions [see Sura 60:10]. Once again, Muhammad
puts the responsibility on God's shoulders for his sin, i.e., allowing him to break his word.
My Response:
This is far from the truth. The Quraysh are the ones who broke the treaty.
Taken from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/fasting/tajuddin/fast_76.html...
Khuzaàh had no choice but to inform the Messenger, their ally, that Banu Bakar and
their allies Quraysh had unilaterally broken the treaty of Hudaybiyah by attacking them.
The Messenger promised them, "I will prevent from you what I will prevent from
myself." (Ibn Hishaam)
The Quraish realized they had broken the treaty with the Messenger by attacking
the Muslims' allies.
Answering Islam quote Surah 66:10 to show that Prophet Muhammad broke the treaty.
However, if you read the Tafsir of this verse. You see that what happened was that a
woman from the tribe of Mecca came to Madinah. Her relatives came to take her back
and they told Prophet Muhammad to stick to the treaty. However, the Prophet replied
back saying that the treaty only said that escaping MEN should be returned and the treaty
mentions nothing about women who escape.
- 146 -
Taken from http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/books/state/chapter_22.html...
2. If anyone from Quraysh embraced Islam and came to Muhammad without the
permission of his guardian, he would return him to them, and if anyone from those with
Muhammad came to Quraysh they need not return him to Muhammad.
Taken from http://www.islamvision.org/TruceofHudaibiyah.asp...
Another condition of the Treaty was that if anyone from the Quraysh came over to the
Prophet (Peace be upon him) without obtaining the permission of his guardian he would
be returned to them, but if anyone of those with the Prophet (Peace be upon him) escaped
to the Quraysh, they would not be bound to return him.
Taken from http://www.inter-islam.org/Seerah/TheTreatyofHudaibiyaL1P1.html...
If any Makkan Muslim went to Madinah the Muslims would return him to Makkah, but if
any Muslim from Madinah went to Makkah he would not be returned to Madinah.
So as we see, the Quraysh did not clearly specify that the treaty was binding on both men
and women. Allah sent down 66:10 to reaffirm to the Prophet that he should not return
back any believing women to the Quraysh. But either way, the Prophet did not break the
treaty!
THE TREATY OF HUDAYBIYAH

ZIL-QAADAH 6 A.H.
In the year 6 A.H. Rasulullah saw a vision in which he found himself and the Sahaba
entering the holy place of Makkah to perform Hajj. So he set out for Makkah in the
month of Zil-Qaadah 6 A.H. with fourteen hundred Sahaba to perform Umrah, without
the least intention of going into battle. To avoid any misunderstanding and impress upon
the kuffar that it was entirely a peaceful mission, he ordered that none should carry arms
except a sheathed sword, a common feature in those days. Camels for sacrifice were
taken also. When Rasulullah approached Makkah, he encamped at Hudaybiyah, a
mountainous plain, a few kilometres from Makkah in the direction of Jeddah. The kuffar
did not allow them to advance despite the peaceful intentions of the Muslims.
- 147 -
Hazrat Uthman bin Affan (R.A.) the son-in-law of Rasulullah was sent as an envoy
(negotiator), to explain to the Quraish of Makkah of the intentions of Rasulullah and
the Muslims. While Hazrat Uthman (R.A.) was in the Haram a report reached the Muslim
camp that Hazrat Uthman (R.A.) has been murdered. The news caused a great stir in the
Muslim camp. Rasulullah sat under a tree and called the Sahaba to take a fresh oath
to fight to the last man. This pledge is known as 'BAI'AT-UR-RIDHWAAN'.
After some time Hazrat Uthman (R.A.) returned unharmed. The kuffar sent Suhail bin
Amr to come to terms with the Muslims. When Rasulullah saw Suhail bin Amr from
a distance he said that now matters have become easy. Since the kuffar had sent him i.e.
Suhail bin Amr their intention is to make peace. A pact was drawn up, both parties
agreeing to maintain peace for ten years on the following conditions-:
(1) The Muslims would return to Madinah without performing Umrah.

(2) They would come for Umrah the following year, and would stay in Makkah for only
three days.
(3) They shall not come bearing arms except the sword.
(4) They would not take any Muslim living in Makkah to Madinah, and would not stop
any Muslim from staying in Makkah.
(5) If any Makkan Muslim went to Madinah the Muslims would return him to Makkah,
but if any Muslim from Madinah went to Makkah he would not be returned to Madinah.
(6) The Kuffar would neither attack Muslims nor help others against them, but would
remain neutral in case of Muslims fighting a third party.
(7) All the Arab tribes shall be free to enter into alliance with whichever party they like.
Does Islam Permit Muslim Men to Rape

Their Slave Girls?
By
Bassam Zawadi
- 148 -
There are those who argue that since Islam permits Muslim men to have sexual
intercourse with their slave girls, this then means that they also have the right to rape
them.
This is absurd. The right to have sex with a woman does not necessarily imply that one
has the right to rape her as well. To say that a Muslim man has the right to rape his slave
girl is like saying that a man has the right to rape his wife; which is not true. Refer to this
article.
Rape in Islam is completely forbidden. See this and this.
Imam Maalik said:
, ‫ فعليه صداق مثلها‬: ‫ أنها إن كانت حرة‬: ‫المر عندنا في الرجل يغتصب المرأة بكرًا كانت أو ثيبا‬
‫ ول عقوبة على‬، ‫ والعقوبة في ذلك على المغتصب‬، ‫ فعليه ما نقص من ثمنها‬: ‫وإن كانت أَمة‬
‫المغتصبة في ذلك كله‬
In our view the man who rapes a woman, regardless of whether she is a virgin or
not, if she is a free woman he must pay a "dowry" like that of her peers, and if
she is a slave he must pay whatever has been detracted from her value. The
punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the
woman who has been raped, whatever the case. (Imam Maalik, Al-Muwatta',
Volume 2, page 734)
Imam Al Shaafi'i said:
- 149 -
‫وإذا اغتصب الرجل الجارية ثم وطئها بعد الغصب وهو من غير أهل الجهالة أخذت منه الجارية‬
‫والعقر وأقيم عليه حد الزنا‬
"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her
after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the
slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will
receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse." (Imam Al Shaafi'i,
Kitaabul Umm, Volume 3, page 253)
Notice that both of these top classical scholars have stated that a man is to be punished
for raping a slave girl. Of course this not our ultimate proof that Islam forbids rape, but
this is to show that the early classical scholars surely did not understand Islam to be
teaching it.
In an authentic narration from Sunan Al Bayhaqi, Volume 2, page 363, Hadith no. 18685
we read the following story:
Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin
Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin
al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-
Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army,
hence Khalid sent Dharar bin al-Auwzwar in a squadron and they invaded a
district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride,
Dharar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did
so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he
felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I
permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message
to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he
(Dharar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dharar
- 150 -
was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dharar'
Notice that Umar ibn Al Khattab (the second caliph) ordered the man who captured the
slave girl and had sex with her to be stoned for this crime, for he took the slave girl
unjustly.
Do these critics who raise these arguments know Islam better than Umar ibn al Khattab?
We anticipate what our opponents might say in response. They will say that the scholars
whom I just cited and the story of Umar ibn Al Khattab only refer to someone who raped
a slave girl who did not belong to him, however one may rape the slave girl that is his
property. Even though the story in Sunan Al Bayhaqi makes it clear that the man had sex
with the girl after possessing her, we will accept this response only for the sake of
argument.
It is nonsense to suggest that one could rape the slave girl he possesses because the
Prophet (peace be upon him) warned us that we must take good care of those under our
authority:
"There is no person to whom Allaah has given people to take care of, and he fails
to take care of them properly, but he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise."
(Saheeh Bukhari no. 6731; Saheeh Muslim, no. 142)
'Umar ibn al-Ahwas (may Allaah be pleased with him) reported that he heard the
Messenger of Allaah SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say
during his Farewell Pilgrimage:
"Verily, you have rights over your women, and your women have rights over
you. As for your rights over your women, they are that they should not allow
anyone to sit on your beds whom you dislike, or allow anyone into your houses
whom you dislike. Verily, their rights over you are that you should treat them
well with regard to their clothing and food." (Reported by al-Tirmidhi, 1163,
and Ibn Maajah, 1851).
- 151 -
The Prophet (peace be upon him) made it clear that we shouldn't harm slaves:
Saheeh Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29
Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak,
and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He
replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet
said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad
names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your
brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother
under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he
wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if
you do so, then help them.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said that our slaves are like our siblings. Who would
rape his own sister?
The Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade causing physical harm to slaves:
Saheeh Muslim
- 152 -
Hilal b. Yasaf reported that a person got angry and slapped his slave-girl.
Thereupon Suwaid b. Muqarrin said to him: You could find no other part (to slap)
but the prominent part of her face. See I was one of the seven sons of Muqarrin,
and we had but only one slave-girl. The youngest of us slapped her, and Allah's
Messenger (may peace be upon him) commanded us to set her free.
Book 015, Number 4086
Abu Mas'ud al-Badri reported: "I was beating my slave with a whip when I
heard a voice behind me: Understand, Abu Masud; but I did not recognise the
voice due to intense anger. He (Abu Mas'ud) reported: As he came near me (I
found) that he was the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) and he was
saying: Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; bear in mind. Abu Mas'ud. He (Aba Maslad)
said: threw the whip from my hand. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said:
Bear in mind, Abu Mas'ud; verily Allah has more dominance upon you than
you have upon your slave. I (then) said: I would never beat my servant in future.
If the Prophet (peace be upon him) forbade slapping and whipping slaves then it's
unthinkable that he would have permitted raping them. It just makes no sense.
Thus, our argument is as follows:
- The Prophet (peace be upon him) has prohibited causing harm to and oppressing
those under our authority.
- Rape is causing harm to someone and is considered a form of oppression
- 153 -
- If the critic says that the Prophet (peace be upon him) made an exception to this
general prohibition by allowing one to rape his slave girl, the burden of proof is
upon him to show evidence for this exception.
- If he is not able to show evidence for this exception then we must assume that
the Prophet's (peace be upon him) general command is upheld, thus proving that
Islam forbids one to rape his slave girl.
Critics would reply back and say that it's unthinkable that slave girls back then would hae
willingly consented to having sex with their Muslim captors who just killed their family
members. They would usually point to the specific example of Banu Al-Mustaliq.
The narration states:
Sahih al-Bukhari 4138 - Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the mosque and saw
Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e., coitus
interruptus). Abu Sa'id said, "We went out with Allah's Messenger for the Ghazwa
of Banu Al-Mustaliq, and we received captives from among the Arab captives and
we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus
interruptus. So, when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, 'How can we
do coitus interruptus without asking Allah's Messenger while he is present among
us?' We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so. There is
no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of
Resurrection.'" (Sahih Bukhari, no. 4138)
Here the critic's argument goes something like this:
- 154 -
- The Islamic traditions show that Muslims had sex with their slave girls
- According to my subjective logic it is inconceivable that slave girls would

