Refuting the Christian Lie that Prophet Considered Women as “Dogs and Donkeys”

WikiIslam & Christian Missionary Liars and ‘topic-changers’ attempt to prove that women are considered no better than dogs and donkeys by the Holy Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in the Ahadith by quoting various traditions. I will quote the website here:

“You have made us (i.e. women) dogs.”

Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, “Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).” I said, “You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him.”
(Sahih Bukhari 1:9:490)

Narrated ‘Aisha: The things which annual prayer were mentioned before me (and those were): a dog, a donkey and a woman. I said, “You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs. By Allah! I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in (my) bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I disliked to sit and trouble the Prophet. So, I would slip away by the side of his feet.”
(Sahih Bukhari 1:9:493, See Also Sahih Bukhari 1:9:486, Sahih Bukhari Muslim 4:1032, Sahih Muslim 4:1034, Sahih Muslim 4:1038, Sahih Muslim 4:1039: 004:1039 adds “and the asses”

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone’s throw. (Abu Dawud 2:704)


The following tradition was left out by WikiIslam and other liars which proves a point besides the one made above:

Narrated ‘Aisha: It is not good that you people have made us (women) equal to dogs and donkeys. No doubt I saw Allah’s Apostle praying while I used to lie between him and the Qibla and when he wanted to prostrate, he pushed my legs and I withdrew them. [Sahih Bukhari, Book #9, Hadith 498]

Either way, the meaning of the above Ahadith has been misconstrued, since Hadhrat Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) was explaining that women were not equal to dogs and donkeys, rather it was alright for a woman to be in front of a man when he prayed. Hadhrat Ayesha (radhiyallahu anha) knew the Prophet better than the people so she corrected their views on the subject of praying without a Sutrah. She lived with him in his own home, while the people only learned about what he did when they saw him on some occasions.

As for the third Hadith about praying without a Sutrah, it is better for someone to not pass in front of another who is praying without a Sutrah since it can be spiritually harmful to that individual:

Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: When any one of you prays he should not let anyone pass in front of him (if there is no sutra), and should try to turn him away as far as possible, but if he refuses to go, he should turn him away forcibly for he is a devil. [Sahih Muslim, Book #004, Hadith #1023] 

The grievousness of passing in front of someone praying is given in the following Hadith:

Busr b Sa’id reported that Zaid b Khalid al-Juhani sent him to Abu Juhaim in order to ask him what he had heard from the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) with regard to the passer in front of the worshipper. Abu Juhaim reported that the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: If anyone who passes in front of a man who is praying knew the responsibility he incurs, he would stand still forty (years) rather than to pass in front of him.” Abu Nadr said: I do not know whether he said forty days or months or years.  [Sahih Muslim, Book #004, Hadith #1027]

Thus, the meaning of the above Ahadith are that it is better to not be in front of someone else while they are praying because of the sin one could get from being in front of someone. Hadhrat Ayesha slipped away when the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) prayed and she was in front of him because of her courtesy for him and his concentration during his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)’s prayers.

The next time you come across an Islamophobe or their website, make sure that you research their claims and never blindly believe anything, because they are big time liars.

Refuting the Baseless Contentions of Mirza Ghulam Qadiani


[Darul Uloom Trinidad & Tobago]

Among the many deviated sects who departed from the true teachings of Islam is that of the Qadianis. The Qadianis or Ahmadis are the followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who was born in Qadian in the year 1839 or 1840 C.E.

During his lifetime he laid claims to several different positions and thus managed to obtain followers in different (self-acclaimed) roles. A study of his movement reveals that first of all he claimed IN THE YEAR 1884, to be a revivalist and a reformer. Seven years later he made an announcement stating that he was the promised messiah and the messiah of the age. He further laid claim to his prophethood in 1901 and in the year 1904 he announced that he was Krishna.

            Based on the different claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad his followers fell into different brackets and sections differing from each other.  The two main groups are:

1)         Those who believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is a prophet and considered non Ahmadis as unbelievers.

2)         Those who believe that Mirza Ghulam is the promised Messiah and a reformer. They separated from the main group of the Qadianis after the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. They are known as the Lahori Ahmadis.

However, whatever they may regard him as, they are unanimously held by the recognized authorities of Islam to be non-muslims. Whether they may belong to the ‘Rabwa group’ or the ‘Lahori group’, they are all called Qadianis and Ahmadis.


He said, “Aa’eel came to me and He has chosen me. At this time Allah has put the name of Jibraeel Aa’eel because he comes to me again and again.” (Haqiqatul Wahi written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 103, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 22 pg. 106)

“I swear by Allah saying that these are the words of Allah which are revealed to me.”   (Haqiqatul Wahi written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 387, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 22 pg. 503)

“And I swear by the lord in whose hand is my life that He has sent me and He has placed my name as a Nabi (Prophet) and He has called me the promised Messiah.” (Haqiqatul Wahi written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 387, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 22 pg. 503)

“What a vain and corrupt belief it is to believe that after the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.) revelation has been stopped forever. I swear by Allah that in these times there is no one far away from such a belief than me. Whichever religion preaches such a belief I say that it is a religion of Satan. I have firm belief that such a religion leads to the fire of Hell.” (Zamima Baraheen Ahmadiyah by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 5 pg. 184, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 21 pg. 354)

“It is very clear and evident that after the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.) the door of Prophethood is still open.” (Haqiqatun Nabuwah Vol. 1 pg. 228 by Mirza Basheerudeen, son of Mirza Ghulam)

“Afterwards revelation kept coming to me as the rain. He (Allah) has clearly addressed me as a prophet. However, in this manner, that on one side I am a follower of Prophet Muhammad and on the other side I am a Prophet.” (Haqiqatul Wahi written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 150, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 22 pg. 153-154)

In the above-mentioned references it is clear that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad has claimed to be a prophet and rejected the finality of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). In other writings he has also claimed to be the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself.

      In his books, Haqiqatul Wahi (pg 67) and Ruhani Khaza-in (vol. 22 pg. 503) he mentioned the following, “Twenty six years ago Allah had named me Muhammad and Ahmad.” In another book he wrote, “I have repeatedly stated that I am that Prophet, who is the seal of all Prophets, twenty years ago I have been given the name of Muhammad and Ahmad.” (Ruhani Khaza-in vol.18 pg. 212)

      He further wrote, “I am Adam, I am Noah, I am David, I am Jesus the son of Mary and I am Muhammad (A.S.).” (Haqiqatul Wahi written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 521, Ruhani Khaza-in written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Vol. 22 pg. 521)

            Then reciting the following verse, “Muhammad is the Rasool (Messenger) of Allah,” he says, “In this revelation I have been named Muhammad and a Rasool (Messenger).”

      “There is no doubt that Allah has again sent Muhammad to Qadian, so that he can fulfill His promise.” (Kalimatul Fasl – Mirza Basheer, son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad pg. 105)

In his book Kashti Nuh Pg. 56 and in Ruhani Khaza-in Vol. 19 Pg. 61, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian wrote, “Blessed is that person who recognized me. I am the last of all Allah’s paths and the last of His lights. Unfortunate is that person who forsakes me because besides me there is darkness.”   Claiming superiority over the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.) he wrote, “For this Prophet (i.e. Muhammad S.A.) the moon went into eclipse and for me both the sun and moon went into eclipse.” (Ruhani Khaza-in Vol. 19 pg. 183)

It has also been a custom of the followers of Mirza Ghulam to send Darood and Salaam upon him. This is evident from the following writings of Muhammad Yusuf Qadiani in his Al Fazl Qadiani Vol. 7 No. 100 published on 30th June 1920. He wrote,

            “O Imam of the creation, peace and salutations upon you

            You are the moon removing darkness, peace and salutations upon you

      You are the awaited Mahdi and promised Isa

      And the chosen Ahmad, peace and salutations upon you

      It was in Qadian you manifested

      As the sun of Guidance, peace and salutations upon you.”

A study of the life of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad reveals him as a person who continuously changed from one claim to another until he finally claimed divinity with Allah. In the very early stages of his mission he claimed to be only a saint and a reformer. At that time he openly proclaimed his belief in the finality of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). In one of his books “Hamamatul Bushra” Pg. 34 he said, “Our Prophet Muhammad (S.A.) is called the last of the prophets and the prophet has said, ‘there will be no prophet after me”. Now if we believe in any other prophet after him it will mean the reopening of the gate of revelation, which is closed after him. How can any prophet come after our prophet when the chain of revelation has been snapped forever after him and he has been made the last of the Prophets.’

In many other books written by Mirza Ghulam, he emphatically stated that there is no Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad. Some of these references are, ‘Izala-I-Awham pgs. 577, 761, Kitabul Bariyyah pg. 84. In one of his pamphlets dated 20thShabaan 1314 A.H. he considered that person cursed who claimed prophethood after the Prophet Muhammad. About himself he wrote, “Anybody who accuses me of anything more than this is not at all God fearing and honest. In short I am not claiming prophethood, but only sainthood and revivalisthood.”   (Mujade diyat)

Further to this Mirza claimed that he received inspiration and communication from Allah. In Mawahibur Rahman Pg. 66, he said, “God communicates with and addresses his friends among the followers of the prophet. But they are not, in fact, prophets as God has perfected Islam in every way. He further stated, “I have no claim to prophethood, it is your understanding. It is not necessary that those who claim to receive inspiration should turn into prophets. I am a follower of Muhammad and fully obey Allah and His Prophet.” (Jang Muqaddas pg. 67) He then claims that the inspirations address him as a Prophet. He wrote, “It is a fact that the inspiration that this bondsman of God receives ascribe him constantly as prophet and messenger, but is not used in a literal sense. This is just a figurative term of God and that is why such words are used. I confess that no prophet in the real sense of the term shall come after the prophet; it may be new or old. The Holy Quraan disallows such advent of prophets. But God has every right to address some inspired person with such words as prophet or messenger in a metaphorical sense.”  (Siraj-I-Munir pg. 2-8)

Mirza further stated, “The position is that this humble being receives inspirations continuously for the last 20 years and on many occasions I am addressed as a messenger, but anyone who thinks that it actually means prophet or messenger is wrong. I would ask my followers not to use such words about me in their day to day conversations as it will open the flood gate of mischief.” (Sermon of Mirza Ghulam in Al Hakam 18th August 1899)

Having negated the concept of Prophethood at this stage, he devised a new name known as an addressee for himself and having done that he then discloses himself as a prophet. In Ayena Kamalat pg. 383, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said, “I am not a prophet, rather I am an addressee of God and a communicator with Him so that I could receive the religion.” He further said, “I am laying claim not to prophethood, but to an addressee-ship which is put forward at the behest of God. And there is no doubt about it that an addressee has in him the ingredients of prophethood. If an addressee could be called a figurative prophet or an abstract prophet, it does not mean that it entails claim to prophethood.”   (Izala-i-Awham pg. 421) However in pg. 569 of the same book, he wrote, “An addressee is a messenger among the followers and an incomplete prophet also. He is a follower in the sense that he follows fully the way of the Prophet and gains light from the light of his prophethood. That is the way God deals with him as with the prophet. An addressee has a status of an intermediary between the prophet and his followers. He is a perfect follower as well as a prophet. And it is essential for an addressee that he should be like a counterpart of a prophet and he gets the same name as that of a prophet.” Opening the doors of his claim to messengership he wrote, “The promised Messiah who is to come will have this symbol that he will be a prophet of God, that is he will receive revelations from Allah. But here it does not mean a perfect prophethood as the last seal has been attached to the perfect prophethood. But it means an addressee who will receive his light from the light of the prophethood of Muhammad. And this bounty is especially given to this humble person.” (Izala-I-Awham pg. 701) In trying to explain this claim he states, “I do not claim to be Christ, the son of Mary, rather I claim to be a counterpart of him.” (Tabligh Risalat Vol. 2 pg. 21) However it was not long after that he openly made the claim that he was Christ, the Messiah. In one of his famous books, Kashti-I-Nooh pg. 47 he wrote, “The mystery is now cleared, that my claim to messiahship is just what I have been describing in my books.  On page 48 of the same book he said, “This is Christ who is awaited. And in the words of inspiration it is I who is meant by Mary and Christ. It is said about me, “I will be the symbol and it is also said about me, “I am the same Christ, son of Mary whose advent was awaited. The awaited one is me and to doubt it is sheer unwisdom.” Again in Kashti-I-Nooh he says, “First I was named Mary and I remained and was nursed and brought up in the state of Maryhood for two years. Then just like Mary, the soul of Christ was infused in me and in a figurative sense I became pregnant and after several years but not more that ten years, by inspiration, I was transformed from Mary to Christ. This is how I am the son of Mary, but while writing my book ‘Baraheen-I-Ahmadi’ I was not yet initiated into the Mystery.” In Izala-I-Awham pg. 698 he said, “Great saints have predicted on the basis of their enlightenments that the promised Messiah will come by the 14thcentury (Hijra) or the 20th century C.E  and his advent will no longer be delayed. So there is none except this humble person to claim that status.” Making it even clearer he said, “This is my claim that I am the promised Messiah about whom there are prophesies in all the holy books.” (Tohfa-I-Golrwiah pg.195)

Not being satisfied with his false claims of Messiahship, Mirza took the next step towards furthering his claims of Prophethood. He wrote in his book Chashma-I-Masihi pg.41, “If a follower gets the honour of revelation and inspiration and prophethood due to obedience to the Prophet and he is graced with the name of a prophet then that does not violate the seal of the prophet.” In another book Risala Khatme Naboowat pg. 10, Mirza Ghulam wrote, “During the last 1300 years no one has claimed prophethood just in deference to the great position of the prophet, but now that people have become seasoned in their belief of the last of the prophets and now if anyone comes forward as a prophet it does not affect in the least the great position of the holy prophet. Therefore, the word prophet is now allowed to be used for Messiah.” After paving the way for his false claim of prophethood he openly declared that he is a prophet. In his book Haqiqatun Nabuwwat pg. 272, he says, “To me any religion that has no continuity of prophethood is a dead one. We call Judaism, Christianity and Hinduism as dead religions just because they will have no more prophets. If Islam is also of the same nature then what is the distinction between them and Islam? Mere true dreams do not suffice, even cobblers and scavengers may have true dreams. There must be a communication with and an address from God and these must contain prophecies. I am having revelations for the last several years and many symbols from God have testified to their truthfulness. That is why I am a prophet. There should be no secrecy in conveying the truth.”   Based upon these statements Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s successors, his sons and followers all regard him as a perfect and complete prophet. They lay great emphasis in his prophethood and honour him in every respect in the same manner as the prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is honoured.

Qadianis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad received numerous revelations from Allah as he himself had made such claims. In his book Haqiqatul Wahi page 391 Mirza Ghulam said, “I have received so many revelations that if all are written down they would fill about 20 volumes.” Based upon this claim of Mirza Ghulam, his followers are exhorted to read his revelations with great respect. Among his (so-called revelations) he asserts that many of the verses of the Holy Quraan were revealed to him.

For example:-

In Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat (pg. 281) he wrote that Sura Kauthar was revealed to him.

In sura Inshirah the verse “Wa rafa’na laka zikrak” he claimed was revealed to him. (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 282)

The verse “And we have not sent you except as a mercy unto mankind” he claimed was revealed to him. (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 634)

The verse “Say if you love Allah, follow me” He said was revealed to him. (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 634)

A few of the new revelations, which he claimed to have received, are:

“The companions of the Suffah. And what do you know about the companions of the Suffah. You will see their eyes flowing with tears, sending blessings upon you.” (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 625-626)

“You are to me like my Arsh. You are to me like my son.” (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 636)

“We have revealed it close to Qadian. And in truth we have sent it down and in truth we have revealed it.”  (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 637)

“Salutations be upon you. We praise you and send blessings upon you. Blessings from the Arsh until the Earth.” (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 644)

“Had it not been for you, I would have not created the heavens.” (Tazkira Majmu’a ilhamat pg. 649)

Similar to the above, which he claimed were revealed in Arabic, he also asserted that he received revelations in the English language. In his book Arba’een-I-Ahmadia pg. 81 he wrote, “Once I received revelation in English “I love you” and then God said, “I am with you.” He further said, “I shall help you”. Then He said, “I can what I will do”, then there was a forceful inspiration, which shocked me, “We can what we will do.” It was in such an accent as if an Englishman was standing in front of me. Such revelations in English also continued. He also claimed that revelations came to him in code words and figures. (Tabligh-I-Risalat pg. 85)

            In Khutba Ilhamia page 20, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote, “My lord has named me Ahmad, so praise me and do not abuse me.”  In his Tazkira, he further wrote, “There was a big square shaped throne installed among the Hindus and I was sitting on it. A Hindu pointing to someone said, “This is”. Then all the Hindus began tendering rupees etc. as offerings. Then a Hindu among the crowd said, “O Krishnaji, Rudra Gopal.”  In “Mukashefat-I-Mirza” pg.560 he says, “Twice I saw in a vision that many Hindus were prostrating before me saying that this is the incarnation, this is Krishna and they tendered me offerings. Then there was an inspiration, “O Krishna, Rudra Gopal be glorified, thy name is mentioned in the Gita.”  Possibly it is for this reason Mian Mahmood Ahmad, the Caliph of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad said that Hindus were also people of the book and as such marriage with their women folk was allowed.

            Owing to their firm belief in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a prophet or Messiah the Qadianis have attributed great respect and veneration to the land of Qadian. In one of his books Aina’I-Kamalat pg. 354, Mirza wrote, “It is more meritorious to attend the annual conference at Qadian as it results in greater merits than a pilgrimage which is uncalled for.” As such Qadianis believe that a pilgrimage should be made at Qadian, which is known as a shadow pilgrimage. In his address Mian Mehmood, the caliph of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad mentioned in Al Fazal (dated 1st December 1932). “As it is only rich people who can afford to go to Mecca for pilgrimage, so in order to enable the poorer sections of Muslims to perform that pilgrimage a shadow pilgrimage is appointed for them at Qadian.” Mirza Ghulam has also described his Qadian Mosque as sacred as “the Holy Kaaba and has considered Qadian to be the sacred land.”  (Durre thimin) Similarly in Al Fazal (dated 21stAugust 1932) it is mentioned that Mirza’s Mosque in Qadian is considered to be the real Masjudul Aqsa and not the one in Jerusalem. On the night of Miraj (Ascension) the Prophet Muhammad travelled from Masjid Haram to Masjid Aqsa and that Mosque is the same one that is on Qadian, situated in the East.

            While explaining his relationship with God, he said that God once said to him, “You are like my son, O moon, O sun, you are from me and I am from you.” (Haqiqatul Wahi pg. 86)

            In Tazkira Majmua Ilhamaat page 452 he wrote, “Once I received an inspiration that God will descend to Qadian.

            In Ainae Kamalat pg. 564 Mirza Ghulam Ahmad wrote, “I saw in a dream that I am the lord, I then firmly believed that it was so.” Again in Kitabul Bariya pg. 85 he wrote, “I saw in one vision that I am god and then firmly believed in it.”

            From the above quotations it can be clearly seen that besides claiming to be a prophet Mirza Ghulam raised himself to claim divinity. As such he committed the unforgivable sin of shirk. He further explained his concept of divinity in the following words, “God came into my existence and then my anger, forbearance, leniency actions and tranquility became His. In this state I was saying that we need a new heaven and earth. I then first of all created the heavens and earth in a concise shape without any separation. Then conforming to the wishes of the truth I gave it its format and separation and I saw that I was powerful over the creation. I then created the sky of the earth and said we have certainly adorned the earthly sky with stars.” I then said, “We will create man from a piece of clay. Then my state was such that I was now transformed from a mere vision to inspiration and upon my tongue was the words: – “I intended to place a vicegerent (on earth) so I created Adam. We created man in the best of forms.”

Kitabul Bariya pgs 86-87, Ruhani Khazain vol 3 pgs 104-105

            In another book, Arba’een, he wrote, “In some of the books of the prophets, figuratively I have been described as an angel. Prophet Daniel has mentioned me in his book as Mika-il and according to the Hebrew language Mika-il means the like of God.” (Arba’een Vol. 3 pg. 30, Ruhani Khazain Vol.17 pg. 413)

            Thousands of many other quotations can be cited to show the baseless claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. In a nutshell Mirza himself believed that the religion, which he came with, is a new religion having a new shariah. This is clearly seen from the following quotations. In Al fazal Vol. 22 No 93 (dated 3rdFebruary 1936) it states, “Allah revealed this last truth in the desolate land of Qadian and chose the promised Messiah who was of Persian descent, for this great task and said, “I shall spread thy name to the corners of the world and shall protect thee from forceful onslaughts. And the religion which you have brought shall be made to prevail against other religions by virtue of symbols and arguments and that its supremacy shall remain till the end of the world.”

            In his book Arba’-een pg. 7 Mirza wrote, “What is Shariat? I have given some commandments for do’s and don’ts and have prescribed laws for my followers.” Then in “Hashia Arbaeen” No.4 pg. 7 he said “My shariat is named “Ark of Noah” – that is the salvation for the whole world.”  His son, Mirza Basheer Ahmad then explained the reason for no new kalima in the following words, “There is no need for a new kalima because the promised Messiah, who is Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is not separated from Prophet Muhammad. In fact it was the promise of Allah that he will once again send the “Seal of the prophets” to the world. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad who is the promised Messiah is therefore Muhammad the Messenger of Allah identically. This is the reason for not having any new Kalima.” (Kalimatul Fasl pg. 158)

            It is thus very clear from all the above quotations that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad is no more than an Imposter, a liar and a person who made many false and baseless claims. His entire mission attacks the very core of Islam as preached by Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as he outwardly condemned the “Seal of prophethood”. As such the entire foundation of the Qadiani religion will be uprooted by the fact that prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the seal of prophethood as established by the authentic sources.


The Holy Quraan in Sura Ahzab verse 40 states, “Muhammad is not the father of any of you but a messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets. And Allah is fully aware of everything.”

            Commenting upon this verse of the Holy Quraan, all the commentators of the Holy Quraan have stated that the word “Khatamun Nabiyeen” seal of the prophet mentioned in this verse means that there is no Prophet after the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) As such the famous commentator Allama Ibn Katheer wrote in his tafseer, vol. 3 pg. 493 that, “This verse is very explicit that there is no prophet after prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nor any messenger. Many Mutawatir traditions have mentioned the same from all the companions.”