consent to having sex with the captors that just killed members from their tribe
- In conclusion, the Islamic traditions show that Muslims raped their slave girls
These critics are ignorant of history, for slave girls did consent to having sex with their
captors back in the past.
John McClintock said:
Women who followed their father and husbands to the war put on their finest
dresses and ornaments previous to an engagement, in the hope of finding favor
in the eyes of their captors in case of a defeat. (John McClintock, James
Strong, "Cyclopædia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature"
[Harper & Brothers, 1894], p. 782)
Matthew B. Schwartz said:
The Book of Deuteronomy prescribes its own rules for the treatment of women
captured in war [ Deut 21:10-14 ] . Women have always followed armies to do the
soldiers' laundry, to nurse the sick and wounded, and to serve as prostitutes
They would often dress in such a way as to attract the soldiers who won the
battle. The Bible recognizes the realities of the battle situation in its rules on how
to treat female captives, though commentators disagree on some of the details.
The biblical Israelite went to battle as a messenger of God. Yet he could also, of
- 155 -
course, be caught up in the raging tide of blood and violence. The Western mind
associates prowess, whether military or athletic, with sexual success.
The pretty girls crowd around the hero who scores the winning touchdown, not
around the players of the losing team. And it is certainly true in war: the
winning hero "attracts" the women. (Matthew B. Schwartz, Kalman J.
Kaplan, "The Fruit of Her Hands: The Psychology of Biblical Women"
[Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007] , pp. 146-147)
Thus we see from two non-Muslim authors that slave girls back in the past would consent
to having sex with their captors. So if we put aside our 21st century mindset and look at
history objectively, there is nothing wrong with saying that slave girls back then
consented to having sex with their captors.
One might object to the fact that the above authors are only speaking about the Israelite
era. However, that is really not a good response. The point I am trying to make is that the
idea of the possibility of slave girls willingly having sex with their captors is not absurd.
Thus, one is required to provide proof that those slave girls who had sex with their
Muslim captors did not consent. This is especially due to the fact that 1) It was possible
for slave girls back in the past to consent to having sex with their captors and 2) Muslims
were prohibited from harming their slave girls.
If the critic says that not all of the slave girls felt this way and there were bound to be
some who didn't want to have sex, I would agree with him. However, how does this
prove that the Muslims raped their slave girls? How does the critic know whether the
Muslim back then actually raped the slave girl who was unwilling to have sex with him?
Isn't it possible that if he saw her unwilling he would have sold to her to another Muslim
at a cheaper price? Or he would have purchased another slave girl who was willing to
have sex with him? Or he would have waited for her to consent, for by that time he would
have treated her very nicely and convinced her that Islam is true and that it was her tribe's
fault for starting the battle, etc. Yes these things are possible.
How does the critic know that none of these things happened? What is his proof that the
Muslims raped their slave girls?
The narration doesn't show:
- 156 -
- How many Muslim captors decided to go through with having sex with the slave
girls?
- How many women actually ended up having sex with their Muslim captors?
- Most importantly, whether any slave girls were raped
Even if the critic is successful in showing that the Muslims raped them, what is his proof
that this was approved by the Prophet (peace be upon him)? It's possible that Muslims
committed sins back then and disobeyed the Prophet (peace be upon him). So where
could the critic show us the Prophet (peace be upon him) approving of such behavior?
He cannot and I challenge him to.
Another narration that the critics appeals to is this:
Sunan Abu Dawud
Volume 2, Number 2150
Abu Said al-Khudri said: The apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a
military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met
their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.
Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were
reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their
husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic
verse, 'And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives)
whom your right hands possess'. That is to say, they are lawful for them when
they complete their waiting period.
The critics would argue that no slave girl would consent to having sexual intercourse in
the presence of her husband.
- 157 -
However, this is a completely false translation of the hadith. The words "in the presence
of" are no where to be found in the Arabic text.
The full Arabic text (found here) states:
‫حدثنا عبيد ال بن عمر بن ميسرة حدثنا يزيد بن زريع حدثنا سعيد عن قتادة عن صالح أبي الخليل عن أبي‬
‫علقمة الهاشمي عن أبي سعيد الخدري‬
‫أن رسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم بعث يوم حنين بعثا إلى أوطاس فلقوا عدوهم فقاتلوهم فظهروا عليهم وأصابوا‬
‫لهم سبايا فكأن أناسا من أصحاب رسول ال صلى ال عليه وسلم تحرجوا من غشيانهن من أجل أزواجهن من‬
‫المشركين فأنزل ال تعالى في ذلك‬
‫والمحصنات من النساء إل ما ملكت أيمانكم‬
‫أي فهن لهم حلل إذا انقضت عدتهن‬
If the reader does not know how to read Arabic, let him bring someone who does and ask
him whether he can point out to him the words "in the presence of". He won't be able to.
The translation in Saheeh Muslim seems more accurate:
Saheeh Muslim
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of
Hunain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and
encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken
them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him)
seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of
their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding
that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess
(iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).
So here we see that the Muslim soldiers were feeling uncomfortable with engaging in
sexual intercourse with women who were already married. However, the verse was
- 158 -
revealed saying that it is permissible to engage in sexual intercourse with slave girls even
if they are married.
Imam Al Tabari in his commentary on Surah 4:24 cites several of the companions and
second generation Muslims stating that the marriage of a woman is annulled after she has
been captured and made a slave.
Imam Nawawi in his commentary on this hadith states:
‫فإنه ينفسخ نكاح زوجها الكافر‬
It (i.e. to come to own a slave girl) annuls the marriage between her and her
disbeliever husband. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Ridaa',
Bab: Jawaaz Wati' Al Missbiyyah Ba'd Al Istibraa' wa en Kaana laha Zawj
Infasakh, Commentary on Hadith no. 2643, Source)
Thus, we see that in the eyes of Islam this marriage becomes invalid (some opinions like
that of the Hanafi school state other conditions required for the annulment to occur). The
critic would definitely argue back stating "what gives your religion the right?" but that is
not the point of discussion. This is an external critique of Islam and the basis for this
discussion really isn't about this topic in particular but about whether Islam really is true
and whether this is God's decree. To debate the specifics is just useless. The Muslim sees
this decree to be internally consistent and submits to God's law that states that action x
results in a divorce.
One might shout out to the Christian as well, "What gives your Bible the right to declare
a woman an adulteress if she happened to marry a man who divorced her by not
following the proper procedures (Matthew 5:2)?" The Christian really has nothing to say
except the fact that he believes that this is God's decree and submits to it. He believes that
God has the power and right to determine how divorce should take place (e.g. what
conditions are valid for divorce) and submits to them. Well, the Muslim says the same
thing in this regard.
Imam Nawawi goes on to say:
‫واعلم أن مذهب الشافعي ومن قال بقوله من العلماء أن المسبية من عبدة الوثان وغيرهم من‬
, ‫الكفار الذين ل كتاب لهم ل يحل وطؤها بملك اليمين حتى تسلم فما دامت على دينها فهي محرمة‬
‫ فيؤول هذا الحديث وشبهه على أنهن‬, ‫فهؤلء المسبيات كن من مشركي العرب عبدة الوثان‬
‫ وهذا التأويل ل بد منه وال أعلم‬, ‫أسلمن‬
And know that the school of thought of Al Shafi'i and who agreed with him from
amongst the scholars have stated that the idol worshipper and those whom have
no religious book cannot be approached for sexual intercourse unless they
- 159 -
convert to Islam first. As long as they are following their religion they are
forbidden to approach. These slave girls (i.e. in the particular narration) are idol
worshippers. This hadith and whatever resembles it must be interpreted as
implying that the slave girls accepted Islam. There is no other choice but to
interpret the hadiths this way and Allah knows best. (Ibid)
So here we see that a great number of scholars have argued that just as Muslims are
forbidden to marry idol worshippers, they are forbidden as well from engaging in sexual
intercourse with idol worshipping slave girls. In order to engage in the sexual act, the
Muslim must wait for the slave girl to convert to Islam and in Islam there is no shred of
evidence whatsoever that the Muslim can force or compel his slave girl to convert to
Islam.
We see cases in the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) where slave girls willingly
prefer to accept Islam over returning to their tribe due to recognizing the truth of Islam
and injustice of their own tribe for provoking the Muslims to war. The most famous case
being that of Safiyyah, one of the wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Furthermore, when analyzing the particular story mentioned in the hadith we see that no
rape could have reasonably taken place.
Saifur Rahman al-Mubarakpuri states:
The Enemy's March and their Encampment at Awtas
When Malik bin 'Awf - the general leader - decided to march and fight the
Muslims, he made his countrypeople take their wealth, women and children
with them to Awtas - which is a valley in Hawazin land and is quite near Hunain.
It differs from Hunain in its being adjacent to Dhi-Al-Majaz which is around ten
miles from Makkah in 'Arafat's direction. [Fath Al-Bari 8/27,42]
The War-experienced Man wrongs the Leader's Judgement
As soon as they had camped in Awtas, people crowded round Malik. The old sane
Duraid bin As-Simmah, who was well-known as a war-experienced man, and who
was among those who gathered round Malik, asked: "What valley are we in?" "In
Awtas," they said. "What a good course it is for horses! It is neither a sharp
pointed height nor a loosed soiled plain. What? Why do I hear camels' growling,
the donkeys' braying, the children's cries and the sheep bleating?" asked Duraid.
They said: "Malik bin 'Awf had made people bring their women, properties
and children with them." So he called Malik and asked him what made him
do such a thing. Malik said that his aim was to have everybody's family and
properties around them so that they fight fiercely to protect them." "I swear
by Allâh that you are nothing but a shepherd," answered Duraid, "Do you believe
that there is anything whatsoever, can stand in the way of a defeated one or stop
him from fleeing? If you win the battle you avail nothing but a man with a sword
- 160 -
and a spear; but if you lose you will bring disgrace on your people and
properties," then he resumed his talk and went on wondering about some septs
and their leaders. "O Malik, thrusting the distinguished people of Hawazin into
the battlefield will avail you nothing. Raise them up to where they can be safe.
Then make the young people mount their horses and fight. If you win, those
whom you tarried will follow you, but if you were the loser it would be a loss of
a battle, but your kinsmen, people and properties would not be lost." (Saifur
Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar): The
Third Stage, Source)
So here we see that it was the disbeliever's fault for bringing their own women and
children to the battle field. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was not interested in
invading their lands and taking their women as it would be made clear as we read on:
A similar battalion of horsemen pursued the idolaters who threaded the track to
Nakhlah and caught up with Duraid bin As-Simmah, who was killed by Rabi'a bin
Rafi'. After collecting the booty, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] left for Ta'if to
face the greatest number of the defeated idolaters. The booty was six thousand
captives, twenty four thousand camels; over forty thousand sheep and four
thousand silver ounces.
So here we see that the Muslims were victorious and obtained an impressive amount of
war booty.
Continuing on:
The Distribution of the Booty at Al-Ji'ranah
Upon returning and lifting the siege in Ta'if, the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] had
stayed over ten nights at Al-Ji'ranah before starting to distribute the booty.
Distribution delay was due to the Prophet's hope that Hawazin's delegation
might arrive and announce their repentance and consequently reclaim their
loss. Seeing that none of them arrived, he started dividing the booty so as to calm
down the tribes' chiefs and the celebrities of Makkah. The first to receive booty
and the ones who obtained the greatest number of shares were the people who had
recently embraced Islam.
Notice this crucial point. The Prophet (peace be upon him) intentionally delayed
distributing the booty because he wanted the Hawazin to come back and surrender and
then collect their lost war booty.
- 161 -
Notice how the Prophet (peace be upon him) was not eager to keep the women and have
his men rape them as some critics allege.
What happens next is amazing:
Arrival of the Hawazin Delegation
Hawazin's delegation arrived a Muslims just after the distribution of spoils. They
were fourteen men headed by Zuhair bin Sard. The Messenger's foster uncle was
one of them. They asked him to bestow upon them some of the wealth and spoils.
They uttered so touching words that the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said to them:
"You surely see who are with me. The most desirable speech to me is the most
truthful. Which is dearer to you, your wealth or your women and children?" They
replied: "Nothing whatsoever compares with kinship." Then when I perform the
noon prayer, stand up and say: "We intercede with the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh]
to exhort the believers, and we intercede with the believers to exhort the
Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] to forego the captives of our people fallen to their lot."
So when the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] performed the noon prayer, they stood up
and said what they had been told to say. The Messenger [pbuh], then, said: "As
for what belongs to me and to the children of Abdul Muttalib, you may
consider them, from now on, yours. And I will ask my folksmen to give back
theirs." Upon hearing that the Emigrants and the Helpers said: "What
belongs to us is, from now on, offered to the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh]." But
Al-Aqra' bin Habis said, "We will grant none of what belongs to me and to Bani
Tamim,"; so did 'Uyaina bin Hisn, who said: "As for me and Bani Fazarah, I say
'No'." Al-'Abbas bin Mirdas also refused and said: "No" for Bani Saleem and him.
His people, however, said otherwise: "Whatever spoils belong to us we offer to
the Messenger of Allâh ([pbuh].)" "You have undermined my position." Said
Al-'Abbas bin Mirdas spontaneously. Then the Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said:
"These people have come to you as Muslims. For this I have already tarried the
distribution of the booty. Besides, I have granted them a fair option but they
refused to have anything other than their women and children. Therefore he who
has some of theirs and will prefer willingly to give them back, let them do. But
those who favours to keep what he owns to himself, let them grant them back too,
and he will be given as a recompense six times as much from the first booty that
Allâh may provide us." People then said, "We will willingly offer them all for the
sake of the Messenger of Allâh." The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh] said: "But in this
way we are not able to find out who is content and who is not. So go back and we
will be waiting for your chiefs to convey to us your decisions." All of them gave
back the women and children. The only one who refused to comply with the
Messenger's desire was 'Uyaina bin Hisn. He refused to let an old woman of theirs
go back at first. Later on he let her go back. The Messenger of Allâh [pbuh]
gave every captive a garment as a gift.
Just look at the mercy of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Indeed, this is the true
definition of the word "mercy". Mercy is only real when one is in power to not be
- 162 -
merciful yet willingly decides to be, just as we see the Prophet (peace be upon him) do in
this situation (and many other situations as well).
So here we see that the Muslims weren't raping savages, but merciful human beings.
Thus, for this particular narration we can conclude that:
- Muslims are not permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with idol worshippers
unless they convert to Islam first and once they have converted to Islam it would
make their consenting to sexual intercourse much easier.
- There is no evidence of any ill treatment of the slave girls by the Muslim
soldiers.
- There is no evidence of any slave girls engaging in sexual intercourse with any
Muslim soldier. The Muslims might have returned them back to their tribe before
they had the chance to.
- There is no evidence of any Muslim soldier raping his slave girl.
- Even if there is evidence, there is no evidence that the Prophet (peace be