            Another famous commentator of the Holy Quraan Imam Qurtubi, wrote that all scholars past and present are in full agreement that the words “Khatamun Nabiyeen” (Seal of Prophets) directly imply that there is no prophet after prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)” (Tafseer Qurtubi Vol. 14 pg.196)

            Similarly the great Imam Ghazali wrote, “There is Ijma (consensus) of the entire Ummah that the words “Khatamun Nabiyeen” (Seal of Prophets) mean that there will be no prophet nor messenger after the Prophet Muhammad. On this matter there is no allowance for interpretations or specifications. Whosoever rejects this has rejected Ijma in Islam.” (Al Iqtisaad Fil Itiqaad pg. 123)

            In the most authentic tradition, which fulfills the highest standard and criterion of authenticity, the prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has openly declared that there is no prophet after him.

            The famous Mufassir commentator Allama Alusi has written in Tafseer Ruhul Ma’aani, “The Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) being the seal of the prophets is such a matter that the Quraan has spoken of it, the traditions have confirmed it and it has therefore gained the Ijma (consensus) of the Muslim Ummah. Anyone who claims anything against it shall be deemed a kafir (unbeliever) and if he propagates against it shall be killed.”  (Ruhul Ma’aani Vol. 22 pg. 41)


Abu Huraira reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “My likeness and the likeness of the prophets of the past is like that of a man who built a house. He decorated it and beautified it except that one brick was missing. People then passed around the house, looking at it and becoming happy with it said, “Why was not this brick placed in it?” The Prophet then said, ”I am that brick and I am the seal of all the prophets.” Reported by Bukhari and Muslim.

This tradition is mentioned in Musnad e Ahmad, Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and Tirmizi. In the Tradition reported by Muslim the following is mentioned at the end of the Hadith, “The Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “I am that brick, I came and completed the chain of Messengers.”

Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “I have been honoured above the prophets with six things:

Comprehensive words

I was helped with fear

The spoils of war were made permissible for me

The earth has been made as a Masjid and a purification for me

I have been sent to all mankind

With me the prophets came to an end.

Reported by Muslim and also by Imam Bukhari in the narration of Jabir (Radhiyallahu anhu)

Sa’ad bin Abi Waqas (Radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) once said to Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu), “You are to me as Haroun was to Moosa except that there is no Prophet nor Prophethood after me.” (Bukhari and Muslim).

Besides Sa’ad bin Abi Waqas, fourteen other companions of the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) have reported this Hadith and as such it is known to be a Mutawatir Hadith.

From Abu Hurairah (Radhiyallahu anhu), the prophet (Sallalpaqhu alayhi wasallam) mentioned that, “From among the Bani Israel, prophets became successors one to another. Whenever a prophet died, another prophet succeeded him and carried on his mission. However there will be no Prophet after me but there will be Khalifas who will be in great number.”   (Bukhari, Muslim). In a tradition reported by Abu Dawood the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Certainly Allah will raise for this ummah at the beginning of every one hundred years someone who will revive their deen (religion) for them.

Thauban (Radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “There will be in my Ummah thirty liars each of them claiming to be a Prophet. How be it? I am the seal of the prophets there is no prophet after me.”  (Abu Daud, Tirmizi). This Hadith (tradition) is also a Mutawatir Hadith and has been reported by eleven other companions of the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

Anas bin Malik (Radhiyallahu anhu) reported that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Certainly Apostleship and Prophethood have come to an end. There will be no Messenger nor Prophet after me.” (Tirmizi) This hadith has also been narrated by Imam Bukhari, Muslim, Ahmad, Ibn Majah and others by different companions.

From Abu Hurairah that he heard the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying, “We are the last but the first on the Day of Judgement except that they have been given their scriptures before us.” (Bukhari, Muslim)

Uqba ibn Aamir (Radhiyallahu anhu) states that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, ”Had there been any Prophet after me it would have been Umar.” (Tirmizi)

Jubair bin Mutim (Radhiyallahu anhu) said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying, “I have many names, I am Muhammad and I am Ahmad. I am Mahi (the Remover) through whom Allah will remove Kufr (disbelief) and I am Hashir (the Gatherer) who will gather the people around me. I am Aaqib (the last) after whom there is no Prophet.” (Bukhari, Muslim)

Abu Huraira (Radhiyallahu anhu) stated that the Messenger of Allah (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) used to place his index finger and the middle finger close together and then say, “I have been sent and the Hour of Judgement like both these fingers.” This tradition has been narrated by eleven different companions in Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmizi, Musnad e Ahmad.

All the above traditions bear clear testimony to the fact that Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the son of Abdullah and Amina, who was born in Makkah 571 C.E. and to whom Jibraeel (Alayhissalaam) came with revelations is the last and final prophet of Allah after whom there will be no prophet, Apostle and Messenger. As such, all the Muhaddhith (traditionists) commentators of the Holy Quran and Jurists from the time of the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) until the present time have all clearly stated that:

The claim of Prophethood after the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is kufr (disbelief). The claimer is an imposter and liar and must be killed.

Whosoever thinks/says that prophethood is inheritent and has not ended then he is an atheist whose punishment is death.

Whosoever claims to receive revelations is a kaafir even though he did not claim prophethood.

Whosoever believes or accepts the prophethood of anyone after the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is a kaafir (unbeliever)

It is the consensus opinion and decision (Ijma) of the Ummah that the claimer of Prophethood after the Prophet (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is a kaafir. Whoever opposes this is himself a Kaafir.

Other claims made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad that he was the Promised Messiah or Jesus are all fallacious and unsound. This is evidently clear from the true teachings of the Holy Quraan and authentic traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

            The following are certain beliefs about Isa (Alayhissalaam), which are taught by the Quraan and Hadith and upon them Ijma of the Ummah is held:

Isa (Alayhissalaam) was born miraculously without the agency of a father. His mother was Maryam (Alayhissalaam) who is mentioned in the Holy Quraan.

Isa (Alayhissalaam) lived on the face of the earth approximately 571 years before the Prophet Muhammad and did not die. However he was taken up bodily into heaven where he remains alive to this day.

When the Hour of Judgement is nearby, Isa (Alayhissalaam) will descend from the heaven to the earth. After accomplishing his mission on the earth, he will die a natural and physical death.

With all these citations and evidences, it should not be doubtful upon any muslim that the Qadianis are out of the pale of Islam. This ruling is one which has been given by the sound and authentic scholars of the Muslim Ummah from the time of the Qadianis origin until present time and has also been officially given by the Federal Shariat Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Mufti Waseem Khan.

Refuting the Christian Lie that Qur’an 16:106 & 40:28 Encourages “lying to Strengthen Islam”


In the above snap, a Christian Islamophobe misrepresents the concerned verses in this topic without any proof to spread lies about Islam, we will thoroughly expose his deceit here.

What is Taqiyyah??

The Anti-Muslim demagogues love to talk about this weird, so called, rule that permits Muslims to lie to spread Islam. I had never even heard of it until I was accused of it by someone in a discussion once. The basic idea, according to them, is that if any Muslim ever denies being a blood thirsty lunatic engaged in perpetual war against the West, they must be lying. Muslims are simply presumed guilty, and if we profess innocence that is only further evidence of our guilt. 
It should be fairly clear to any rational being that lying to spread a religion is nonsensical. If I lie to you about what Islam is and you convert I haven’t spread Islam because what you have accepted was a lie.

These constant stream of Islamophobes carping on about how Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims whilst appealing to something called “taqiyyah” (also spelled, “takiya” and “taqiyya”) also end up convincing the average joe non muslim about this myth

Rather than relying on shoddy hate sites/Christian missionaries to educate us about taqiyyah we shall rely on SCHOLARLY authority – largely in the form of R. Strothmann’s relevant section in “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam” (by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers) and Cyril Glasse’s Concise Encyclopedia of Islam 

What is “Taqiyyah”, “Takiya”, “Taqiyya”?

This term is spelt variously; “taqiyyah”, “takiya” or “taqiyya”. 

“Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.”

“Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).”

So, taqiyyah (takiya, taqiyya) is concerning dissimulation due to force – i.e. when an individual is forced to conceal. 

Sadly, Islamophobes – in order to obtain an unchecked platform and/or demonise Muslims – have misapplied this term in their exaggerated claims of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers”.

At what level of force is Takiya (Taqiyyah, Taqiya) justified?

“But an individual is not justified in takiya nor bound to hijra [emigration] if the compulsion remains within the endurable limits, as in the case of temporary imprisonment or flogging which does not result in death”

So, this make a mockery of the Islamophobes’ general suggestions of “Muslims are allowed to lie to the unbelievers” as even under threat of imprisonment and flogging Muslims are not justified in takiya. The level of force which justifies oneself in takiya is that of an unbearable level.

Takiya (taqiyya, taqiyyah) and the type of lies…

One may ask, what type of “disguise” is allowed under takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya)? 

Let’s be clear about takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.”

So takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) is not used to convert folk to Islam nor is it used in Islamic text books or anything of such a nature. It is simply a form of concealment used to avoid persecution!

For further clarity, we are not talking about general, everyday fibs here, thus the ethical question of dishonesty is bypassed:

“The ethical question whether such forced lies are nevertheless lies, such a forced denial of the faith nevertheless a denial, is not put at all by one “who conceal himself” as he is not in a state of confidence which would be broken by lies or denial.”

Sadly, our Islamophobic counterparts attempt to convince the gullible that takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya) allows Muslims to lie (or conceal) about aspects of their faith (Islam) as well as lie in general. 

Famous case of Taqiyyah (Taqiyya, Takiya)

A common example of takiya (taqiyyah, taqiya) involves a Muslim (Ammar Bin Yasir, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) being forced to worship idols and insult the Prophet of Islam.

The level of force the polytheists applied on Ammar bin Yasir can be imagined by Amr bin Maymoon’s statement, “The polytheists tortured Ammar with fire”.

“Abu Ubaydah bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir said: The polytheists seized Ammar and they did not let him off until he was forced to insult the Messenger of Allah and say good things about their deities”

Ammar bin Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu) told Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) of what he was forced to say. 

“The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Say it again if they ask (i.e. force) you to do so”.”

So, in order to avoid such torture the Prophet allowed Ammar bin Yasir to use “taqiyya”

If Jesus (pbuh) had done the same, our Christian friends would have lauded it as an act of piety and mercy. Instead we see Islamophobes exaggerating this form of concealment in order to demonise Muslims. It’s a crazy old world!

Taqiyyah and the Shi’ites (Shia)

“It is, however, associated most closely with the Shi’ites who practiced taqiyyah systematically and widely during periods of Sunni domination to hide their beliefs from Sunni Muslims. ”

Obviously, if these Shi’ites felt they would have been persecuted for publicly announcing their shia beliefs, one can understand why they concealed (used taqiyya) their beliefs.

Is Taqiyyah allowed in the Qur’an?

Our Islamophobic friends jump up and down in joy whilst proclaiming taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya) is allowed in the Quran. Let’s analyse (via scholarship) the three Verses they cite.

Quran 16:106 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief – save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith – but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom.   [Pikthal translation of the Quran 16:106]

The reason for this verse is unanimously said to have been the case of Ammar bin Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu), whose conscience was set at rest by this revelation when he was worried about his forced worshipping of idols and objurgation of the Prophet.

The story of Ammar bin Yasir (radhiyallahu anhu) is relayed earlier (see above).

Tabari says on Surah 16:106 (Tafsir, Bulak 1323 sqq. 24.122): If any one is compelled and professes unbelief with his tongue, while his heart contradicts him, to escape his enemies, no blame falls him on him, because God takes his servants as their hearts believe”

The Quran’s (16:106) allowance of uttering disbelief whilst under extreme force is hardly justification for the outrageous smears the Islamophobes propagate and want the unwary to believe. 

Quran 3:28 and taqiyyah (taqiyya, takiya)?

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their guardians in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying.  [Pikthal translation of the Quran 3:28]

This Verse instructs Muslims to not take the unbelievers as patrons over the believers but does allow for this in the case of fear. Tuqatan is used here (a verbal noun of taqiyyah). Tafsir Jalalayn explains:

“unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts” [Tafsir Jalalayn – 3:28]

It is hardly something Islamophobes can latch onto as evidence for their demonization of Muslims as this Verse allows concealment (taqiyyah, taqiyya, takiya) in the case of fear (i.e. to avoid persecution). We are essentially back to where we started as initially stated on taqiyyah:

Takiya (A.), caution, fear (see glossarium to Tabari S.V. T-K-A) pr kitman, “disguise” is the technical term for dispensation from the requirements of religion under compulsion or threat of injury.

Taqiyyah (From the root word waqa “to safeguard”; “self-protection” and hence “dissimulation [in order to protect oneself]”).

Quran 40:28 and Taqiyyah?

“And a believing man from the family of Pharaoh who concealed his faith said, “Do you kill a man [merely] because he says, ‘My Lord is Allah‘ while he has brought you clear proofs from your Lord? And if he should be lying, then upon him is [the consequence of] his lie; but if he should be truthful, there will strike you some of what he promises you. Indeed, Allah does not guide one who is a transgressor and a liar.”  – [Qur’an 40:28]

The above verse has been cited by critics that the passage encourages deception. A careful reading of the verse shows that there is nothing in the verse of such encouragement. When we read the verse, it says that there was a family member of Pharaoh who was a believer who concealed his faith. How is that deception? I mean, if the case was that someone asked him what his religion was and he said contrary to what he believed inside his heart, then we can say it is deception. But there is nothing of such. Hence, no deception was used by the believer.

Commentary on Quran 40:28:

Ma’ariful-Qur’an – Maulana Muhammad Shafi

In verse 28, it was said: … (who had kept his faith secret). This tells us that a person who does not declare his Iman (faith) before people, yet remains staunch in his heart, then this person is a believer. But, it stands proved from clear textual authority (of the Qur’an and Hadith) that, for Iman to be acceptable, the simple certitude of the heart is not enough, instead, it is subject to the condition of verbal confession and declaration. Unless the person concerned declares it verbally, he or she will not as a believer. However, making this verbal declaration before people publicly is not necessary. The only reason why it is needed is that unless people come to know about the person’s iman, they would remain unable to interact with him or her in the same way as they do with Muslims. (Qurtubi)

Earlier in the verse, by saying: … (a believing man from the House of the Pharaoh), it is virtually demonstrated that the believer, in his ensuing dialogue with Pharaoh and his people, invited them toward truth and faith as well as restrained them from killing Sayyidina Musa (Moses). [Ma’ariful-Qur’an volume 7, page 602]

Lying about the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)

Islamophobes, in an attempt to obtain an unchecked platform, do suggest Muslims misinform (“use taqiyya”) about the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). This is an utter absurdity as it is a grave sin for a Muslim to misinform about the Prophet Muhammad as the Prophet stated:

“Whoever lies about me intentionally shall take a place for himself in hell” (al-Adhkar (y102), 510-12)

In fact, presenting misinformation about the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was considered an extreme offense amongst early Muslim communities:

Habib ibn ar-Rabi’ said that it is disbelief to alter his [Prophet Muhammad’s] description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent.

So much for the Islamophobes claims of “Muslims using taqiyyah” regarding Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).


Taqiyyah (taqiya, takiya) is not something to be writing home about. To use this practice to brandish Muslims as untrustworthy (or to demonise them) is unscholarly and unjust.

If you do encounter an anti-Muslim bigot on the internet crying “taqiyya” (there are plenty about), please do send him/her to this group to be educated .


Quran 40:28 A Believer Lying?

Critique Of Maulana Tariq Jameel’s Defence of Deviant Sects


Majlisul Ulama

The  following  are  some  of  the  rubbish  statements  of  kufr  of  the  deviate  Tariq  Jameel  who  has  sold  his  soul  to  Shaitaan:


(1) “Listen  also  to  this:  A  man  does  not  become  a  kaafir  by  saying  that  the  Sahaabah  are  kaafir.  I  have  read  this  in  the  Fataawa  of  our  own  seniors.  A man  says  that  all  the  Sahaabah  are  kaafir.  The  fatwa  of  kufr  cannot  be  applied  to  him.”  

This  coprocreep,  Tariq  Jameel,  with  vermiculated  brains  in  which  shaitaan  has  urinated  is  in  denial  of  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  and  the  Ahaadith  of  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam).  What  is  the  state  of  the  Imaan  of  this  coprocreep  who  has  blurted  out  this  stercoracious  rubbish?

If  the  Sahaabah  had  been  kaafir,  is  it  ever  possible  for  anyone  else  to  be  Muslim?  If Hadhrat  Abu  Bakr,  Umar  and  Uthmaan  (Radhiyallahu  anhum)  were  kaafir,  who  else  on  earth  can  claim  to  be  Muslim?  If  the  Ash’rah  Mubash-sharah  among  whom  are  the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen,  were  kaafir,  who  else  was  Muslim  or  could  be Muslim?

The  Qur’aan  Majeed  and  the  Saheeh  Ahaadith  testify  to  the  Imaan  of  the  Sahaabah in  general,  and  to  the  Imaan  of  the  Ashrah  Mubash-sharah  in  particular.  Ashrah  Mubash-sharah  are  the  ten  Sahaabah  whom  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  gave  the  glad  tidings  of  them  being  Jannatees.

The  devil  such  as  Tariq  Jameel,  who  claims  that  the  devil  who  says  that  these  illustrious  Sahaabah  were  kaafir  is  not  a  kaafir,  is  a  confounded  kaafir  himself,  for  he  is  in  blatant  denial  of  the  Nusoos  of  the  Qur’aan  and  Ahaadith.  In  the  Qur’aan Majeed, Allah Ta’ala says about the Sahaabah:

“Verily,  Allah  was  well  pleased  with  the  Mu’mineen  when  they  gave  the  pledge  of  allegiance  to  you  (O  Muhammad!)  under  the  tree.  Thus  He  (Allah)  knew  what  was  in  their  hearts  (of  Imaan).  Then  He  cascaded  tranquillity  on  them  and rewarded  them  with  an  imminent  victory.” [Aayat 18, Surah Fatah] 

This  Aayat  is  the  Seal  of  Imaan  of  the  Sahaabah.  Regarding  this  medal  of  Imaan, Hadhrat  Jaabir  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  narrated:  “Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi wasallam)  said:  ‘Insha-Allah,  no  one  who  had  taken  the  Pledge  at  Hudaibiyyah  will  ever  enter Jahannam.”

But  what  is  the  ultimate  destination  of  the  kaafir?  The  one  who  audaciously  and satanically  claims  that  the  Sahaabah  are  kaafir  in  reality  says  that  they  all  will  be the  inmates  of  Jahannam,  and  this  is  precisely  the  belief  of  the  Shiahs,  whom  the  Iblees  Tariq Jameel  is  defending.

Instead  of  defending  the  Sahaabah,  this  shaitaan  in  human  form  defends  the  Shiahs –  those  who  proclaim  the  Sahaabah  kaafir.  How  is  it  possible  for  a  devil  not  to  be  a  kaafir  by  claiming  that  the  Sahaabah  were  kaafir?

Any  senior  who  had  ventured  this  corrupt  view  had  erred  grievously.  Regardless  of  his  seniority  and  status,  his  fatwa  has  to  be  compulsorily  set  aside,  not  publicised  nor  should  it  be  cited  as  grounds  for  defending  the  Shiahs  who  propagate  that:

•  All  the  Sahaabah  excepting  a  couple,  had  become  murtad

•  Hadhrat  Abu  Bakr,  Umar  and  Uthmaan  (Radhiyallahu  anhum)  had  usurped the  khilaafat.

•  Hadhrat  Aishah  Siddiqah  (Radhiyallahu  anha)  had,  Nazuthbillah,  committed adultery.

•  The  Qur’aan  is  the  fabrication  of  the  senior  Sahaabah  such  as  Hadhrat  Abu Bakr and Umar (Radhiyallahu anhuma).

The  logical  effect  of  the  vile  belief  of  the  Sahaabah  being  kaafir  is  that  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  is  false  and  a  fabrication,  and  this  is  the  precise  belief  of  the  Shiahs  whom  the  evil  Iblees,  Tariq  Jameel  is  defending.  If  he  had  any  Imaan  in  his  heart,  he would  prefer  that  rather  his  tongue  becomes  paralyzed  before  uttering  such  vile  kufr  to  defend  the  Shiahs.

The  entire  edifice  of  Islam  rests  on  the  Sahaabah.  They  were  the  only  ones  who narrated  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Ahkaam.  They  were  the  ones  who  passed  the  Qur’aan  and  the  Sunnah  to  posterity.  How  is  it  possible  that  an  evil  person  who  brands  the Sahaabah  kaafir  is  not  a  kaafir?  The  Iblees  should  not  present  some  isolated  view which  he  has  read  in  some  kitaab.  He  should  proclaim  what  the  Qur’aan  and  Saheeh  Ahaadith  say  about  the  Sahaabah.

Minus  the  Sahabah  there  is  no  Qur’aan,  no  Sunnah  and  no  Islam.  Allah  Ta’ala  has  explicitly  expressed  His  Ridha  (happiness  and  pleasure)  in  particular  for  the  Sahaabah  among  the  Muhaajireen  and  Ansaar.  In  this  regard,  the  Qur’aan  Majeed declares:

“The  Saabiqoon  Awwaloon  (i.e.  the  very  first  band  of  Sahaabah  to  lead  the  way) among  the  Muhaajireen  and  Ansaar  and  those  who  followed  them  with  sincerity, Allah  is  well-pleased  with  them  and  they  are  well-pleased  with  Him,  and  He  has prepared  for  them  such  orchards  beneath  which  flow  rivers.  Therein  will  they  dwell  forever.  Indeed  this  is  the  great  success.”   [Aayat 100, At-Taubah]

While  Allah  Ta’ala  states  here  that  He  has  prepared  Jannat   for  the  Sahaabah,  the  Iblees  Tariq  defends  the  Shiahs  who  believe  and  proclaim  that  the  Sahaabah  are  the  inmates  of  Jahannam.  So  how  can  those  who  brand  the  Sahaabah  kaafir,  ever  be  Muslims?