upon him) approved of it.
The Islamic critic would also appeal to the following narration, which states:
- 163 -
Jami At-Tirmidhi 1137 - Jabir bin Abdullah narrated: "We practiced Azl while
the Qur'an was being revealed." . . . Malik bin Anas said: "The permission of the
free woman is to be requested for Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus), while the slave
woman's permission need not be requested."
He would argue that this narration shows that one could engage in coitus interruptus
without the permission of his slave girl, which means that he could rape her.
The first and most important thing to note is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) didn't
say that, Imam Maalik said that. The Prophet (peace be upon him) is our final authority.
Imam Maalik's reasoning was that the free woman has the right to have a child. The man
doesn't have the right to forbid his wife from having a child, thus he must ask her
permission before doing azl. However, if the Muslim gets his slave girl pregnant, she
seizes to become his slave girl and he must marry her. The Muslim therefore, doesn't
have to ask for her permission to do azl when they make consensual sex.
Again, where is the rape? Even if Imam Malik said that you can rape her (which he
didn't), he is not my final authority, the Prophet (peace be upon him) is. So what evidence
did Imam Maalik use then from the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify his statement that one
can rape his slave girl (which he didn't say, it's only for the sake of argument)?
The critic might reply back and say that the fact that the man has a "right" to have sex
with his slave girl indicates that the man is permitted to do "all it takes" to take his rights.
Even if we say that it is his right, it is his right just like how it is his right to receive
obedience from his children. Just like how it is his right to get inheritance if his father
passes away.
Now is the critic seriously trying to argue that Islam would permit a man to physically
abuse his children if they didn't give him his right of respect? Is he also trying to say that
he can physically abuse and harm his sister if she were to try and steal some of his
inheritance money?
- 164 -
In Islam, one of the rights that a Muslim has over his brother is to be visited when he is
sick and to be greeted with peace. If my Muslim brother does not greet me with peace or
visit me when I am sick, does that mean that I can physically abuse him until he does, so
that "he gives me my right"?
It seems like this is what he is saying if he were to be consistent. According to this logic,
if the Qur'an says someone is entitled to something or has a right to something that means
that the person can do whatever he wants - even if it was forbidden - in order to obtain
that right.
This is something absolutely ridiculous, which no Muslim scholar in antiquity has stated.
I am really speechless and don't really know how to reply back to such a laughable
argument.
Plus, this could also work against the Christian. I can argue that the Bible states that the
man has the right to have sex with his wife, thus if she refuses then he can hurt her! The
Christian would reply back and say that he can't hurt his wife because there are other
verses that state that he can't do so and this is exactly what we have shown in this
article in regards to the slave girl.
Conclusion
Islam forbids one to harm those under his authority. Since rape is considered a form of
harm that would mean that rape is forbidden. We have also seen that history shows that
slave girls in the past did consent to having sex with their captors; hence we must keep
our subjective emotions aside and agree with this objective fact. In light of this fact,
there is nothing absurd in believing that the Muslims did not rape their slave girls
especially since they were forbidden from doing so. And even if some of the Muslims
back then did rape their slave girls, this would only show that they committed a sinful act
and not that the Prophet (peace be upon him) approved of such behavior. In conclusion,
Islam does not permit the Muslim man to rape his slave girl.
- 165 -
Recommended Readings on the Rape of Slave Girls in the Bible
Laws of Rape - Commentary on Deuteronomy 22:28-29

written by Kevin Abdullah Karim
___________________________________________________________
In Deuteronomy 22: 28-29, we learn that a man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin must pay 50
shekels to her father and marry her:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her [taphas] , and lie
with her , and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father
fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her
away all his days [ Deut. 22:28-29 ]
One must ask a simple question here, who is really punished, the man who raped the woman or the
woman who was raped ? The Bible states that a man who rapes an unengaged virgin shouldn't be
punished to death, but marry his victim and pay some silver cheeks to the father. Note also that the
50 shekels the rapist pays for his victim's brideprice is half of what a man must pay to a woman's
father if he unjustly slanders her virginity, per Deut. 22:15. The author of the Bible felt that sullying
a father's honor by accusing his daughter of having unmarried sex is worth twice as much
monetary compensation as raping his daughter. Some christians off course have a problem to
accept this biblical law and argue that the woman in Deut. 22:28-29 consented to the sexual act. In
this paperwork we shall refute the arguments of those who argue that Deut. 22:28-29 is a reference
to consensual premarital sex instead of rape. Their main arguments / claims can be found below:
Claims of the christian apologists

_______________________________________________________________
Claim number 1:
It isn't clear that rape is what is happening here at all. Deut 22:25 refers to the case of a man
raping a betrothed woman. The word used for this act in the original Hebrew is "chazaq" [ rape ].
However, in 22:28, the Hebrew word "taphas" [ to catch/lay hold of/seize ] is used. This would
indicate that these are two different acts. I think 22:28 should use the word "seduce" as a modern
English translation for "taphas". [ christian claim ]
Claim number 2:
- 166 -
Deut. 22:28 uses the expression "and they be found / discovered" which indicates that the verse is
a reference to consensual premarital sex [ christian claim ]
Response
_____________________________
The actual Hebrew word used in Deut. 22:25 isn't "chazag" but "hehezik", which means 'he held' or
'he held on to -', which derives from the root verb "chazag" , a verb that has about a dozen
different meanings depending on the stem in which it is conjugated - '[to] hold', '[to] be strong',
'[to] be hard', '[to] contain', etc. It is therefor wrong to claim that the actual Hebrew word for rape is
"chazag". Further the word "taphas" in Deut. 22:28 cannot be translated as seduce. The word
means:
to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch, to grasp [ in order to ] wield, wield, use skilfully, to be seized, be
arrested, be caught, be taken, captured catch, grasp [ with the hands ] [ Strong's Hebrew
Dictionary ]
As one can see the word "taphas" [ lay hold of ] is similar in meaning to the word "hehezik" [ he
held on to ] . This becomes more clear when we compare Young's Literal Translation of the word
"hehezik" in Deuteronomy 22:25 with the translation of the word "taphas" in Deuteronomy 22:28
by the Kings James Version of the Bible.
And if in a field the man find the damsel who is betrothed, and the man hath laid hold on her, and
lain with her, then hath the man who hath lain with her died alone; [ Deuteronomy 22:25 , Young's
Literal Translation ]
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her,
and they be found; [ Deuteronomy 22:28 , King James ]
As one can see the words "taphas" and "hehezik" are similar in meaning to each other. Both words
are used here in connection with the phrase "and lie with her". Both words [ "taphas" and "hehezik"
] therefor point out that this act was done by force. The other verses in Deuteronomy 22 which only
talk about adultery or fornication [ not rape or sexual abuse ] don't use words like "taphas" or
"hehezik" to describe the act of sexual intercourse between the man and the woman, see:
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die,
[both] the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If
a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie
with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with
stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because
he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. [ Deuteronomy
22:22-24, King James Version ]
Notice how these verses clearly don't mention anything like "taphas" or "hehezik" [ he seizes her
or lay hold on her etc. ] before the phrase "and lie with her". This clearly proofs that words like
- 167 -
"taphas" or "hehezik" are used by the biblical author to point out that the act of "lying with the
woman" was done by force.
Also the argument that Deut. 22:28 cannot refer to rape because a different hebrew word is used to
describe the act of "lying with the woman" then in Deut. 22:25 is invalid for another reason: "The
Bible in another place also mentions an act of rape by using a different hebrew word then "hehezik"
[ which is used in Deut. 22:25 ] " , see:
Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the
land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized
[ "laqach" ] her and lay [ "shakab" ] with her and humiliated her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah
the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to
his father Hamor, saying, 'Get me this girl for my wife.' Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his
daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they
came. And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. The sons of Jacob
had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry,
because he had done an outrageous thing in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing
must not be done. [ Genesis 34:1-7 , King James Version ]
The above famous story is widely known as "the rape of Dinah". As one can see the hebrew word
"laqach" [ he seized ] is used to describe how Shechem "lay with Dinah". In other words the hebrew
word "laqach" is used to point out that Shechem took Dinah by force. In Strong's Hebrew Dictionary we
see that the Hebrew word "laqach" is similar in meaning to the Hebrew words "taphas" [ which is used
in Deuteronomy 22:28 ] and "hehezik" [ which is used in Deuteronomy 22:25 ] :
Laqach - to take, get, fetch, lay hold of, seize [ Strong's Hebrew Dictionary ]
As one can see "laqach" , "taphas" and "hehezik" are similar to each other in meaning. All are used in
the Bible to describe how the man "lay with the woman". In this context all have the meaning of taking a
woman by force [ he lay hold on her or seized her ]. It is very desperate to argue that the word "taphas"
in Deut. 22:28 refers to seduction and not rape, while the word is similar in meaning to the hebrew
words "laqach" and "hehezik" which are used in Gen. 34:7 and Deut. 22:25 to describe an act of
rape. Gen. 34:7 and Deut. 22:25 both talk about rape but use different Hebrew words to describe
the act. In other words Gen.34:7 and Deut.22:25 proof that the Bible describes rape by various and
different Hebrew words which are similar to each other in meaning. Therefore the argument that
Deut. 22:28 cannot refer to rape because a different hebrew word is used to describe the act of
"lying with the woman" then in Deut. 22:25 is invalid. Words can be different but mean the same !
As for the second claim, the expression "and they be found out" is simply used to point out that the
rapist was caught in his crime of raping the woman. Secondly to understand the correct meaning of
this phrase one should look at the previous text of the verse in question [Deut. 22:28] which says
that the man "seized" ["taphas"] the woman and "lay with her". Anything but mutuality is
described here ! One should remember that the hebrew word "taphas" [ to seize, lay hold of,
capture ] is used to describe how the man "lay with the woman" in this verse. In other words the
word "taphas" is used to point out that the man lay with the woman by force. For this reason we
can conclude that the phrase "and they be found out" is used to point out that the rapist was
caught in his crime of raping the woman. If the woman alone was found it cannot be proven that
she was raped or abused. In other words the man must be caught in his crime of raping the woman.
The next two translations of the Bible moreover confirm that the phrase "and they be found out" is
used to point out that the rapist was caught in his crime of raping the woman:
- 168 -
This is what you must do when a man rapes a virgin who isn't engaged. When the crime is
discovered the man who had sexual intercourse with her must give the girl's father 11/4 pounds of
silver, and she will become his wife.Since he raped her,he can never divorce her [ Deut.22:28-29,
Gods Words Translation ]
If a man sees a young virgin, who has not given her word to be married to anyone, and he takes her
by force and has connection with her, and discovery is made of it; Then the man will have to give
the virgin's father fifty shekels of silver and make her his wife, because he has put shame on her;
he may never put her away all his life. [ Deut. 22:28-29, Bible in Basic English ]
Further the argument or claim that the expression "and they be found" shows that the sin was
committed by both is also used by M. Weinfeld, who also argued that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and
Exodus 22:15-16 are identical laws. These claims however have been refuted by Prof. Bernard S.
Jackson in the "Jewish Law Annual", see:
There is a great difference between the law in Exodus and the similar one in
Deuteronomy..Weinfeld believed that the two laws are transformations of the very same law and
that both of them deal with a seduction and not with a rape. But this conclusion is not entirely
convincing: A ) He claims that the plural form "and they be found" ( venimtse'u ) provest hat the sin
was committed by both of them. But in the LXX , we find a singular form: "And he found" ( venimtsa
). It looks to me that the final vav of venimtse'u is a dittography of the vaw which opens the next
word venatan. The singular form venimsta appears also in Deut. 22:22....Another proof that our law
deals with a rape is the use of the verb utefasah "and lay hold on her" [ cf. Deut. 21:19, 2 Kings
14:13 and many others ] 1
Extra info about the word "taphas"

___________________________________________________
Richard Abbot writes in his footnote on Deut. 22:28 the next about the Hebrew word "taphas":
tâphas, here used in the Qal perfect form with suffix, has a violent or forceful air, hence seize. 2
Mary Anna Bader writes in response to Lyn Bechtel the next:
I understand Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to be descriptive of rape, not "voluntary sexual intercourse

between two unbonded poeple." The man seized the woman; the law says nothing about
"voluntary sexual intercourse." The man did not "seize the heart" of the Young woman; he seized
her. The First is affective; the second, rape. I do not find "taphas" to be used in contexts describing
mutual consensual relations anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Let us consider those passages. When
the verb "taphas" is used in Genesis 39:12, Potiphar's wife seized or caught hold of Joseph by his
garment as she begged him to lie with her. Anything but mutuality is described here. Bechtel's
Point that this verb is indicative of mutuality can be substantially undermined. Potiphar's wife, we
would say today, was sexually harassing Joseph. He was not willing to participate in a sexual liaison
with the wife of his master. 2 Kins 7:12 uses the verb "taphas" when Elisha described the ploy the
Arameans had prepared, capturing the Israelites alive and then infiltrating the city. Force is
obviously an element in the attack of the Arameans, and it is also involved in the situation
- 169 -
described in Jer 37:14, where the verb "taphas" is used in the context of Irijah's seizing or arresting
Jeremiah. The verb does not Carry the connotations of mutuality that Bechtel alleges it does nor is
it used in contexts describing reciprocity. Ezekiel 14:5 is the only place in the Hebrew Bible where
"taphas" and "heart" are found together. Ezekiel 14:5 reads: "i, the Lord, will answer those who
come with the multitude of their idols, in order that I may "seize" [ "taphas" ] the house of Israel in
their hearts all of whom are estranged from me through their idols." Elements of threat and
estrangement are clearly present, not the reciprocity and tenderness Bechtel proposed were
associated with the verb. Bechtel maintained that "seizing the heart"describes mutual consensual
intercourse in Deut 22:28-29. That conclusion is problematic for a number of reasons: First of all,
the passage has no mention of "heart". Second, as has been demonstrated above, "taphas"
frequently involves the element of force. I, in direct opposition to Bechtel, would conclude that the
situation described in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 constitues a rape". 3
Eugene H. Merill [ Professor of Old Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary ] writes:
22:28-29 At first glance the next example, the rape of an unbetrothed girl, might appear to have
been a lesser offense than those already described, but this was not the case at all. First, he seized
[ Heb. tāpaś, "lay hold of" ] her and then lay down [ ākab ] with her, a clear case of violent, coercive
behavior. Moreover, the assailant had forever marred the purity of the woman, making it nearly
impossible ever to enjoy a normal, happy marriage. This had negative repercussions on her father
as well, for he stood to lose the bride price [ Heb. Môhār ] that a prospective husband would have
paid him [ cf. Gen 34:12; Exod 22:16; 1 Sam 18:25 ]. In fact, the compensation for this loss was the
fifty shekels of silver assessed as a penalty by the court [ v. 29 ]. This was half the amount
demanded of the man who misrepresented his wife's virginity [ v. 19 ] , for she already was married
and would never have command any additional bride price whereas the girl in the present situation
not only would have afforded her father fifty shekels of compensation for her humiliation but most
certainly the normal bride price in addition. In any event, the perpetrator of the act must marry the
girl [ assuming her willingness ] and could never divorce her. 4
It is quit clear now that the Hebrew word "taphas" - to seize, lay hold of - in Deut. 22:28 refers to rape.
Bible Commentaries on Deut.22:28-29