The  kuffaar  Shiahs  whom  the  Iblees  defends,  reject  this  Qur’aanic  aayat  just  as  they reject  innumerable  other  Aayaat,  for  they  claim  that  the  vast  majority  of  Sahaabah  had  become  murtad.  This  satanic  claim  renders  them  (the  Shiahs)  kuffaar,  and  those,  like  the  Tariq  Iblees  who  has  made  it  his  mission  to  defend  the  Shiahs,  likewise  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  their  kuffaar  brethren.  This  evil  character  is  not  concerned  of  his  own  kufr,  hence  he  has  no  qualms  about  claiming  that  those  who  proclaim  the  Sahaabah  kaafir  are  not  kaafir.  

In  the  Qur’aan,  Allah  Ta’ala  states: “Allah  is  not  pleased  with  kufr  for  His servants.”   [Aayat  8,  Zumar]  The  Qur’aan  negates  explicitly  kufr  for  those  with  whom  Allah  Ta’ala  is  well-pleased.  Besides  the  two  aforementioned  verses  in which  Allah  Ta’ala  expresses  His  pleasure  for  the  Sahaabah,  there  are  many  other  Aayaat  in  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  which  glowingly  praise  the  Sahaabah.  How  is  it  ever  possible  for  a  Mu’min  to  muster  up  the  kufr  audacity  of  saying  that  those  who  proclaim  the  Sahaabah  kaafir  are  not  kaafir?  This  is  an  explicit  and  emphatic rejection  of  Allah  Azza  Wa  Jal.  Iblees  Tariq  Jameel  implies  that  regardless  of  rejecting  Allah’s  Seal  of  Imaan  for  the  Sahaabah,  a  man  remains  a  Muslim  even  by  proclaiming  the  Sahaabah  kaafir.            

It  is  utterly  disgraceful  and  aiding  and  abetting  kufr  for  the  Tabligh  Jamaat  to  allow Tariq  Jameel  a  platform.  How  is  it  possible  for  people  belonging  to  the  Ahlus  Sunnah  Wal  Jama’ah  to  afford  accommodation  to  a  veritable  devil  in  human  form?  His  kufr  utterances  and  deviation  have  become  acceptable  to  the  Tabligh  Jamaat  simply  because  he  draws  crowds  with  his  filthy  tongue.  The  objective  is  no  longer  to  please  Allah  Ta’ala.  The  Haqq  is  not  the  objective.  That  is  why  such  an  evil  man  is  allowed  a  platform.

Citing  an  isolated,  obscure,  highly  erroneous  opinion  of  an  Aalim  to  bolster  a  corrupt  belief  is  tantamount  to  kufr.  It  should  be  understood  that  every  good  horse  also  slips.  Every  Aalim  regardless  of  the  lofty  status  of  his  Ilm  and  Taqwa,  does  err,  and  sometimes  the  error  is  of  an  extremely  grievous  nature.  Whilst  an  Aalim  erring  is  understandable,  it  is  intolerable  and  haraam  for  others  to  cite  the  error  and  to utilize  it  as  a  basis  for  propagating  a  view  which  is  in  conflict  with  the  accepted  and  authoritative   ruling  of  the  Shariah. 

A  great  Aalim,  especially  of  later  times,  who  has  a  degree  of  the  capability  of  Ijtihaad,  sometimes  commits  a  grave  blunder  when  propounding  his  personal  opinion.  When  he  slips  in  the  application  of  his  mind,  he  commits  a  serious  error  which  the  Ulama  will  set  aside  or  attempt  to  reconcile  it  with  the  official  Ruling  of the  Shariah.  But  others,  especially  non-entities  such  as  this  Tariq  character,  have  no license  to  even  attribute  the error  to  the  Aalim  of  Haqq.

The  one  who  believes  that  Hadhrat  Abu  Bakr,  Hadhrat  Umar  and  Hadhrat  Uthmaan were  kaafir,  cannot  believe  in  the  authenticity  of  the  Qur’aan  Majeed  because  these  three  Khulafa  were  the  mainstay  of  the  Qur’aan’s  authenticity.  The  Qur’aan  which the  Ummah  has  been  reciting  and  following  for  the  past  more  than  14  centuries  is known  as  Mushaf-e-Uthmaani.  It  was  Hadhrat  Uthmaan  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  who  had  published  four  copies  and  sent  these  to  the  Muslim  World  as  the  standard  version for  all  time  until  the  Day  of  Qiyaamah.

Now  if  someone  says  that  Hadhrat  Uthmaan  (Radhiyallahu  anhu)  is  a  kaafir  as  the Shiahs  believe  and  proclaim,  then  such  a  person  will  undoubtedly  be  a  kaafir.  But  the  vile  Iblees,  Tariq  says  that  he  remains  a  Muslim!  In  terms  of  Tariq’s  religion  of  kufr,  the  devils  who  proclaim  the  Sahaabah  kaafir  have  to  be  defended  and accepted  as  ‘brothers’.  He  offers  not  a  word  in  defence  of  the  illustrious  Sahaabah, but  exceeds  all  limits  of  impropriety  praising  the  Shiahs  who  brand  the  Sahaabah  kaafir.

The  Fuqaha  have  ruled  that  a  person  who  insults  or  disgraces  an  Aalim  of  the  Haqq is  a  kaafir.  This  is  a  unanimous  ruling  of  the  Fuqaha.  When  branding  an  Aalim-e-Haqq  kaafir  is  kufr,  how  is  it  possible  not  to  be  a  kaafir  when  branding  all  the Sahaabah  kuffaar?  Indeed  shaitaan  by  his  touch  has  driven  this  Tariq  character  into insanity.

(2)  Disgorging  another  lump  of  rubbish,  Iblees  Tariq  says:


“Ahmad  Ridha  Khan  Sahib  Marhoom:  In  fact,  I  have  heard  from  my  Ustaad  Sahib  that  there  is  nothing  in  his  (Ridha  Khan’s)  writings  which  delivers  to  kufr  or  to  flagrant  deviation.  He  had,  because  of  love,  (made)  only  (such  statements) which  deliver  to  the  confine  of  bid’aat.”

For  this  Iblees,  Bid’ah  is  not  deviation  despite  the  fact  that  Bid’atis  are  described  in the  Ahaadith  as  Kilaabun  Naar  (the  Dogs  of  the  Fire).  Bid’ah  is  among  the  worst  of deviations. But  for  this  agent  of  Iblees  it  is  not  deviation.  It  is acceptable.  

What  is  the  motive  of  this  deviate  devil  for  coming  out  in  defence  of  this  Chief  of  Bid’ah  who  has  branded  all  our  Deobandi  Ulama  and  Auliya  kuffaar?  Firstly,  let  it  be  known  that  there  is  not  a  single  one  among  our  Ulama  of  Deoband  who  has branded  Ridha  Khan  a  kaafir.  So  why  does  this  Tariq  Iblees  defend  this  Chief  of  Bid’aat  when  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam) said:

“He  who  honours  a  man  of  Bid’ah,  verily  he  has  baided  in  the  demolition  of  Islam.”  

Bid’ah  demolishes  Islam,  yet  it  is  not  deviation  according  to  Tariq  Iblees.  Rasulullah  (Sallallahu  alayhi  wasallam)  said: 

“He  who  honours  a  faasiq,  verily,  the  Arsh  of  Allah  shudders.”  

The  Iblees  concedes  that  Ridha  Khan  was  a  man  of  much  Bid’ah,  so  why  does  he  defend  him?  He  does  so  because  he  (Tariq)  is  an  agent  of  shaitaan,  and  the  most  potent  plot  of  shaitaan  to  undermine  Islam  is  Bid’ah.  Shaitaan  has  harnessed  many  molvis  for  undermining  Islam  and  contaminating  the  Sunnah  with  Bid’ah.  They  operate  as  his  agents  spreading bid’ah  and even  kufr  in  the  name  of  the  Deen.

We  reiterate,  that  the  Ulama  of  Deoband  have  not  proclaimed  Ridha  Khan  and  his Barelwi  grave-worshippers  kaafir  despite  the  fact  that  according  to  these  Bid’atis  all   the  Ulama  of  Deoband  and  even  the  laypeople  who  follow  the  Ulama  of  Deoband  are kuffaar. 

(3) Another  evil  disgorgement  of  this  evil  Tariq bJameel  is  his  statement:


“Maulana  Maudoodi  Sahib  –  Rahmatullah  alayh:  He  was  a  pious  man  and  a  good  Aalim.  He  did  not  form  a  separate  sect.  He  did  not  write  some  separate  Fiqh  for  himself.  He  did  not  make  any  separate  ijtihaad  for  himself.  He  was  a  firm  Hanafi  Muslim.  He  was  a  Hanafi  Aalim.  The  services  of  great  people  are  great. He  has rendered  great  services  against  socialism  and  the  deniers  of  Hadith.”

By  this  averment,  Tariq  the  deviate,  has  rejected  All  the  Akaabireen  of  Deoband  who   have  branded  Maudoodi  a  deviate.  Hadhrat  Maulana  Husain  Ahmad  Madani (Rahmatullah),  Hadhrat  Maulana  Yusuf  Binnori  (Rahmatullah  alayh)  as  well  as other  senior  Ulama  of  Deoband  have  written  detailed  expositions  on  the  deviation  of  Maudoodi.

It  is  quite  clear  that  Iblees  Tariq  has  assumed  the  role  of  the  chief  defender  of  deviates  and  of  the  Shiah  kuffaar.  He  is  out  to  entrap  the  ignorant  and  unwary  to  accept  the  Deviates,  Bid’atis  and  Shiahs,  and  this  is  the  plot  of  Shaitaan.  It  is therefore  shockingly  lamentable  that  the  Tabligh  Jamaat  has  ensconced  this  Iblees  within  its  fold.  In  so  doing,  the  Tabligh  Jamaat  has  become  a  party  in  ruining  the  beliefs  of  ignorant  and  unwary  Muslims.  This  is  one  of  the  causes  for  the  terrible  split  in  the  ranks  of  the  Tabligh  Jamaat.  It  is  an  athaab  from  Allah  Ta’ala.


(1) Shiahs  are  kaafir

(2) Ahmed  Ridha  Khan  Barelwi  is  the  Chief  of  the  Ahl-e-Bid’ah  –  the  Barelwis  of  India.

(3) Maudoodi  is  a  deviate.

(4) Those  who  brand  the  Sahaabah  kaafir,  are  themselves  kaafir.

(5) Taariq  Jameel  is  an  agent  of  Shaitaan.  So  beware  of  him.

Existence of Masjid Al-Aqsa During Isra’ Wal Miraj



Glory to (Allah) Who did take His Servant for a Journey by night
from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless – in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things). [Qur’an 17:1]

Many Christian missionaries point to an ‘alleged difficulty’  concerning the above passage. They claim that:

The Farthest Mosque (Al-Masjid-ul-Aqsa) was built many years after the death of Muhammad. It is utterly impossible that Muhammad visited it on his Night Journey.

They further add:

The Temple of Solomon had been completely destroyed in 70 AD, i.e. 550 years before the alleged time of the Miraj in 622 AD, the twelfth year of Muhammad’s mission. A Temple that didn’t exist anymore does not provide any better solution to this problem than a Mosque which wasn’t built yet.

Similarly, the Christian apologist ‘Abdallah ‘Abd al-Fadi says:

Moreover, the Further [sic!]  Mosque was not in existence at the time of Muhammad, but was built about a hundred years after his death! How could he have prayed in it, then, or described its gates and windows? [1]

Firstly, al-Aqsa mosque was built not “about a hundred years” after the death of the Prophet in 11 AH / 632 CE. In 49-50 AH / 670 CE, Bishop Arculfus, a Christian visitor in Jerusalem, reported:

On the famous place where once stood the temple, the Saracens worship at a square house of prayer, which they have built with little art, of boards and large beams on the remains of some ruins… [2]

By the time Bishop Arculfus was in Jerusalem, some 40 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad, the al-Aqsa mosque was already being used as a place of worship by Muslims. Secondly, as usual, the solution to such a “difficulty” lies in part in an elementary knowledge of the Arabic language as well as an understanding of basic Islamic concepts relating to the word “masjid”.

What Is A Masjid??

We will begin by dealing with the word masjid from both the linguistic and legal points of view. The Arabic word for “mosque” is masjid. Discussing with the word masjidfrom a linguistic point of view al-Zarkashi says:

Masjid from a linguistic point of view

Linguistically, it comes on the scheme of maf’il with a kasrah  [i.e. the ‘i’ of masjid] which is ism makan [i.e., name of location] for prostration, while with a fathah [i.e., masjad] it is a masdar.

Abu Zakariyya al-Farra’ [a famous grammarian] said: Every verb coming on the scheme of fa”ala  [in the past form] yaf’ulu [in the present form] like dakhala yadkhulu [which means “to enter”] admits the form maf’al  with a fathah as a noun or  masdar without distinction like in dakhala madkhalan. There are some nouns that were bound to take a kasrah on the second letter of its root like masjid, matli`,  maghrib, mashriq and others, thus making the kasrah a sign of the noun, and some Arabs may say it with a fathah.

Indeed, masjid and masjad, and matli’ and matla’ were all narrated.

He said: Putting a fathah in all these forms is admissible even if we did not hear it before.

He said in Al-Sihah: Masjad with a fathah refers to one’s forehead which is the place involved in prostration. [3]

The Arab grammarians classify masjid as “ism makan”, i.e., “name of location”; it indicates the place where an action takes place.  Masjid being derived from the root sa-ja-da (to prostrate), it means “place of prostration”. Since a place of worship is a place where believers prostrate to God, “masjid” is a general term to designate any place of worship without any religious distinction. Later, this word was used to designate Islamic places of worship in particular, i.e., the mosques.

The Prophet’s night journey was from “the inviolable place of worship” (al-Masjid al-Haram) to “the farthest place of worship” (al-Masjid al-Aqsa). The former is certainly located in Makkah, but what about the latter? The reference to Allah blessing its surroundings (…whose precincts We did bless) suggests a location in the “Holy Land” (cf. 21:81; 7:137; 34:18). Neal Robinson states:

The [Muslim] tradition which identifies it [i.e., al-Masjid al-Aqsa] with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem makes admirable sense in view of the fact that the ‘place of worship’ (masjid) whose destruction is evoked in v. 7 [i.e., 17:7] is clearly the Temple. [4]

This view is also shared by many western scholars. [5]

As it was mentioned earlier that masjid refers to a place of prostration without any religious distinction; an excellent example of the usage of the word “masjid” referring to a non-Islamic sanctuary can be seen in the verse 17:7. The verse describes briefly the destruction of the masjid in Jerusalem (i.e., the Temple) by the enemies of Children of Israel. Allah says in the Qur’an that the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem was a punishment was inflicted upon the Children of Israel for their tyranny and arrogance.

Now that the linguistic issues are clarified, let us now turn to the legal issues (i.e., Islamic Law) concerning the word masjid. Al-Zarkashi says:

Masjid from a legal point of view

From a legal point of view it refers to every place on earth since the Prophet – peace be upon him – said: “The earth was made a masjid for me” which is a particularity of this ummah. This was said by the Qadi `Iyadh because the previous nations used not to pray except in the places they were sure of their pureness whereas we were allowed to perform the prayers in any place not known to be impure. [6]

Further he emphasizes:

Since prostration is the most honourable act in prayer because of the nearness of the servant to his Lord, the name of the location was derived from it. This is why we call it masjid [location of sujud / prostration] and not marka` [place of ruku` / inclination]. [7]

In summary, masjid from a linguistic point of view means a “place of prostration” without any religious distinction. From a legal point of view the word masjid in shari’ah constitutes every place on earth that is fit for prostration. In other words masjid does not designate a building but only a “place of prostration”; the place may or may not have the building. In support of the argument, we quote hadith #323 in Sahih al-Bukhari that has already been mentioned by al-Zarkashi:

Muhammad Ibn Sinan, i.e., al-‘Awqi told us, Hushaym told us; and Sa`id Ibn an-Nadr told me, Hushaym informed us that Sayyar informed us, Yazid, i.e., Ibn Suhayb al-Faqir told us, Jabir Ibn ‘Abd Allah told us:

The Prophet, peace be upon him, said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are:

1. Allah made me victorious by awe [by His frightening of my enemies] for a distance of one month’s journey.

2. The earth has been made for me [and for my followers] a “masjid” [Arabic: a place for prostration] and a means of purification. Therefore, my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

3. The booty has been made halaal [lawful] for me [and was not made so for anyone else].

4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind.

5. I have been given the right of intercession [on the Day of Resurrection]. [8]

So, according to this hadith, any place on the earth is a masjid for Muslims. Therefore, whether there was a building or not when the Prophet made his heavenly trip, it is the location of the “Farthest Mosque” that is intended by the verse and not a building per se because the location where it lies was blessed by God as mentioned in verse 17:1 “the Farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless”. Therefore, no one can claim that the word “masjid” in the Islamic terminology refers necessarily to a building. Imam Ibn Hajar confirms this opinion in Fath al-Bari (his commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari) :

(the earth has been made for me a “masjid”) means a place for prostration, i.e., prostration is not restricted to any particular place of the earth. It may also be a metaphor of a construction built for prayer. This is due to the fact that once prayer is authorized everywhere on earth it becomes like a mosque for that purpose. Ibn al-Tin said: “The earth has been made for me a masjid and a means of purification” both were given to the Prophet, peace be upon him, while it was only a place for worship for others and was not a means of purification, because Jesus used to walk around and pray whenever prayer was due. Al-Dawudi said likewise before him. It was also said that they [the previous generations]  were authorized to perform prayer in places known for sure to be pure, whereas this ummah is authorized to pray anywhere on earth except in the places known for sure to be impure. The strongest opinion is that of al-Khattabi who says that earlier nations were authorized to perform prayer in special places like synagogues and churches. This is confirmed by the wording of the narration of Ibn Shu`ayb “And before me people prayed in their churches.” This is a controversial [?] wording but the specificity was established [??]. This is supported by the narration of al-Bazzar from the hadith of Ibn ‘Abbas similar to the present hadith which includes “Prophets did not pray until they reached their chamber”. [9]

Before we close this issue, one should realize that verse 17:1 also speaks of “The Sacred Mosque” which is in Makkah around the Ka`bah. Did a building for the mosque exist there in the time of the Prophet? The answer is that the Ka`bah was there but there was no building for the mosque. This further adds to the argument that the word masjid in this verse refers to a place of performing the prostration and does not imply the presence of a “building” in the modern understanding.

The above understanding of the wordmasjid as a place of worship not building per se is also well supported by archaeological and historic evidence. Below we present a picture of an early mosque in a place called Besor in Occupied Palestine. [10]



Moshe Sharon comments about the Besor mosque. He says:

To the west of the village on the top of the hill, overlooking the valley and the houses of the village, was the threshing floor, and to the south of it a small open mosque with a rectangular mihrab made of 3 blocks of stones [bottom figure]. The mosque was built to a height of probably two layers of stones, no more than 0.5 m., and was almost square, about 3 x 3 m. and could contain no more than 8-10 men at a time. [11]

There are many other examples of early mosques from Negev region that are nothing but a few stones arranged to mark the mihrab. [12,13]





It is clear from the above pictures that a mosque is simply a place where Muslims prostrate in prayer. It does not need an

elaborate building to be called a mosque. The open mosques that we have seen above do exist even today in Middle East and North Africa.

Concerning early mosques, Creswell states:

… their [i.e., Muslims’]  architectural resources, before they started in their career of conquest, were barely enough to give expression to their needs. In other words Arabia constituted an almost perfect architectural vacuum…The first mosques in the great hiras, or half nomadic encampments of the conquest, such as Basra, Kufa and Fustat, were primitive in the extreme, and in Syria the first mosques were churches that had been converted or merely divided: In fact there is no reason for believing that any mosque was built as such in Syria until the time of al-Walid (705-15) or possibly ‘Abd al-Malik (685-705), for over a generation the Arabs remained quite untouched by any architectural ambitions… [14]

It is worth noting that the Prophet disliked extravagance and impressive architecture in buildings, especially mosques. The relative simplicity of early mosques is in fact a historical example of how the Prophet’s Companions diligently followed his wishes. This is true to a greater extent even today.

Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa: A Place Of Prostration For Jews

The Qur’an refers to al-Aqsa as a masjid, a place of prostration. Was this place used for prostration in early times?

Al-Masjid al-Aqsa and the surrounding area (i.e., Dome of the Rock among others) is usually identified with the place where the Temple of Solomon once stood. Bet ha-Miqdash, as the Temple is usually known in Jewish literature, was primarily a place of assembly for the entire people, for purposes of sacrifice, prayer, and thanksgiving. It is in the prayer ritual that prostrations were performed by the priests. Encyclopaedia Judaica provides an interesting account of the prayer ritual by the priests of the Temple.

The priest who had gathered the coals entered the sanctuary first, scattered them over the incense altar, prostrated himself, and departed. Then the priest who was chosen by lot to offer the incense entered, bearing the pan of incense in his hand. He was accompanied by a priest appointed for this task who instructed him in the proper ritual, and he did not offer it until he was told: “Offer the incense!” The officiating priest waited until the space between the hall and the altar was cleared of people, offered up the incense, prostrated himself, and departed (Tam. 6; Kelim end of ch. 1). During the offering of the incense in the sanctuary, the people used to gather in the azarah for prayer, and even outside the Temple these times were set aside for prayer (cf. Luke 1:10; Judith 9:1). After the departure of the priest who had offered the incense, all the priests filed into the sanctuary, prostrated themselves, and went out again. [15]

It is interesting to note that the Temple was considered as the only place of prostration by some Rabbis and that they would refuse to completely prostrate outside the Temple in Jerusalem. [16]

The Jewish concept of worship has extensive vocabulary, out of which hishtahawah, “to prostrate oneself,” is the most frequently used in the Hebrew Bible (86 times). [17]

Yet Another Problem!

In the same article, the missionaries express another objection:

In Yusuf Ali’s commentary on this verse we read: “The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem…” So, it is interpreted to be not the building itself, but only the site, the location where it had been. I might be wrong, but this seems to be contradicted by a hadith and Muhammad’s understanding that Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a is something that is built, not just a location. Al-Masjid-ul-Haram after all was a building.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 636:

Narrated Abu Dhaar:

I said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Which mosque was built first?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Haram.” I asked, “Which (was built) next?” He replied, “Al-Masjid-ul-Aqs-a (i.e. Jerusalem).” I asked, “What was the period in between them?” He replied, “Forty (years).” He then added, “Wherever the time for the prayer comes upon you, perform the prayer, for all the earth is a place of worshipping for you.”