___________________________________________________
Peter C. Craigie writes in his commentary on The Book of Deuteronomy:
[ Deut 22:28-29 ]. If a man uses force on a woman, he must marry her after paying a fine of fifty shekels
of silver to her father, and ?he must never divorce her for as long as he lives' [ 22:29 ]. 5
Prof. Alexander Rofé in the journal "Biblica" writes:
If a man seduced a girl, he must now ?seduce' her father and gain his permission to marry her
[ Exod 22,15-16 ] If a man "raped" a girl - since he took her by force, he is forced to keep her as a
wife and is not permitted to divorce her [ Deut 22,28-29 ]. In both cases, of course, the bride-price,
the mhar, must be paid. Both of these cases are characterized by a kind of 'mirror punishment'
which results in humorous retaliation: you convinced the girl, now convince the father; you forced
the girl, now you will be forced to keep her as a wife. The feelings of the girl are given little
consideration. 6
- 170 -
Mathew Henry writes in his classic commentary on the Bible:
If a damsel not betrothed were thus abused by violence, he that abused her should be fined, the
father should have the fine, and, if he and the damsel did consent, he should be bound to marry
her, and never to divorce her 7
Prof. A. Harper writes in the "The Expositors Bible" :
Further if any violence was done to a woman who had been betrothed, the punishment of the
wrong was death; if done to a woman who was not betrothed, the wrong was atoned for by
payment of fifty shekels of silver for her father, and be offering marriage without the possibility of
divorce. 8
Earl S. Kalland writes in his commentary:
The law is more lenient with a man who forces a virgin who is not pledged in marriage to another.
The penalty, however, is not light. The offender must pay a fine of fifty shekels of silver, marry the
girl, and keep her as his wife as long as he lives; she cannot be divored 9
Rev. James Orr writes in his commentary:
III. The Woman Ravished. [ Vers. 25-29. ] The cases specified are those of rape. 1. If the woman was
betrothed, and could not save herself, she was to be held innocent, but her violator was to be
punished with death. 2. If she was not betrothed, the man who had injured her was heavily fined,
and was compelled to take her to wife, with no right of subsequent divorce. Possibly our own law
might fitly imitate that of ver. 29. 10
Mary Anna Bader writes in her work:
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 involves the rape of a virgin who was not betrothed. In this case, the
rapist was to pay the Young woman's father fifty pieces of silver, and the woman was to
become his wife. 11
These commentaries clearly confirm that Deut.22:28 is about rape.
Why must a rapist marry his victim here ?

_________________________________________________________
It's important to know that the Bible lays extreme emphasis on virginity before marriage. Let us
look at the following verses in the Bible:
If a man takes a wife and, after laying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad
- 171 -
name, saying, 'I married this woman but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,'
then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the
gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he
dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But
here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth with before
the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. [ Deuteronomy 22:13-18,
New International Version ]
As one can see Jewish men had a dislike for non-virgins. The above passage shows us how much
importance they laid on the virginity of an unwed woman. It's clear that none of them would like to
marry a non-virgin. These verses also proof that a girl before her marriage had to undergo a
virginity test, so the father could later always proof that he married his daughter off as a virgin.
Elsewhere we see that the Bible disrespects and disregards non-virgins [ see Numbers 31:17 ].
What does this say about the position of a raped unwed woman in such society ? Scholars like Ra
McLaughlin [ M. Div. ] explain that if a woman was raped, she was considered by the jewish
community as tainted, and unmarriable due the lost of her virginity. She would be destitute the rest
of her life. No man would like to marry her. For this reason the Bible states that a rapist must marry
the unwed woman he raped. In other words the Bible based it's law on the cultural norms of a male
macho society. Why didn't the Bible try to the change the image of non-virgins in such societies ?
Prophet Muhammad [ saaws ] on the other hand set a great example by marrying a widow, i.e. a
non-virgin. By this he demonstrated that it is not shamefull or disgracefull to marry a non-virgin.
Why should we view widows or raped women as tainted or unmarriable ? Only a male superior anti-
female religion could hold such views. Biblical laws have proven to be the fundament of such
religion.
The rape of Tamar in the Bible

_________________________________________________
Additional support for the view that Deut. 22:28-29 is a rape law can be found in the story of
Tamar:
And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was
Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her. And Amnon was so vexed, that he fell sick for his
sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do anything to her.But
Amnon had a friend, whose name was Jonadab, the son of Shimeah David's brother: and Jonadab
was a very subtil man.And he said unto him, Why art thou, being the king's son, lean from day to
day? wilt thou not tell me? And Amnon said unto him, I love Tamar, my brother Absalom's
sister.And Jonadab said unto him, Lay thee down on thy bed, and make thyself sick: and when thy
father cometh to see thee, say unto him, I pray thee, let my sister Tamar come, and give me meat,
and dress the meat in my sight, that I may see it, and eat it at her hand. So Amnon lay down, and
made himself sick: and when the king was come to see him, Amnon said unto the king, I pray thee,
let Tamar my sister come, and make me a couple of cakes in my sight, that I may eat at her
hand.Then David sent home to Tamar, saying, Go now to thy brother Amnon's house, and dress him
meat. So Tamar went to her brother Amnon's house; and he was laid down. And she took flour, and
kneaded it, and made cakes in his sight, and did bake the cakes. And she took a pan, and poured
them out before him; but he refused to eat. And Amnon said, Have out all men from me. And they
went out every man from him. And Amnon said unto Tamar, Bring the meat into the chamber, that I
- 172 -
may eat of thine hand. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought them into the
chamber to Amnon her brother.And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of
her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not
force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.And I, whither shall I
cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I
pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.Howbeit he would not hearken
unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.Then Amnon hated her
exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he
had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone.And she said unto him, There is no cause:
this evil in sending me away is greater than the other that thou didst unto me. But he would not
hearken unto her. Then he called his servant that ministered unto him, and said, Put now this
woman out from me, and bolt the door after her. And she had a garment of divers colours upon her:
for with such robes were the king's daughters that were virgins apparelled. Then his servant
brought her out, and bolted the door after her.And Tamar put ashes on her head, and rent her
garment of divers colours that was on her, and laid her hand on her head, and went on crying. And
Absalom her brother said unto her, Hath Amnon thy brother been with thee? but hold now thy
peace, my sister: he is thy brother; regard not this thing. So Tamar remained desolate in her
brother Absalom's house. [ 2 Samuel 13:1-20 ]
In this story Ammon, under the pretense of illness, lures Tamar into his house and rapes her. Next
Tamar is mouthing the patriarchal interpretation of rape as she implores Ammon to marry her. In
full accordance with the biblical rape laws, Tamar appears to be more outraged by Ammon's
rejection than by her rape: 'And she said to him: "No, for this sending me away is a greater evil
than the one you have done to me" [ v.16 ] '. She was a princess, and was supposed to be given in
marriage to a prince, or any honorable man; but in the ancient Israelite society it was very difficult
for a woman to get married if she was not virgin. That is why she told him that this second evil deed
was worse than the first one. According to the Scriptures, she remained desolate, which strongly
suggests that it was her definitive state. The Hebrew word used here is "shamem", the same one
that we find in Isaiah 54:1, and conveys the meaning of "devastated", "wasted", "astonished".
Esther Fuchs [ Associate Professor, Program of Judaic Studies and Department of Near East Studies,
University of Arizona ] also points out that Tamar was crying out for compensation:
Tamar's response lends authority to the biblical rape laws. The rape laws compel the rapist to
marry his victim and to pay her father 12
Michael De Roche in the Journal of Biblical Literature writes:
Ammon is guilty of two crimes: [ 1 ] he rapes a virgin, after which [ 2 ] he refuses to marry her [ cf.
Deut 22:28-29 ] . And as Tamar states, the second crime is worse than the First. As the injured
party Tamar is entitled to restitution. Indeed, the juridical force of the verb za'aq suggests to J.P.
Fokkelman that Tamar is not just weeping but crying out for compensation [see: Narrative Art and
Poetry in the Books of Samuel , ( Assen: van Gorcum , 1981 ) , 1.111 ] . 13
Pastor David Guzik writes in his commentary:
What Amnon did to Tamar was wrong, but he could still somewhat redeem the situation by
either marrying her or paying her bride-price 14
Someone may object to this interpretation / view and refer to the prohibition of marriage between
- 173 -
brother and half-sister. Laws like Leviticus 18:9, 20:17, 18:11 and Deuteronomy 27:22, state that a
man was not to lie with his own sister, wether she was his father's or his mother's daughter. So
according to the four laws, Tamar would not have been an acceptable marriage partner for Ammon.
Then why did Tamar cry out for compensation ? Why did she condemn Ammon for leaving her
alone after the rape ? Why is Tamar more outraged by Ammon's rejection than by her rape ? Bible
scholar Charles Concroy gives us an answer to these questions:
A prohibition of marriage between brother and half-sister was not recognized in the urban setting of
Jerusalem in David's time 15
This view is backed up by the fact that David himself in the Bible had a relationship with his
halfsister:
According to I Chr. 2: 16-17, Abigail was a sister or half-sister of David and doubtless in the source
of I Samuel 25 it is this sister who delivered her previous husband over to death and became her
brother David's wife. 16
Another proof that supports the conclusion of Charles Concroy can be found in Tamar's entreaty to
Ammon: "....Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from
thee....." [ 2 Samuel 13:13 ] Mary Anna Bader correctly observes that Tamar truly believed that she
and her half-brother could marry:
Tamar's words to Ammon allow us to conclude that David would have been able to give her to
Ammon. I have chosen to interpret Tamar's words in this way. Even after the rape, when Tamar
implored Ammon not to send her away, she seemed to be working with the understanding that they
still could have been together, as long as Ammon did not send her away. Tamar operated with the
understanding that Ammon and she could have been together. 17
There is also another option. Jack M. Sasson in: "Absolom's Daughters: An Essay in Vestige
Historiography" discusses the reference to Tamar, the daughter of Absalom, in the Bible. The author
speculates that in the original biblical text the woman that Amnon rapes is not his sister, David's
daughter, but his niece, the daughter of Absalom. Jack Sasson notes that David is noted as having 19
sons, Tamar is noted as 'the sister of my brother Absalom [ II Sam. 13:4 ]. Absalom is also noted as
having three sons, unnamed and one daughter named Tamar [ 14:27 ]. Is the raped woman Tamar
actually Amnon's niece and not his sister ? There is no Hebrew word for niece and niece and
daughter are words often interchanged. Did Amnon actually rape Absalom's daughter ? If that is the
case then Tamar actually went to her father's house. Absalom told her to be calm, perhaps hoping
that David, the King would punish the heir to the Kingdom and perhaps Absalom would then
become heir to the throne. When King David did not react, Absalom executed Amnon and fled.
When he returned he no longer had respect for his father and King.
What about Exodus 22:15-16 ?

____________________________________________________
Exodus 22:15-16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are not identical laws. The verses in Exodus read:
- 174 -
And if a man "entice" [ "pathah" ] a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely
endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money
according to the dowry of virgins. [ Exodus 22:15-16 ]
The Hebrew word translated as "entice" is "pathah" which is defined as:
Pathah - a primitive root; to open, i.e. be [causatively, make] roomy; usually figuratively [in a
mental or moral sense] to be [causatively, make] simple or [ in a sinister way ] delude: - allure,
deceive, enlarge, entice, flatter, persuade, silly [ one ]. [ Strong's Hebrew Dictionary ]
In other words the maid was "seduced" here [ not raped ]. The case in Deut. 22:28-29 is different:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her [taphas] , and lie
with her , and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father
fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her
away all his days [ Deut. 22:28-29 ]
In this verse the man did not "entice" the maid, but took her in a "forcefull manner" [ taphas ] :
Taphas - to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch, to grasp [ in order to ] wield, wield, use skilfully, to be
seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured catch, grasp [ with the hands ] [ Strong's
Hebrew Dictionary ]
As one can see the Hebrew words "taphas" [ Deut. 22:28 ] and "pathah" [ Exodus 22:15 ] are
completely different to each other in meaning. It's therefor incorrect to argue that Deut. 22:28-29 and
Exodus 22:15-16 are identical laws. Exodus 22:15-16 refers to to consensual pre-marital sex,
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 refers to rape.
The passage in Exodus treats of connection with consent ; that in Deuteronomy treats of rape 18
This fact is backed up by the fact that the "rapist" is punished more than the "seducer". Jeffrey H. Tigay,
A.M. Ellis Professor of Hebrew and Semitic Languages and Literatures in the the Department of Near
Eastern Languages and Civilizations, points out the differences between Exodus 22:15-16 and
Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
Dt. 22:28 - "who is not engaged" Hebrew lo' orasah is in the perfect tense and means
literally "was not engaged, " in other words, has never been engaged. As noted by Rabbi
Yose in the Mekhilta, this excludes a girl who was once engaged but whose fiance died or
broke the engagement. In such a case, her father had already received a bride-price for her
and would not have suffered Financial harm because of the rape, and the rapist's fine may
have been adjusted accordingly. The present law, requiring a payment of fifty shekels, deals
only with a girl for whom a bride-price had never been paid.
Dt. 22:29 - "fifty [ shekels of ] silver": This is often taken to be identical to the "bride price
for virgins" mentioned in Exodus 22:16 that the seducer must pay to a virgin's father, but
this is questionable. There is no other evidence that the bride-price for virgins was fifty
shekels. Leviticus 27:5-6 - although not necessarily a guide in the present case - states that
the value of a woman between twenty and sixty years old, whose value is pledged to the
- 175 -
sanctuary, is thirty shekels, and that of a girl aged between five and twenty, ten shekels.
Furthermore it seems unlikely that a rapist's penalty would be identical to that of a seducer,
since his offense is graver. If the seducer of Exodus 22:16 is required to pay an average
bride-price, the fifty shekels paid by the rapist probably represents a combination of an
average bride-price plus punitive damages [ Weinfeld, DDS, pp. 285-286, notes that there
was no standard bride-price, but that it varied with the economic circumstances of the
families involved ]....... - "she shall be his wife" ...... Dt. 22:29 - "he can never have the right to
divorce her": Exodus does not impose this restriction on the seducer. The rapist's offence is
graver and he is treated more stringently. Several of these features are paralleled in the Middle
Assyrian Laws: the rapist must pay triple the normal bride-price and marry the girl [ if her
father is willing ] without the right of divorce... [ MAL A, 55 ] 19
Exodus 22:15-16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are clearly not identical laws !
Conclusion
_______________________________
A man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin must pay 50 shekels to her father and marry her. Ester
Fuchs writes:
Tamar's response lends authority to the biblical rape laws. The rape laws compel the rapist to
marry his victim and to pay her father [ Deut. 22.28-29; Exod 22.15 ] . Until recently is has been
assumed that these laws indeed secure the interest of the raped woman. However, it is not the
raped woman but her father who receives monetary compensation for the rape. Furthermore, the
raped woman must marry her rapist. The law seeks primarily to protect the father's interests and
Legal authority as the custodian of his daughter's virginity. The patriarchal law also penalizes the
daughter by forcing her to marry her assailant, her rapist forever, the law penalizes her as well. The
rape laws and the rape narratives refer to rape as an institution based on male honor code and on
male Financial Legal interests. The solution they offer does not redeem the woman, but rather her
custodians. By presenting the partriarchal interests as the victim's , the text "proves" that the law is
just and valid. In effect, however, the description of Tamar's response is prescriptive. It reflects the
way in which a raped woman "ought to react to her rape". As the perfect daughter and sister who
unquestiongly obeys her father's and both brother's orders, Tamar also epitomizes the perfect rape
victim. In the final analysis, Tamar's protest against Ammon indicates that violating the law is worse
than violating a woman. Tamar's outcry decries the threat to the institution of rape, more than the
act of rape itself. 20
Judith Romney Wegner [ Ph.D. Judaic Studies, 1986 ] points out in her excellent work:
the sages distinguish between a seduced girl and a rape victim by awarding pain and suffering to
the latter; and they force the rapist to marry his victim [ Deut. 22:29 ] - unlike a seducer, who may
do so only at the father's option [ Exod. 22:16 ]...But these measures do not necessarily reflect a
concern with the victim's personal rights. All scheduled payments, including pain and suffering for
rape, go to the victim's father [ M. Ket. 4:1 ] , thus identifying the father [ not the girl ] as the
injured party; the requirement that the rapist marry the victim probably stems more from a wish to
spare the father the trouble of finding her another husband than from any concern with the girl
- 176 -
herself....The father collects damages for the daughter's reduced value as though she were his
slave injured through someone's negligence [ M. Ket. 3:7 B ]. Even in a rape case, the
compensation for pain and suffering goes to the father, not the girl. Furthermore, it is not the girl's
embarrasment or humiliation that counts, but that of her father [ M. Ket. 3:7 A ]. 21
In the Bible the feelings of the girl are given little consideration. She is clearly treated as chattel. The
Bible views the victim of rape only from the father's economic standpoint. According to biblical
standards defloration by force reduces her value on the marriage market. This perception of the violated
girl as "damaged goods" takes no account of her as a person. Above all it ignores the heinousness of
rape. Moreover it is not the raped woman but her father who receives monetary compensation for
the rape.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____
References and Notes:

[1]
Bernard S. Jackson, "The Jewish Law Annual: V. 4" ( Brill 1981 ) , pp. 30-31
[2]
Richard Abbot, Old Testament Studies, - Word study bethûlâh - , source
[3]
Mary Anna Bader:"Sexual Violation in the Hebrew Bible - A Multi-Methodological Study of Genesis
34 and 2 Samuel 13" in:"Studies in Biblical Literature", vol. 87 [ 2006 ] , pp.18-19
[4]
The New American Commentary Vol. IV: Deuteronomy by Eugene H. Merill [ Broadman & Holman
Publishers 1994 ] , pp.305-306
[5]
Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament [ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976 ] , p. 295
[6]
Alexander Rofé: "Defilement of Virgins in Biblical Law and the Case of Dinah [ Genesis 34 ]" in
"Biblica" vol 86 , no. 3 [ 2005 ] , p. 369
[7]
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible [ Hendrickson Publishers 1995 ] , p. 265
[8]
The Expositor's Bible: Deuteronomy and Joshua, Commentary by Rev. Andrew Harper, B.D. , p. 400
[ A.C. Armstrong and Son 1905 ]
- 177 -
[9]
The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol. III: Deutronomy by Earl S. Kalland, [ Zondervan Publishing
House Grand Rapids, Michigan 1992 ] . p. 139
[10]
The Pulpit Commentary Vol. III, Homilies by Rev. James Orr, [ Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company Grand Rapids, Michigan 1950 ] , p. 360
[11]
34 and 2 Samuel 13" in:"Studies in Biblical Literature", vol. 87 [ 2006 ] , p. 72
[12]
Esther Fuchs: "Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative - Reading the Hebrew Bible as a woman" ,
JSOTS , supplement series 310, [ Sheffield Academic Press 2001 ] , p. 216
[13]
M. De Roche:"Yahweh's Rib against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-Called Prophetic Lawsuit in

the Preexilic Prophets" in"Journal of Biblical Literature", Vol. 102 , No. 4, 1983, p. 566
[14]
Verse by Verse Commentary on the Book of 2 Samuel: Enduring Word Commentary Series by David
Guzik, [ Enduring Word Media 2004 ] , p. 105
[15]
Charles Conroy: "Absalom Absalom ! : Narrative and Language in 2 Sam 13-20" [ Analecta Biblica
81: Rome: Pontifical Institute, 1978 ] , p. 18
[16]
G. R. H. Wright : "Dumuzi at the Court of David" in: "Numen" , Volume 28, No. 1 [ Jun., 1981 ], p.
56
[17]
34 and 2 Samuel 13" in:"Studies in Biblical Literature", vol. 87 [ 2006 ] , p. 72
[18]
David Halivni Weiss, "A Note on ashr la arshh" , Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 81, No. 1 [ Mar.,
1962 ] , p. 67
[19]
The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy by Jeffrey H. Tigay [ The Jewish Publication Society
1996 ] , pp.208-209
[20]
- 178 -
Esther Fuchs: "Sexual Politics in the Biblical Narrative - Reading the Hebrew Bible as a woman" ,
JSOTS , supplement series 310, [ Sheffield Academic Press 2001 ] , p. 216
[21]
Judith Romney Wegner: "Chattel or Person ? - The Status of Women in the Mishnah" [ Oxford
University Press 1988 ] , pp. 26-27
Haughty women are punished in the Bible with rape !

_____________________________________________________
______
In the Bible we have seen that women are viewed as inferior human beings. In
lamentations 1:8-17 for example we have seen that the Bible uses female sexuality
to represent male sin [ in order to humiliate sinfull men, by placing them in the
inferior female position ]. Due to this it is no surprise to come across passages or
verses in the Bible which inflict on women cruel or harsch punishments for minor or
less serious issues [ sometimes punishments are even given to innocent women, see
for example 2. Samuel 12-11 which tells us how God orders the rape of David's wifes
to punish David ]. In Isaiah 3:14-24 we read the next: Due to this it is no surprise to
come across passages or verses in the Bible
The Lord will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes
thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor [is] in your houses.
What mean ye [that] ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor ?
saith the Lord GOD of hosts. Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are
haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as
they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab
the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret
parts In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of [their] tinkling ornaments
[about their feet], and [their] cauls, and [their] round tires like the moon, The chains,
and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and
the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels, The
changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. And it shall come to
pass, [that] instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent;
and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of
sackcloth; [and] burning instead of beauty. [1] example 2.
Samukkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkel 12-11 which tells us how God orders the rape of David's
wifes to punish David ]. In Isaiah 3:16-17
Here one can see that the "biblical" Lord decides to punsih the haughty women. The
next question off course is: "what sort of punishment does the biblical Lord inflict
here ? " To answer this question we have to study the last part of the verse which
reads: "..Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the
daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts.." . What does this
mean or indicate ? What does the expression "....The Lord will discover their secret
- 179 -
parts..." mean or indicate ? David Guzik, the director of Calvary Chapel Bible
College, answers this question very well in his commentary on Isaiah 3:16-17
Their obsession with their appearance, their love of luxury, and their promiscuity
made the daughters of Zion ripe for judgment: Therefore the Lord will strike with a
scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will uncover their
secret parts. Their "crown" will be a scab, and instead of being beautifully adorned,
they will be exposed and humiliated. Also, the Lord will take away the finery. In
Isaiah's time, these judgments were connected with the coming invasions. Because
of scarcity and disease, the haughty daughters of Zion would be sick and diseased.
They would be raped and humiliated. And all their wonderful "accessories" would be
taken away. [2]
Bible scholars C F Keil and F Delitzsch in their commentary on the Old testament
write:
The attractive influence of natural charms, especially when heightened by luxurious

art, is very great; but the prophet is blind to all this splendour, and seeing nothing
but the corruption within, foretells to these rich and distinguished women a foul and
by no means aesthetic fate. The Sovereign Ruler of all would smite the crown of their
head, from which long hair was now flowing, with scab [ "v'sippach" , a progressive
preterite with "Vav apodosis" , a denom. verb from "sappachath" , the scurf which
adheres to the skin: see at Hab 2:15 ] ; and Jehovah would uncover their nakedness,
by giving them up to violation and abuse at the hands of coarse and barbarous foes-
the greatest possible disgrace in the eyes of a woman, who covers herself as
carefully as she can in the presence of any stranger [3]
So now we can see and understand that the expression "...Therefore the Lord will
smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion..." refers to the
sickness and disease that would befall these women [ as a punishment ]. John Gill
explains this expression very well in the next words: "...This is opposed to the lifting
up of their heads in that haughty manner they did, and to the binding, and plaiting,
and curling of their hair, which now will fall off, through the scab or leprosy upon
them, or must be obliged to be shaven off..." The second expression "...The Lord will
discover their secret parts..." refers to the exposure of their [ the daughters ]
genitalia. This is also confirmed when take a look at the commentary given by the
bible scholars Robert Jamieson, Andrew Fausset, and David Brown:
Discover - cause them to suffer the greatest indignity that can befall female captives,
namely to be stripped naked, and have their persons exposed [4]
Another renowned bible scholar, John Wesley in his commentary on Isaiah 3:17
writes:
Secret paths - By giving her into the power of those enemies that shall strip her of all
her raiment. [5]
Here again we can clearly see how women are treated like a piece of meat in biblical
literature. The poem in Isaiah makes a promise to the daughters of Zion that their
private parts or genitalia will be exposed. This promise as we know from the
historical context and classic bible commentaries also refers to the act of by making
them sexually available to the rapists [ the barbaric gentile soldiers ] . In other words
women are mocked, insulted and scared to death with this poem.
- 180 -
But the poet subverts our expectations by shifting our focus away from the
Jerusalemite dignitaries to the 'daughters of Zion'. By belaboring the graphic
depiction of the demeanor, gait, and apparel of these women, the Isaianic poet
derives some enjoyment at mocking their vanity. [6]
Below one can listen how this insulting poem is preached by pastor David Guzik:
Sandie Gravett in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament writes:
Isaiah 3.16-17 harshly condemns the women of Zion for their arrogance and
seductiveness, resulting in YHWH laying bare their genitalia [7]
In other words haughty women are punsihed with rape and total humiliation in the
Bible ! The Bible full of proud tells us how these women [ as a punishment ] will be
given into the hands of barbaric / brutal soldiers who will stripp their clothes off, rape
and humiliate them [ simply because these women were haughty ] ! This biblical
account and unjust punishment shows us how much the Bible opresses and dislikes
women. It's disgusting to read that women are punished with rape.
humiliation for the "daughters of Zion" becomes explicitly graphic with the exposure
of their genitalia by YHWH. Just as Pope inscribed male readers who would 'get the
point' of his satiric humour, the Isaianic poet, too, engages in an inscribing activity by
interpellating [male] readers to share in his mockery of these women with his
belabored depiction of their vanity. [8]
Johnny Miles in his work makes an interesting observation:
it was the Jerusalem nobles, not the women, who implemented exploitative policies
against the poor. Nonetheless, slurs against women, whether socially disenfranchised
or not, were commonplace in such a patriarchal culture. The poet's sleight-of-hand
association of the sins of Zion with woman would have received minimal, if any,
criticism. Being the object of ridicule in a shame-oriented culture, though, could
prove fatal, hence empowering the malign efficacy of satire. Yet, the poet's insidious
play does not end here. [9]
Johnny Miles also points out that this biblical poem has much in common with
Alexander Pope's poem [ The Rape of the Lock ] :
Pope intends with his satire a critique of the superficial values of a fashionable
society in the reign of Queen Anne, a critique similar to that made by the Isaianic
poet of Judean society. The Isaianic poet's barrage of difficult-to-translate "hapax"
intends to position the reader to dwell upon the removal of each clothing article, thus
evoking images of a slow, agonizing rape of the daughters of Zion by YHWH. With
each article's removal, the intensity level escalates to culminate in the fatigue of this
poem's interpellated readers paralleled only by that of the 'daughters of Zion'. But
while making their attacks, both poets simultaneously establish a poetic economy of
gender in which woman functions "as the sign not of her own subjectivity but of a
male desire of which she is the object" ........Isaiah's satire, however, far surpasses
the "mock" violence perpetrated by that of Pope as poetic intent and divine activity
collude to ravage the daughters of Zion. The androcentric perspective of these texts
inscribes male readers who, as salacious voyeurs, can appreciate such literary acts of
- 181 -
misogynous judgment- the "daughters of Zion" and Belinda deserve what they get.
[10]
Isaiah 3:24 moreover shows us in which desperate condition these women will end:
".....And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and
instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a
stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty..." David Guzik in his
commentary comments: "...They will live the stench, the baldness, the branding and
the general deprivation of captivity...." Other bible commentators explain that the
biblical expression "...and instead of well set hair baldness..." refers to the customary
expressions of mourning in those times and countries [ people used to shave their
own heads when mourning ]. John Gill explains the biblical expression in Isaiah 3:24:
"...and instead of well set hair baldness..." as: "...instead of plaited hair, and curled
locks, kept in order, there would be scabs, ulcers, leprosy, or such diseases as would
cause the hair to fall off, and leave a baldness. The Septuagint [ Greek version ] and
Arabic versions render it, "instead of the golden ornament of the head, thou shall
have baldness for thy works"; and the Syriac version, "instead of gems, incisions...."
In other words after being raped by the most barbaric soldiers women still [ after all
of this ] had to suffer the results of the diseases which were brought upon them later
on [ after the gang-rape, destruction, and invasion of the city ] as a punishment. This
"biblical" promise is clearly a woman's nightmare !
______________________________________________________________________________________
___________________
[1]
The Bible, The Book of Isaiah [ Old Testament ] , Chapter 3, Verse 14-24 [ Kings
James Translation ].
[2]
David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible, see: -