This hadith actually introduces yet another problem. Abraham supposedly (re)built the Kaaba, (and Abraham lived about 2000 BC) and the Temple was built by Solomon in about 958-951 BC, then Muhammad gave another historically false information based on a major confusion about the time when these people lived.

Firstly, we have already shown that the word masjid does not necessarily refer to a building but rather to a location, i.e., the place of prostration. Secondly, the missionaries try to deceive the readers in the above paragraphs. Indeed, they admit the Islamic opinion that Abraham rebuilt the Ka`bah (it was Adam who built it originally according to the Islamic tradition), but for unjustified reason they overlook the Islamic traditions addressing the construction of the farthest mosque, presumably to generate a “contradiction”. 

They identify the Farthest Mosque with the Temple of Solomon without further justification, and point out an error that they had invented themselves. Let us for example see what Imam Ibn Hajar says about this hadith in Fath al-Bari:

His saying (40 years) 
Ibn al-Jawzi said: It raises a problem since Abraham built the Ka`bah and Solomon built Bayt al-Maqdis [another name of al-Masjid al-Aqsa cf. Hebrew Bet ha-Miqdash] and there are 1,000 years between them. His evidence for saying that it is Solomon – peace be upon him – who built the Farthest Mosque is the narration of al-Nasa’i from the hadith of `Abd Allah Ibn `Amr Ibn al-`As attributed to the Prophet with an authentic isnad that “When Solomon built Bayt al-Maqdis he asked God the Most High for three things etc.” and in al-Tabarani from the hadith of Rafi` Ibn `Umayrah that “David – peace be upon him – started building Bayt al-Maqdis but God inspired him: I shall accomplish its building with Solomon” and the hadith has a story. He[Ibn al-Jawzi] said: “The answer to that is that the mention concerns the first construction and the foundation of the mosque and it is not Abraham who built the Ka`bah for the first time nor is it Solomon who built Bayt al-Maqdis for the first time. Indeed, we have narrated that the first one who built the Ka`bah is Adam. Then his progeny spread out on earth. Therefore, it is possible that one of them built Bayt al-Maqdis. Later, Abraham (re)built the Ka`bah according to the Qur’an.” Likewise, al-Qurtubi said: The hadith does not indicate that Abraham and Solomon were the first ones to build the two mosques. It was only a renovation of what had been founded by others.  [18]

After quoting other opinions, Ibn Hajar insists:

But the possibility mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzi is more pertinent. And I found evidence supporting those who say that it is Adam who founded both mosques. For instance, Ibn Hisham mentioned in “Kitab al-Tijan” that when Adam built the Ka`bah, God ordered him to walk to Bayt al-Maqdis and build it and so he did and offered worship in it. And the construction of the House [Arabic: al-Bayt, i.e., the Ka`bah] is famous and we have mentioned earlier the hadith of ‘Abd Allah Ibn ‘Amr that the House was elevated in the time of the flood until God showed Abraham its location. Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from the way of Ma’mar from Qatadah: God founded the House with Adam when he descended. But Adam missed the voices of the Angels and their prayers. Therefore, God told him: I sent down a House around which [people] will revolve like it is revolved around my Throne, so set out to it. Adam set out to Makkah – He had descended in India, and his steps were enlarged until he reached the House and revolved around it. It was also said that when he had prayed at the Ka`bah, he was ordered to set out to Jerusalem where he built a masjid [mosque]  and prayed therein so that it became a qiblah to a part of his progeny.  [19]

In summary, the verse 17:1 refers to the holy locations in Jerusalem and Makkah because they are blessed regardless of the presence or absence of a building at the time of the heavenly trip of Prophet Muhammad. From an Islamic point of view, evidence has been given by eminent Muslim scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ibn al-Jawzi showing that it was Adam who built both mosques for the first time and that the job of Abraham and Solomon was only a renovation/reconstruction of these sanctuaries.


The word masjid from a linguistic point of view refers to a place of prostration without any religious distinction. From a legal point of view the word masjid in shari’ah constitutes every place on earth that is fit for prostration, whether or not it is a building.

The verse 17:1 may very well refer to the holy locations in Jerusalem and Makkah because they are blessed regardless of the presence or absence of a building at the time of the heavenly trip of Prophet Muhammad from Makkah to Jerusalem to the Heavens. From an Islamic point of view, evidence has been given by eminent Muslim scholars like IbnHajar and Ibn al-Jawzi who have discussed the issue. They have shown that it was Adam who built both mosques for the first time and that the duty of Abraham and Solomon was only a renovation/reconstruction of these sanctuaries.

And Allah knows best!

Appendix: Who Turned The Temple Mount Into A Garbage Dump??

Let’s now deal with some side issues. The Christian missionaries tell us that when the Muslims conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount filled with garbage:

“When the Arabs conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount abandoned and filled with refuse. … `Umar ordered it cleaned and performed a prayer there. The sanctuary [the Dome of the Rock] … was built by Caliph `Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan around 72/691.”

Two question now arise, who abandoned the Temple Mount and why was it filled it with rubbish? The facts become clearer when we actually fill in the blanks “…”  in the Christian missionaries’ quotation:

When the Arabs conquered Jerusalem they found the Temple Mount abandoned and filled with refuse. The abandonment of the Temple site was in accordance with Jesus’ prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another.`Umar ordered it cleaned and performed a prayer there. [20]

So, it was the Christians who abandoned the Temple some 600 years before the Muslims entered it. But who used the Holy place a rubbish dump?

Ever since the Persian occupation, when the Jews had resumed worship on the platform, the Christians had used the place as the city rubbish dump. When `Umar reached the old ruined gates of the Temple, says the Muslim historian Mujir al-Din, he was horrified to see the filth, “which was then all about the holy sanctuary, had settled on the steps of the gates so that it even came out into the streets in which the gate opened, and it had accumulated so greatly as almost to reach up the ceiling of the gateway.” The only way to get up to the platform was to crawl on hands and knees. Sophronius went first and the Muslims struggled up behind. When they arrived at the top, the Muslims must have gazed appalled at the vast and desolate expanse of Herod’s platform, still covered with piles of fallen masonry and garbage. [21]

It was the Christians! The Christian attitude towards Jerusalem can be understood by reading the New Testament. Paul’s Epistles and the Book of Revelation may have defined a theological framework for the attitude towards Jerusalem, but the two synoptic Gospels of Luke (19:42-44) and Matthew did more than that. They also provided guidelines for political or quaispolitical actions after Christianity became the officially established religion of the Roman Empire. The Gospels relate how Jesus rebuked his disciples when they admired the Temple’s beauty from the Mount of Olives: “His disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the Temple. But he answered them, ‘You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left any stone upon another.'” (Matthew 24:1-2).

Art historians such as Nuseibah and Grabar have reached a similar conclusion concerning the Christian attitude towards the Temple Mount:

More importantly, not only was the Haram left barren, but that very barrenness was given the Christian significance of fulfilling Christ’s prophecy, “There will not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down” (Mark 13:2). The ruins of the Jewish Temple and whatever else had been there were to remains as signs of the triumph of Christianity. [22]

Thus the Christians preferred to leave Temple as it was after its destruction; it was left abandoned and became a place of dumping city garbage. It would not be out of place to cite the attitude towards Jerusalem in the early Christian literature. We will take the examples from the writings of John Chrysostom and Athanasius, both of them contemporaries. John Chrysostom of Antioch was the founding father of Christian anti-semitism, whose writing against Jews are extremely vitriolic and of bad taste (no wonder the Christian Church honoured him!).[23] He lived during the period (4th century CE) when Christian eschatology was being linked to Jerusalem or (euphemistically) the Temple Mount. In the wake of Jewish proselytizing efforts, which he feared would empty the churches, Chrysostom vented unbridled wrath against the Jews of Antioch, levelling various accusations against Jews and Judaism. He censured the Jews for celebrating Passover outside Jerusalem, thereby disobeying their own commandments. [24] Above all, he claimed that Jerusalem’s destruction testified the truth of Christianity. Jerusalem has been in ruins and lost to the Jews for three hundred years; why should they await a change? [25] They tried to rebuild the Temple three times – in the time of Hadrian (Bar Kochba revolt), Constantine (an unknown attempt) and Julian. All the attempts failed. It should make amply clear to the Jews that their status will not change. It is true that the prophets referred to an end to exile, but they did not mean the present exile, which is eternal. [26] In this way, Jerusalem’s status came to be identified by the Christians with the fate of Jews; the latter’s final, eternal defeat.

Like his contemporary John Chrysostom, Athanasius was involved in anti-Jewish polemics but not as bitterly as the former.[27] Athanasius thought that the incorporation of Jerusalem into Christian Empire provides the proof of new religion’s truth. According to Jesus’ prophecy, the Holy City as well as Temple have been taken from them forever.

The Christian Jerusalem, before of the advent of Islam, had undergone subtle developments. The Christians had appropriated a body of Jewish traditions concerning the Temple Mount (some of them mentioned in the New Testament) and were now applied to the Church of Holy Sepulchre and Church of Resurrection. The process of “consecration” of Jerusalem and making it into a Christian city met with little opposition; the pagans had no opposition, while the Jews had not been permitted to reside in Jerusalem since the time of Hadrian (the Bar Kochba revolt). And as expected the Temple Mount was left in the state of pile of fallen masonry and rubbish.

It was Islam that restored the sanctity of Temple Mount, and made it a place of prostration and prayer of One God.


[1] `Abdallah `Abd al-Fadi, Is The Qur’an Infallible?, 1995, Light of Life: Villach (Austria), p. 271.

[2] A. Duncan, The Noble Sanctuary: Portrait Of A Holy Place In Arab Jerusalem, 1972, Middle East Archive: London (UK), p. 24.

[3] Badr al-Din bin Muhammad bin Bahadir al-Zarkashi, I`lam Al-Sajid Bi-Ahkam Al-Masajid, 1995, Dar al-Kutub al-`Ilmiyyah, Beirut (Lebanon), p. 13.

[4] N. Robinson, Discovering The Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach To A Veiled Text, 1996, SCM Press Ltd.: London, p. 192.

[5] See for example the recent work of Heribert Busse, “The Destruction Of The Temple And Its Reconstruction In The Light Of Muslim Exegesis Of Sura 17:2-8”,Jerusalem Studies In Arabic And Islam, 1996, Volume 20, p. 1.

[6] Al-Zarkashi, I`lam Al-Sajid Bi-Ahkam Al-Masajid, op. cit., pp. 13-14.

[7] ibid., p. 14.

[8] Sahih al-Bukhari, available online.

[9] Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Fath al-Bari available online.

[10] M. Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarium Palaestinae, 1999, Volume II, Brill: Leiden, see plates P29 and P30.

[11] ibid., p. 172.

[12] G. Avni, “Early Mosques In The Negev Highlands: New Archaeological Evidence On Islamic Penetration Of Southern Palestine”,Bulletin Of The American Schools Of Oriental Research, 1994, Volume 294, pp. 83-100. All the pictures are taken from here.

[13] U. Avner & J. Magness, “Early Islamic Settlement In The Southern Negev”, Bulletin Of The American Schools Of Oriental Research, 1998, Volume 310, pp. 39-57. This articles throws further light on an early Islamic open mosque and a settlement.