http://www3.calvarychapel.com/ccbcgermany/commentaries/2303.htm -
[3]
Commentary on the Old Tetament by C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Vol. VII, Isaiah, p. 143-
44 [ William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Michigan 1980 ]
[4]
Commentary on the Whole Bible by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, p. 509 [ Zondervan
Publishing House, Grand Rapids Michigan 1961 ]
[5]
- 182 -
John Wesley's Explanatory Notes, see:-
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/wes.cgi?
book=isa&chapter=003 -
[6]
Johnny Miles [ Texas Christian University ] , "Re-reading the Power of Satire: Isaiah's
'Daughters of Zion', Pope's 'Belinda', and the Rhetoric of Rape", Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament, Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 198-99 [ 2006 Sage Publications ]
[7]
Sandie Gravett, "Reading rape in the Hebrew Bible: a consideration of language" ,

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, No. 3, vol 28, p. 293.
[8]
of the Old Testament, Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 202 [ 2006 Sage Publications ] .
[9]
[10]
Isaiah 3:17 - Foreheads or Secret Parts ?
Written by Kevin Abdullah Karim
_____________________________________________________
____
Christians differ over the translation of Isaiah 3:17. There are two different
translations of this verse:
Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the
daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts [ Isaiah 3:17,
KJV ]
Therefore the Lord will bring sores on the heads of the women of Zion; the
Lord will make their scalps bald. [Isaiah 3:17, NIV ]
- 183 -
In response to my earlier article on Isaiah 3:17, a brother mailed me the next
comment made by a Christian:
On a different matter, you continue to argue that Isaiah 3:17 talks about women
being raped because they were haughty. You claim that "most" modern versions
translate the passage as "secret parts." I have eighteen English translations of the
Old Testament, and only nine of them translate the passage as secret parts. The
other half use some variation of "laying the head bare." You claim that the word
"scalp" isn't in the text, but I must point out that [ and here's the key ] neither is
"secret parts" ! The passage simply refers to something being laid bare. Some
translators conclude that the passage is saying that the women's bodies will be laid
bare, while others translate the verse as saying that the women's heads will be laid
bare. [ claim made by christian missionary ]
Response
________________________
Which translation is honest ? What is being laid bare here ? The actual Hebrew of the
x-rated passage reads:
vayhwh pothen yaareh [ Isaiah 3:17 ]
The Biblical God will expose the "pot" of the daughters of Zion. What is the meaning
of the Hebrew word "pot" here ? "Pot" = cunt, hen-3rd person female suffix. The
word "pot" is the shortened and more vulgar version of the word which is usually
used: "potah" [ vagina ]. The Bantam-Megiddo Hebrew / English dictionary confirms
that "potah" means vagina. Also other Hebrew dictionaries support that the word
"pot" in this verse refers to the female pudenda or vagina, see for example:
poth - from an unused root meaning to open; a hole, i.e. hinge or the female pudenda
-- hinge, secret participle [ Strong's Hebrew Dictionary, Entry 6596 ]
pot - the external sex organ of the female, the female nakedness [ Even-Shoshan
exhaustive Hebrew Dictionary ]
As one can see the word "poth" [ hole, opening, female pudenda ] doesn't refer to the
forehead or scalp, unless one views the forehead as an "opening" or "hole". The word
"poth" clearly refers to the vagina here. Further the word "yeareh" [ which is used in
Isaiah 3:17 ] is the future tense verb from the root ayin-reysh-heh which means "to
expose, make bare, naked". It is the root which forms "arum" [ naked ] and "ervah"
[ nakedness, nudity ]. In Strong's Hebrew dictionary "yeareh" is defined as:
- 184 -
a primitive root; to be [ causatively, make ] bare; hence, to empty, pour out,
demolish:--leave destitute, discover, empty, make naked, pour [ out ], rase, spread
self, uncover. [ Strong's Hebrew Dictionary , Entry 6168 ]
The word the "yeareh" is also used in the next verse:
Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwellest in the land of Uz; the cup also
shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked
[ "yeareh" ] [ Lamentations 4:2 ]
In Isaiah 3:17 the word "yeareh" [ to uncover, make naked ] is used in connection with
the word "poth" , this fact also supports the rendering of the word "poth" in this passage
as the "female pudenda". Johnny Miles [ Adjunct Instructor Texas Christian University ]
confirms this in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament:
I propose reading "pot" as a connotation for the female genitalia given its
close proximity to "yeareh" [ "lay bare", "expose", "denude" ] , a derivative
of which is "ervah" [ "pudenda", "nakedness" ]. Such a connotation restores
the sexual violence within this text in order to re-read its misogynist
inscription. The premeditated humiliation for the "daughters of Zion" becomes
explicitly graphic with the exposure of their genitalia by YHWH 1
There is more good news. A recent study of some "semetic ancient snake spells" in an
egyptian pyramid, helped Richard Steiner, a professor of Semitic languages and
literature at New York's Yeshiva University, to solve the long-standing dispute over
the meaning of the word "pot" in Isaiah 3:17. National Geographic reports:
the newly deciphered spells provide the first glimpse of the ancestor
language to Phoenician and Hebrew. "This is a discovery of utmost
importance," Bar-Asher said. "Almost all the words found [in these texts]
are also found in the Bible." "It's not as different from biblical Hebrew as
some people might have expected," Yeshiva University's Steiner added. "A
lot of the characteristics of Hebrew that we know from the Bible are
already present in these texts." The language of the newly deciphered
spells is so similar to biblical Hebrew, in fact, that Steiner was able to solve
a long-standing dispute over the meaning of the word 'pot'. Isaiah 3:17
reads, in regard to the daughters of Zion, "the Lord will uncover their pot."
By the Middle Ages there was already a dispute among biblical scholars
over whether the word referred to the females' genitalia or to a part of
their heads, Steiner said in his lecture. But the use of this rare word in one
of the Canaanite spells appears to settle the question. "From this text it is
now clear the Hebrew term used by Isaiah refers to the female genitalia,"
Bar-Asher, of the Hebrew University, said. These texts also "provide the
first direct evidence for the pronunciation of Egyptian in this early period,"
2
- 185 -
Finally we would like to point out that the x-rated passage in it's original Hebrew says
nothing about making someone's head or scalp bald. In Hebrew there is an actual
root which means "to make/become bald" [ kuf-reysh-het ] , and this is NOT used.
The meaning of this verse is pretty clear. The daughters of Zion will get their "female
genitalia" uncovered by the Biblical Lord. This fact becomes more clear when one
reads Isaiah 3:18-24 in which the poet describes how these women will be stripped
off from their clothes [ the mantles, the fine linen, the changeable suits of
apparel etc. ]. The daughters of Zion are clearly stripped of naked in these verses.
They were shamed by the Biblical Lord. One may ask: "why did the Biblical Lord
uncover the female genetalia of of these women ?" Isaiah 3:16 answers this question:
Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and
wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:
Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of
Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts [ Isaiah 3:16-17 ]
Notice how the Biblical Lord condems the Daugters of Zion for their self pride and
"seductiveness" , the Daugters of Zion were out for some male attention [ "by
making a tinkling with their feet" ]. Johnny Miles [ Adjunct Instructor Texas Christian
University ] confirms this fact in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament :
By belaboring the graphic depiction of the demeanor, gait, and apparel of these
women, the Isaianic poet derives some enjoyment at mocking their vanity. He
describes them as walking about town with outstretched necks and casting seductive
glances. Wildberger remarks that 'the women glance flirtatiously..to see if those who
meet them have noticed and been taken with their beauty'...In fact, this poetic
imagery insinuates the 'daughters of Zion' as playing the harlot 3
In other words because the "Daughters of Zion" were haughty, sexy, beautifull and
seductive [ they were out for male attention ] , the Biblical Lord decides to give to
them some "male attention" by uncovering their "secret parts" [ female genitalia ]. C.
F. Keil and F. Delitzsch write in their classic commentary on the Old Testament:
and Jehovah would uncover their nakedness, by giving them up to violation and abuse at
the hand of coarse and barbarous foes - the greatest possible disgrace in the eyes of a
woman, who covers herself as carefully as she can in the presence of any stranger. 4
The satire [ Isaiah 3:16-17 ] is 100 % antifeminist. Women are described as harlots
and punished with rape for their obsession with beauty and seductive behaviour !
The Biblical Lord obvious supports the disgusting view that: "women who act and
dress seductive need [ or deserve ] to be punished with rape". In another passage
we also read that the Biblical Lord himself will send armies to rape the women of
Jerusalem [ see Zecharia 14:1-2 ]. It seems that the Biblical Lord has a dislike for
women.
______________________________________________________________________________________
___________________
[1]
- 186 -
Johnny Miles, "Re-reading the Power of Satire: Isaiah's 'Daughters of Zion', Pope's
'Belinda', and the Rhetoric of Rape", JSOT, Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 201-202 [ 2006 Sage
Publications ]
[2]
National Geographic News [ February 5, 2007] : "Ancient Semitic Snake Spells

Deciphered in Egyptian Pyramid" by Mati Milstein, online source
[3]
Johnny Miles, "Re-reading the Power of Satire: Isaiah's 'Daughters of Zion', Pope's
'Belinda', and the Rhetoric of Rape", JSOT, Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 199-200 [ 2006 Sage
Publications ]
[4]
Commentary on the Old Tetament by C. F. Keil & F. Delitzsch, Vol. VII, Isaiah [ William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Michigan 1980 ], p. 143-144
Women are punished again with rape in the Bible !

_____________________________________________________
______
In Zechariah 14:1-2 we read how the "biblical" God orders the rape of women [ as a
punishment for the sins of Jerusalem ] :
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of
thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be
taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go
forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
[1]
Renowned biblical scholar and theologian John Calvin in his classic commentary
writes:
Behold, he says, the day shall come to Jehovah, and divided shall be thy spoils in the
midst of the city. By the demonstrative particle Behold, the certainty of the prophecy,
as it has been elsewhere said, is intimated; for the Prophet points out as by the finger
what could not yet be comprehended by human minds. And he says, that the day
would come to Jehovah, that they might know that they would suffer a just
punishment when the Lord treated them in this manner; for men, we know, indulge
themselves and seek pleasures, and when God seems not to deal kindly with them,
- 187 -
they raise a clamor as though he were too severe. Hence the Prophet reminds them,
that so great a calamity would not come without a cause, for God would then execute
his judgment. He does not expressly describe it, but he speaks as though he
summoned them before God's tribunal. Now when we understand that we have to do
with God, it avails us nothing to murmur. It is then better to be silent when God is set
forth as being in the midst of us, for it is certain that he will not in chastising us
exceed what is just.
But here is described a hard affliction; for Zechariah intimates that the city would be
exposed to the will of enemies, so that they would divide at pleasure their spoils in
the very midst of it. What conquerors snatch away, they afterwards in private divide
among themselves; and we know that many cities have been plundered, when yet
the conquerors have not dared to expose to view their spoils. But the Prophet means
here that there would be no strength in the Jews to prevent their enemies from
dividing the spoils at their leisure in the midst of the city.
He afterwards adds, I will gather all nations against Jerusalem. He confirms what I
have already said, that God would be the author of those calamities, and thus he
puts a restraint on the Jews, that they might not expostulate with him respecting the
severity of their punishment. He then shortly intimates, that the nations would not
come by chance to attack Jerusalem; and that whatever commotions would arise,
they could not be ascribed to chance or to fortune, or to the purposes of men, but to
the decree of heaven. He then bids them to look to God, that they might humble
themselves umber his mighty hand, according to what Peter also does. [1 Peter 5:6.]
He might have said in a briefer manner, "All the nations shall conspire;" but he
ascribes this to God, and says, that he will bring them, like a prince, who collects an
army, which he commands to fight under his banner. And by naming all nations, he
reminds them that their trials would not be light; for such would be the union of
enemies, and so large would be their number, that Jerusalem would be brought nigh
to utter ruin. But afterwards he subjoins a consolation to moderate the grievousness
of that calamity: yet he says first -
Taken shall be the city, plundered shall be the houses, and the women shall be
ravished. What usually happens to a city taken by storm, the citizens of Jerusalem,
the Prophet says, would have to endure. It is indeed an extreme outrage, when
women are ravished by enemies; and then, poverty is often more grievous than
death; and yet he says, that when deprived of their substance they would have to
witness an outrage more hard to be borne than death itself, because their women
would be subjected to such a disgrace.
He adds, that half part of the city would depart. He had said before that a third part
only would be saved; but he now seems to be inconsistent with himself. But as to
number we need not anxiously enquire, as I have elsewhere reminded you; for the
Prophets often mention half part and then the third, when yet they mean the same
thing. It is the same as though he had said, that the destruction would be so great,
that hardly half of them would remain alive. [2]
Biblical scholar W.J. Deane in his exposition on Zecharia [ chapter 14:1-2 ] moreover
points out how the "biblical God" uses Gentile nations [ their barbaric armies ] as
instruments to "purify" and "refine" the people [ which in the account of Zecharia
14:1-2 includes the brutal rape of Jerusalem's women ] :
- 188 -
How this shall come to pass is now shown. "For I will gather all nations" . God uses
the Gentile nations as his instruments in his trial of his people; they are the fires by
which he refines and purifies his elect [ Joel 3:2, 9-11 ]. [3]
It's obvious that the Bible loves to inflict rape as a punishment on women. It's
shocking to read such passages in a book [ the Bible ] which christians consider or
believe to be inspired by the holy ghost. It's very disgusting to see how the Bible
views and treats women as inferior human beings or meat ready for rape !
______________________________________________________________________________________
___________________
[1]
The Bible, Zechariah 14:1-2 [ Kings James Translation ].
[2]
See: - http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom30.iii.xv.ii.html -
[3]
The Pulpit Commentary, Vol. XIV, Exposition by W.J. Deane [ WM. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, Grands Rapids Michigan 1977 ] , p.156
More rape in the Hebrew Bible ?

S. Gravett, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, No. 3, vol 28, pp. 291 - 293.
_____________________________________________________
______
The authors of Ezekiel 16 introduce the city of Jerusalem as the adulterous wife of
YHWH. Born in the land of the Canaanites to an Amorite father and a Hittite mother
[v. 3] , she is abandoned as an infant, saved by YHWH, but then left to grow up alone
and poor [v. 5] until puberty when YHWH sees her, desires her and becomes her
lover and then her husband [v. 8]. YHWH showers her with gifts [vv. 10-14] , but she
turns to other lovers [vv. 15-34] , resulting in her brutal condemnation. She is given
into the hands of her former lovers, who tear apart her home, rape and rob her [vv.
38-39] , then stone and mutilate her [v. 40] in the sight of many women [v. 41].
Chapter 23 offers a markedly similar account in the story of two sisters, Oholah and
Oholibah. Representing the cities of Samaria and Jerusalem [v. 4] , these women
- 189 -
become YHWH's lovers [vv. 4-5] , the mothers of his children [vv. 4, 37] and, by
implication only, his wives [vv. 37-39, 45]. After an explicitly detailed accounting of
their sexual conduct [vv. 5-8, 11-21, 36-44] , a series of brutal punishments ensues
[vv. 9-10, 22-35, 45]. A final oracle in vv. 46-49 reiterates this violence as YHWH calls
for a public lynching, stoning, mutilation, rape, the murder of the women's children
and the destruction of their homes, as a warning to all other women not to become
adulteresses. Understanding the sexual violence in these passages demands a close
look at the ways the word
functions. In 16.8, when coupled with the verb and accompanied by

all of the proper rituals, it denotes an act of sexual intercourse that falls within the
boundaries of acceptability for such intimacy by sealing a marriage.
By contrast, when paired with the verb [16.36, 37; 23.10, 29] this stock or more
common idiom refers to illicit sexual liaisons. For example, in 16.36 YHWH accuses
his wife of multiple acts of sexual in. delity, graphically describing how sexually
prepared or 'wet' she became for her many lovers. Then the text reads:
[ 'you exposed your genitals' ], meaning 'you engaged in sexual

intercourse outside of your marriage'. By taking a lover not her husband, the woman
Jerusalem violates the legally defined parameters for sexual expression and thus her
conduct, her exposing herself, can be labeled 'adultery'. No need exists for the
technical term here since Ezekiel follows the phrasing of the Priestly codes in
Leviticus. A problem with variant translations becomes apparent only one verse later,
in 16.37, when the authors use the same terminology but for different effect. Here,
YHWH calls together the woman's lovers, arrays them like a military force around
her, and declares:
Taking the pairing of and

to mean sexual congress, YHWH may be inciting a rape by exposing her
genitalia to the former lovers, that is, by making her sexually available to them. The
men respond by 'seeing' her nakedness, a phrase used in Lev. 20.17 to indicate
incestual [ marital ? ] relations, and in Gen. 9.22 and Lam. 1.8 to speak of actions
that can be read sexually. Occurring in situations indicating force, the phrase here
indicates that her husband and former lovers trap her much like an army laying siege
to a city or a mob preparing for a lynching.
The third masculine plural ending on the preposition as well as the use of
in the third masculine plural, suggests more than one man took part in the
attack and indicates the assault was a gang rape. This reading corresponds with the
events narrated in Ezek. 23.10 and 23.29. Ezekiel 23.9-10 describes the punishment
of Oholah or Samaria by YHWH through the agency of her lovers, the Assyrian Army 'I
gave her into the hands of her lovers, into the hands of the sons of Assyria'.
Described as men she once lusted after, these men uncover her genitals, take her
children captive,and then murder her. In an armed invasion of a city, the violations of
rape, followed by the seizing of children before murder makes a logical, even though
disturbing, kind of sense. Similarly, in 23.28, YHWH gives Jerusalem into the hands of
- 190 -
her former lovers. Twice identified as men she no longer desires [vv. 22, 28] and
once [v. 28] as men she hates, the author[s] of this section provide direct evidence
that she in no way welcomes their sexual advances. Indeed, v. 29 says that they
'deal with her in hatred', that is, they take all of her property, before leaving her
naked.
A variety of other prophetic texts make use of similar language to describe the fate
of women in war. Nahum 3.5 speaks of Nineveh as a whore and promises God's
retribution on her: 'and I will lift up your skirts over your face and I will cause nations
to look upon your genitals and kingdoms upon your shame'. Isaiah 3.16-17 harshly
condemns the women of Zion for their arrogance and seductiveness, resulting in
YHWH laying bare their genitalia. Likewise, in Isa. 47.2-3, YHWH forces the virgin
daughter of Babylon into service before her veil is removed, her legs uncovered, her
robes stripped away and her genitals uncovered revealing her shame. Whybray
concludes:
the reference in the first half of the verse is to sexual intercourse. Probably the
implication is that a young female slave Babylon will be subjected to the final
humiliation of being forced to accept the casual sexual attentions of any man who
happens to want her 1
In writing on Hab. 2.15, Roberts offers a similar argument when more powerful
nations cause weaker neighbors to get drunk in order to look on their nakedness
Though the particular word Habakkuk uses for nakedness [ m¨'ôr ] occurs only here,
synonyms for related words are often used metaphorically.to describe the shameful
treatment of land or cities [ Isa. 47.1-3; Nahum 3.5 ]. The metaphor was rooted in the
actual practice of leading away prisoners of war naked [ Isa. 20.4; Chron. 28.15; see
ANEP, nos. 358-359 ], not to mention the widespread sexual abuse of women
characteristic of ancient imperial conquests. 2
Although Roberts sees this connection only when the text does not involve an
adulterous woman, the correlation holds even in such a context. Indeed, the
pervasiveness of this language depicting wartime conquests strengthens the case for
reading the idiom in Ezekiel not as part of the sentence for a woman caught in
adultery, but as the rape of women, specifically of Israelite and Judean women,
during armed invasions by their enemies. The element of infidelity enters the picture
only as explanation of God's cause for turning away from the chosen people.
Translations of rape make sense here as the idiomatic turns of phrase in Hebrew
obscure what the prophets depict as happening at the hands of people's enemies and
of God. While ancient readers possessed familiarity with the colloquial expressions
that made the actions described clear, modern readers simply lack the cultural
contexts to accomplish such connections and to understand these texts as about
rape unless the translator renders them as such.
______________________________________________________________________________________
___________________
[1]
- 191 -
R.N. Whybray, Isaiah 40-66 [ NCB; London: Oliphants, 1975 ] , p. 120.
[2]
J.J.M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah [ OTL; Louisville, KY: Westminster /
John Knox Press, 1991 ] , p. 124.
Kitaab Al Masaahif From Ibn Abi Dawud

By
Bassam Zawadi
Acknowledgement: Many thanks to brother Hamza A. Bajwa for assisting me in

writing this article.
Several critics appeal to the book Kitaab Al Masaahif authored by Ibn Abi Dawud, the
son of the famous hadith collector Abu Dawud, for it contains narrations that speak about
Qur'anic variants which missionaries then utilize in order to attack the textual credibility
of the Qur'an.
Many Christian missionaries try to bring up the whole issue regarding Al Hajjaj changing
the Quran. This report is found in Ibn Abi Dawud's Kitaab Al Masaahif.
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid says regarding this report in Kitaab Al Masaahif:
With regard to what is mentioned in the question, quoting from al-Masaahif by

Ibn Abi Dawood, there follows the report concerning that and the ruling thereon:
It was narrated from 'Abbaad ibn Suhayb from 'Awf ibn Abi Jameelah that al-
Hajjaaj ibn Yoosuf changed eleven letters in the Mus-haf. He said that in Soorat
al-Baqarah 2:259 it said lam yatasanna wa'nzur, with no ha', and he changed it to
lam yatasannah wa'nzur (they show no change, and look.)
In al-Maa'idah 5:48 it said sharee'atan wa minhaajan, and he changed it to

shir'atan wa minhaajan (a law and a clear way)
- 192 -
In Yoonus 10:22 it said, Huwa alladhi yunshirukum and he changed it to Huwa
alladhi yusayyirukum (He it is Who enables you to travel.)
In Yoosuf 12:45 it said Ana aateekum bi ta'weelihi and he changed it to Ana

unabbi'ukum bi ta'weelihi (I will tell you its interpretation)
In al-Zukhruf 43:32 it said, Nahnu qasamnaa baynahum ma'aayishahum and he

changed it to Nahnu qasamnaa baynahum ma'eeshatahum (It is We Who portion
out between them their livelihood)
In al-Takweer 81:24 it said, Wa ma huwa 'ala'l-ghaybi bi zaneen and he changed

it to Wa ma huwa 'ala'l-ghaybi bi daneen (and he withholds not a knowledge of
the unseen)
Kitaab al-Masaahif by al-Sajistaani, p. 49.
This report is da'eef jiddan (very weak) or mawdoo' (fabricated), because its
isnaad includes 'Abbaad ibn Suhayb, whose hadeeth is to be rejected.
'Ali ibn al-Madeeni said: his hadeeth is no good. Al-Bukhaari, al-Nasaa'i and
others said: he is matrook (to be rejected). Ibn Hibbaan said: he was a
Qadari who promoted his innovated ideas, and he narrated things which a
beginner in this field would realize were fabricated if he heard them. Al-
Dhahabi said: he is one of those who are to be rejected. See Meezaan al-
I'tidaal, by al-Dhahabi, 4/28. (Source)
For more detailed evidence for this narration being weak read this article.
Christians also attempt to appeal to other narrations in the book that discuss Qur'anic
variants. However, when doing so they try to put too much stock on the reliability of this
book. One neophyte Christian apologist by the name of Nabeel Qureshi states in defense
of Kitaab Al Masaahif:
- 193 -
(By the way, the most scholarly book I have read from a modern Muslim
regarding the Quran is called The Sciences of the Quraan by Abu Ammaar Yasir
Qadhi. He provides excellent evidences, though I disagree with many of his
conclusions. Solely providing evidences sets him apart from most modern Muslim
scholars. Anyhow, in this book, Qadhi lauds Ibn Daud for excellent scholarship.
My use of this source, therefore, is not just a "Christian tactic" but is well-
reasoned and Muslim-corroborated.) (Source, bold emphasis ours)
He also went on to say in response to a Muslim who questioned the scholarly credibility
of this book:
Why don't you have an argument with your Muslim brother (just about the only
scholarly Muslim writing I've ever seen) Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi: "This book
(Kitab al-Masahif) is an excellent reference, and it contains the necessary
insaads for each narration, so the authenticity of each narration may be
ascertained." (Sciences of the Quran, 388) Yes, Qadhi mentions that this book
came with mixed reviews from hadith scholars, but I could have told you that
without having been there simply because of the type of material mentioned in the
book. Say anything that even begins to approach the truth about the Quran, and
muslims get infuriated. (Ibid, bold emphasis ours)
Let's examine Nabeel's first claim, which is that Yasir Qadhi praised this book for
excellent scholarship. Is this in fact true? This is what Yasir Qadhi actually states in his
book (and the funny part is that Nabeel cites it as well, but doesn't realize what he is
citing):
The second book in Jeffery's collection is his editing of 'Abdullah Ibn Abee
Daawood's (d.316 A.H.) Kitaab al-Masaahif. The author is none other that [sic]
the son of the famous collector of the Sunan, Aboo Daawood as-Sijistaani (d. 275
A.H.). However, he did not enjoy the same prestige as his father, and he has
mixed reviews from the scholars of hadeeth. Nonetheless, the book is an
excellent reference, and it contains the necessary isnaads for each narration,
so the authenticity of each narration may be ascertained. It deals, as its title
indicates, with the mus-haf; it discusses the writing of the wahy, the various mus-
hafs of the Companions and their differences; the compilations of Aboo Bakr and
'Uthmaan; the division of the Qur'aan; the writing of the mus-haf, and certain
aspects of fiqh related to the mus-haf. (A. A. Y. Qadhi (2003), An Introduction
to the Sciences of the Qur'aan, (UK: Al-Hidaayah Publishing and
Distribution), p. 388)
- 194 -
Notice what Yasir Qadhi is actually saying. He is not lauding the book for "excellent
scholarship" as Nabeel mistakenly insinuates. Rather he is only lauding the book for
being an "excellent reference" because it "contains the necessary isnaads for each
narration", which means - and this is the most relevant part - "the authenticity of each
narration may be ascertained".
Since Nabeel praises Yasir Qadhi's scholarship:
By the way, the most scholarly book I have read from a modern Muslim
regarding the Quran is called The Sciences of the Quraan by Abu Ammaar Yasir
Qadhi.
He should carefully note that Yasir Qadhi made it clear that any narration must have an
authentic isnaad before it is to be accepted. Yasir Qadhi states:
...More importantly - and this is the greatest flaw of the book - the authenticity
of these recitations has to be established. In other words, how can the reader
be assured that these recitations were actually recited? Jeffery himself admits,
"The question arises, of course, as to the authenticity of the readings

ascribed to these Old Codices. In some cases it must be confessed there is
a suspicion of readings later invented by the grammarians and theologians
being fathered on these early authorities in order to gain prestige of their
name. The suspicion is perhaps strongest in the case of distinctly Shee'ite
readings..." [Jeffery, p. 15]
From a Muslim standpoint, we have recourse to the isnaad. Jeffery, however, be-
lieves the isnaads to hold very little, if any, value. Due to this opinion, he does not
quote isnaads, for each variant reading. Therefore, in order to find the
authenticity of a certain reading, it is necessary to go back to the thirty works
from which Jeffery compiled his work, verify which one of them mentions
this reading, and then check its isnaad for authenticity. (This is supposing
that the original work even mentions an isnaad, for some of these recitations
are merely referenced in later works without any isnaad.)
However, from Jeffery's own position on the concept and reliability of

isnaad, he contradicts himself. If he does not believe in the authenticity of the
isnaad system, then from where are all of these readings obtained? After all,
- 195 -
it is through isnaads that all of the readings of the Companions and
Successors has [sic] been handed down to us. If Jeffery were to apply his
standards and implement his belief of the isnaad system, all of these readings
should be doubted, just like their hadeeth counterparts! But, not surprisingly,
Jeffery concludes, 'On the whole, however, one may feel confident that the
majority of readings quoted from any reader really go back to early authority'.
This clear double standard on Jeffery's part is not surprising; whenever an
Orientalist finds some information that he feels can be used to discredit
Islaam and cast doubts on it, then he will use it, no matter what the context,
authenticity or actual implications of the text may be. (A. A. Y. Qadhi (2003),
An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan, (UK: Al-Hidaayah Publishing
and Distribution), p.386)
Indeed, no one could have said it better.
Nabeel also says regarding Yasir Qadhi's book:
just about the only scholarly Muslim writing I've ever seen (bold emphasis ours)
This clearly illustrates that Nabeel hasn't bothered himself to get familiar with Islamic
scholarship.
First of all, the best Islamic literature is written in Arabic and most of them have not been
translated into English. Nabeel does not know Arabic, thus for him to say "only scholarly
Muslim writing I've ever seen" is a complete joke and he would be laughed at in
scholarly Muslim circles. It's like trying to have someone take you seriously when you
say "This is the best car I have ever seen", yet you never saw a car produced in Japan or
Europe before.
Secondly, there are a reasonable number of scholarly books written on this subject in the
English language. Here are just some of them that come to mind:
- 196 -
Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Usool at-Tafseer - The Methodology of Qur'aanic
Explanation, Publisher: A S Noordeen (2002), Available online
Ahmad Ali Al-Imam, Variant Readings of the Qur'an: A Critical Study of Their
Historical and Linguistic Origins, Publisher: International Institute of Islamic
Thought (2006), Avaliable online
Ahmad Von Denffer, Ulum al-Qur'an: An Introduction to the Sciences of the

Qur'an, Publisher: Islamic Foundation, UK (1996), Available online
Dr. Muhammad Mohar Ali, The Qur'an and the Orientalists: An Examination of
their Main Theories and Assumptions, Publisher: Jam'iyat Ihyaa' Minhaaj al-
Sunnah (2004)
M. A. Draz, Introduction to the Qur'an, Publisher: I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd (2000)
Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani, An Approach to the Qur'anic Sciences,

Publisher: Darul Ishaat (2000)
Muhammad Mustafa al-Azami, The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation
to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments,
Publisher: UK Islamic Academy (2003)
Nabeel's statement makes him lose a lot of credibility in the eyes of the Muslim (not that
he had any to begin with).
In conclusion, Kitaab Al Masaahif contains narrations that need to be investigated on an

individual basis in order to determine its authenticity. We can't just cherry pick what we
- 197 -
like. We must rely on an objective standard such as the isnaad system, which filters out
the weak and fabricated narrations from the authentic ones.
Did Prophet Muhammad Legislate According to His

Desire?
By
Jalal Abualrub (www.IslamLife.com)
I am not a fan of blogs nor have the time to spend on such type of media, even though it is
popular these days and has a wide audience. I have a hard time as it is concentrating
on my books and articles, and my books are the most important project of my life.
Somehow, I was able to read through a few issues about which David Wood is arguing
on his blog with Brothers Bassam Zawadi, Sami Zaatari and others.
I cannot possibly comment on all of what David Wood says, especially since Bassam and
Sami are doing a good job countering every argument he is making. However, I will
comment on what I read on David's blog dated Sunday, January 25th, 2009.
David Wood wrote in, Muhammad's Reason for Not Forbidding Ghilah,
"The following Hadith gives us a glimpse of Muhammad's method of forbidding and

accepting various practices: Sunan an-Nasa'i 3328--It was narrated from Aishah that
Judamah bint Wahb told her that the Messenger of Allah said: 'I was thinking of
forbidding Ghilah until I remembered that it is done by the Persians and Romans'--
(one of the narrators) Ishaq said: '(They) do that--and it does not harm their children.'
Ghilah refers to having sex with a woman who is breastfeeding. Muhammad says that
he was thinking of forbidding the practice. But then he remembered that the Persians
and Romans do it, so he didn't forbid the practice. Apparently, if he hadn't
remembered that the Persians and Romans practice Ghilah, he would have
condemned it, and Muslims today would say that Allah forbids Ghilah. Isn't it obvious
that this had nothing to do with any divine insight on Muhammad's part, and that what
he rejected and accepted was simply a matter of his all-too-human thought processes?
If so, why are Muslims so obsessed with following Muhammad's regulations (especially
when they include pagan practices, such as bowing to the Ka'ba, etc.)? Here Muslims
will say, 'We follow Muhammad's regulations because he commanded us to follow his
regulations.' But that's exactly my point. As this Hadith shows, Muhammad's reasoning
had nothing to do with revelation. Why, then, accept his command to follow his
regulations?"
- 198 -
And they Say They Studied Islam!
What amazes me first and foremost is that these types of Evangelical Christians, who takes
it upon themselves to criticize Islam, claim that they have studied Islam for such and such
years, but they were not convinced it is a true religion. Well, it is clear they are not
convinced, or they pretend to be unconvinced, but did they really study Islam?
First, on his blog, David Wood posts a picture of a Muslim carrying a poster that reads,
'Islam Will Dominate the World'. David Wood said something about violence in his comment
on the poster.
Since David Wood seems to take offense at this statement and what he thinks it implies,
then, I guess this means that Christianity does NOT seek to dominate the world? This is
good news for Muslims, especially at a time when one of these two situations has occurred:
(a) Muslim navies are cruising all the water-bodies of the world that border Christian
countries and are currently occupying at least three Christian countries; or, (b) Christian
navies are cruising all the water-bodies of the world that border Muslim countries and are
currently occupying at least three Muslim countries.
If one's choice is (a) then nothing we may say can change one's view of the world. It needs
a pure and live heart to see correctly, and only Allah can grant such a heart. If one's answer
is (b) then one would be as amazed as I am at this strange attitude displayed by bashers of
Islam. To truly describe it, we quote an old Arab saying that reads, "Ramatni bi-da-iha wa-
nsallati". Translated, it means, "She accused me of having the sickness she is suffering
from, while claiming she does not suffer from it herself!"
Second, David Wood quotes an-Nasaii's version of a Hadeeth also collected by Muslim,
without mentioning Muslim's narration or the fact that he collected it. Muslim's narrations
are at a higher grade than an-Nasaii's narrations. But, who am I to tell these experts on
Islam, who studied Islam for years, about what Hadeeth collection is higher in grade,
especially evangelicals who use Ibn Ishaq's Seerah as a Hadeeth collection, even though
Seerah could never sound like Hadeeth even if transliterated in English or Latin!
Third, David Wood wrote,
"The following Hadith gives us a glimpse of Muhammad's method of forbidding and

accepting various practices."
Here are a few comments on this segment of Wood's argument.
Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said, "Laqad hamamtu an anha ani-l-Ghilah",
which could translate into, "I thought of forbidding al-Ghilah." Thus, he, peace be upon
him, did not forbid Ghilah forever. Hammun, the root-word of hamamtu, pertains to a
thought crossing one's mind without acting upon the thought. Surprisingly, David Wood
used the words thought process in his article while describing what was indeed thought
- 199 -
- 200 -

Rebuttals To Christians

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rebuttals To Christians

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rebuttals to Anti-Islamic

-Responses By Br.Bassam Zawadi

In The Name Of Allah, The Most Gracious,The Most Merciful.

Sura 2:138 tells us:

Two Qur'an translations give this meaning:

Their article could be located here.

Read it first and then my response.

Muhammad And `Amr b. Jihash

The article could be accessed here.

Answering Islam said:

There will be no one of you who will not enter it (Hell).

Brief Response to Answering Islam's

Their article could be located here.

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

A Look At Answering Islam's Article

Their article can be located here.

Answering Islam said:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud:

Bilal Kills Umayyah ibn Khalaf

At Muhammad's urging and inspiration, his standing in their midst and

Scandal-mongering and backbiting were also amongst the means of

"Woe to every slanderer and backbiter." [Al-Qur'an 104:1]

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud:

Muhammad And `Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul al-`Aufi

Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 462:

An observation that applies to most of the assassination requests by Muhammad: If

Rebuttal To Answering Islam's Article

Narated By Jabir : We were in the company of the Prophet in a Ghazwa. A

Narated By Jabir bin 'Abdullah : We were in a Ghazwa (Sufyan once said,

Volume 006, Book 060, Hadith Number 430.

Plus even Answering Islam say...

So let's look at the verse one more time...

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

Return to Refuting Answering-Islam.org Section

Rebuttal to Answering Islam's Article "Are Divinity

Their article can be located here.

Answering Islam said:

Allah, the God of Grace and Mercy:

(AS) = A'laihi-Salam (Upon him be peace).

(AS2) = A'laiha-Salam (Upon her be peace).

(SWT) = Subhana Huwa-ta'ala (Glory be to him).

Other texts that identify Allah as a makr include:

So they schemed a scheme: and We schemed a scheme (Wamakaroo

Let us also examine Surah al-Anfal 8:30:

In addition Shamoun cited Surah al-A'raf 7:99:

Furthermore, he quoted Surah an-Naml 27:50, which reads:

Miim-Kaf-Ra = To practice deceit or guile or circumvention, practice

makara vb. (1)

LL, V7, p: 256 (Source)

He practised DECEIT, GUILE, or CIRCUMVENTION, desiring to do

He also quoted Lane's Arabic-English lexicon. However this is simply the

"how the word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness

"scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It

Then Shamoun quoted Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub. Though he is a scholar in Islam,

As said before it is a positive sense of scheming, because Allah (SWT) is crushing

Even so have we placed in every city, ringleaders of its wicked ones, to

And when We would destroy a township We send commandment to its

The translation by Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall, on this verse, Surah Bani

and I shall respite them -- assuredly My guile (kaydee) is sure. S. 68:45

Kaf-Ya-Dal (Kaf-Alif-Dal) = To be about to, be just on the point of, be

kada vb. (1)

LL, V7, p: 166, 167 (Source; underline emphasis ours)