[14] K. A. C. Creswell, A Short Account Of Early Muslim Architecture, 1968, Librairie Du Liban, Beirut, pp. 15-16.

[15] “Temple”, Encyclopaedia Judaica (CD-ROM Edition), 1997, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Limited.

[16] “Tahnum”, ibid.

[17] “Worship”, ibid.

[18] See ref. 4.

[19] ibid.

[20] “Dome Of The Rock” in C. Glassé,The Concise Encyclopaedia Of Islam, 1989, Stacey International: London, p. 102.

[21] K. Armstrong, Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, 1997, Ballantine Books: New York, p. 229.

[22] S. Nuseibah & Oleg Grabar, The Dome Of The Rock, 1996, Thames and Hudson: London (UK), p. 35.

[23] St. John Chrysostom (translated by P. W. Harkins), Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, 1979, The Catholic University Of America Press: Washington, DC.

[24] ibid., See discourse IV: 4.9, 5.1-3, 6.1-5.

[25] ibid., See discourse V: 3.13-15; also 5.10

[26] ibid., See discourse V: 4.5.

[27] St. Athanasius (translated by C. S. M. V.), The Incarnation Of The Word Of God: Being The Treatise Of St. Athanasius De Incarnatione Verbi Dei, 1944, The Centenary Press: London (UK), see the chapter VI, “Refutation Of The Jews”, p. 64.

Al-Isra’ Wal Miraj, Time & Science

What is Theory of Relativity?

Einstein proved that Matter, Energy, Space and Time are interlinked by a special relation.He stated that the position of a body influences time. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, time slows down under the effect of gravity. Accordingly, the passengers on a plane flying somewhere with lower gravity will age by a few extra nanoseconds on every trip. Stephen Hawking and many other scientists supported the theory of relativity of time.

Einstein and Hawking’s theory that time passes more slowly near centers of gravity has been proved by experiments conducted by American scientists. A rocket at high altitude and two separate sites with different gravitational fields were selected for the first experiment. Two very sensitive atomic clocks, capable of measuring atomic vibrations were installed in these two locations, which had different gravitational fields because of their different altitudes, and the relative nature of time was confirmed. The scope of the experiment has today been increased and relativity has been observed in daily life. Two atomic clocks hundreds of times more sensitive than the original ones were used for this experiment. But it was not the two sensitive atomic clocks that distinguished this experiment from the earlier one. The difference in elevation between the two clocks was a mere 33 cm.

According to the results of the experiment, published in the American magazine Science on 24 September, being 33 cm higher, in other words two steps higher, causes time to pass faster because pressure is slightly reduced, and someone standing above these two steps ages slightly faster. However, since Almighty Allah has not created this phenomenon in such a way as to eliminate the need for free will, the difference is only one 90 billionth of a second in a life span of 97 years, and is therefore imperceptible to anyone.



Einstein came up with an example to show the effects of time dilation that he called the “twin paradox.” 

Let’s try it out with a pair of pretend twins, Al and Bert, both of whom are 10 years old in their highly futuristic universe.

Al’s parents decide to send him to summer camp in the Alpha-3 star system, which is 25 light-years away (a light-year is the distance light travels in a year). Bert doesn’t want to go and stays home on Earth. So Al sets out on his own. Wanting him to get there as quickly as possible, his parents pay extra and send him at 99.99 percent the speed of light.

The trip to the star and back takes 50 years. What happens when Al returns? His twin brother is now 60 years old, but Al is only 10 and a half. How can this be? Al was away for 50 years but only aged by half a year. Has Al just discovered the fountain of youth?

Not at all. Al’s trip into space lasted only a half year for him, but on Earth 50 years passed. Does this mean that Al can live forever? Nope. He may have aged by only half a year in the time it took 50 years to pass on Earth, but he also only lived half a year. And since time can slow down but never goes backwards, there’s no way he could grow younger.

The renowned physicist Stephen Hawking describes this using the example of twins:

“Consider a pair of twins. Suppose that one twin goes to live on top of a mountain while the other stays at sea level. The first twin would age faster than the second. Thus, if they met again, one would be older than the other.” ► [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p.54]


The conclusion from these scientific findings summarized very briefly here is that the fact that time is a perception has been confirmed. This fact was also revealed hundreds of years ago in the Qur’an. The relevant verses read:

“And they ask you to and Allah shall never fail in His promise, and undoubtedly, there is with your Lord such aday like a thousand years in your reckoning.  ► [Surat al-Hajj Chapter 22 : Verse 47]

He plans and executes (the Command and Control System) from the heavens to the earth. Then His Command ascends (and will ascend to completion) towards Him in one Day which measures one thousand years according to (the number) that you count.  ► [Surat as-Sajda Chapter 32 :Verse 5]

The angels and ar-Ruh al-Amin (the Spirit) rise towards His (Throne) in a day which measures fifty thousand years (according to the worldly scale). ► [Surat al-Ma’arij Chapter 70 : Verse 4]

The scientific experiments in question prove that we can never know how or even if time passes. That, in turn, shows that time has no absolute reality, that it is simply a perception. This fact, corroborated by modern science, that time is simply a psychological perception and that it can be perceived differently depending on events, location and prevailing conditions, is revealed thus in the Qur’an:

“On the Day He calls you, you will respond by praising Him and think that you have only tarried a very short time.”  ► [Surat al-Isra’ Chapter 17 : Verse 52]



Almighty Allah states in the Qur’an:

Holy (free of any imperfection, weakness and insufficiency) is He Who took His (most beloved and intimate) Servant in a small portion of a night from the Sacred Mosque to the al-Aqsa Mosque, whose surroundings We have blessed, in order that We might show him (the Perfect Servant) Our Signs. Surely He is the One Who is All-Hearing, All-Seeing.  ► [Surah Al-Isra Chapter 17 : Verse 1]

As such, there is scholarly consensus (ijma) Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi wasallam) journeyed in body and soul the night of al-Isra’ from Masjid al-Haram in Makkah to Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem.

According to Special Theory of Relativity– if a body travels with the velocity of light then Time Dilation and Relativity of Simultaneously occurs. Time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses.

Holy Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was riding on the Buraq, and the speed (velocity) of the Buraq was similar or more than the speed (velocity) of light. Therefore, now we can easily understand that Time Dilation occurred during the Event of Miraj:

Then a white animal which was smaller than a mule and bigger than a donkey was brought to me … The animal’s step (was so wide that it) reached the farthest point within the reach of the animal’s sight. [Sahih Bukhari]

Therefore, time seemed to stop or a very short duration of time passed as mentioned in the Qur’an.

Further Reading: The Qur’anic Philosophy on the Mystery of Time

Refuting the Claim that Miraj was Plagiarized from a Zoroastrian Book

The Main Argument is Revolved around a book named Arda Viraz Namag.

The Arda Viraf Namag is a Collection of Parsi Legends and has a Story of a man named Arda Viraf:

Arda Viraf is chosen for his piety to undertake a journey to the next world in order to prove the truth of Zoroastrian beliefs, after a period when the land of Iran had been troubled by the presence of confused and alien religions. He drinks wine and a hallucinogen, after which his soul travels to the next world where it is greeted by a beautiful woman named Den who represents his faith and virtue. Crossing the Chinvat Bridge, he is then conducted by Srosh, the pious and Adar, “the angel” through the “star track”, “moon track” and “sun track” – places outside of heaven reserved for the virtuous who have nevertheless failed to conform to Zoroastrian rules. In heaven, Viraf meets Ahura mazda who shows him the souls of the blessed (ahlav). Each person is described living an idealised version of the life he or she lived on earth, as a warrior, agriculturalist, shepherd or other profession. With his guides he then descends into hell to be shown the sufferings of the wicked. Having completed his visionary journey Viraf is told by Ahura Mazda that the Zoroastrian faith is the only proper and true way of life and that it should be preserved in both prosperity and adversity.

Now according to the critics, this was later put in the Islamic story of Al-Miraj.

The basis of this Argument is that the book was from the 3rd Century A.D, so according to the Islam-haters, the former got influenced the latter.

When was the Arda Viraf Namag written??

There are two historical persons mentioned in Arda Viraz Namag:

Adurbad-i-Maraspandan, the famous Dastur and minister of Shapur II (309-379 CE) and
Weh-Sapur, the famous Mobad (Zoroastrian Preist) in the time of Khosrow I (531-579 CE). It is interesting to note that Arda Viraz Namag says Wiraz was also called Weh-sapur:

From three, one named Wirâz, it is so that some called him Weh-sâpûr. [Arda Viraf Namag p.192.]

Did the author of Arda Viraz namag know that these historical personalities were after the 3rd century???

Vahman the Translator of Arda Viraz Namag Says:

I had no historical knowledge about the time when they lived.  [p.11.]

This means the Story would have originated much after 579 CE.

Dr.Walter Belardi a Orientalist claims that the whole of chapter Chapter I, 1-20 is a Later Day Forgery. He was also the first one to claim this book dates from the 300’s A.D

[W. Belardi, The Pahlavi Book Of Righteous Viraz, 1979 (Biblioteca di ricerche linguistiche e filologiche 10), University Department of Linguistics: Rome, pp. 121-122. Also See  pg. 32 ,pg.33,and pg .43 of the same book]

Vahman, the Translator of Arda Wiraz Namag says these names were interpolated due to the high standing of these priests.
[F. Vahman, Arda Wiraz Namag: The Iranian ‘Divina Commendia’, op cit., p. 11]

The Redactions

P. Gignoux, an Orientalist Claims:

It is known that the whole of the Pahalvi literature was written tardily, roughly speaking after the Muslim conquest, and that it however transmitted extremely old traditions to us, from Sassanide and even pre-Sassanide times…. One also needs to remark that the handwritten tradition in Iran was never regarded as a rigid data, untouchable and final from where successive rehandlings which the texts underwent, and that poses the literary critic problems that need to be solved, in what concern us in particular is that of the dating of the various draftings….. A particularly significant example of the transmission of a text for the Pahalvi literature, is the book of Arday Viraz…. Like also indicated by Ms. Boyce, in the work already quoted, this book underwent many rehandlings, and in the final drafting, the introduction was written subsequently to the Muslim conquest. But the adaptation of the text for purposes of a religious propaganda at the time, when Mazdaism had to be upheld against the attacks of Islam, does not seem to have been the last. Certain linguistic facts, with savior the presence of well characterized “Persianisms”, attest that the text still seems to have undergone rehandlings in the 10th or 11th centuries and that the final drafting of the text such as it was preserved to us – insofar as, as one saw, one can speak about final drafting – could be extremely late. [P. Gignoux, “Notes Sur La Redaction De L’Arday Viraz Namag: L’Emploi De Hamê Et De Bê”, Zeitschrift Der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 1969, SupplementaI, Teil 3, pp. 998-999.]

Encyclopedia Iranica states:

The Arda Wiraz-namag, like many of the Zoroastrian works, underwent successive redactions. It assumed its definitive form in the 9th-10th centuries AD, as may be seen in the texts frequent Persianisms, usages known to be characteristic of early Persian literature.
[“Arda Viraz”, Encyclopaedia Iranica, 1987, Volume II, Routledge & Kegan Paul: London & New York, p. 357.]

M.Boyce Says:

In its surviving form it is a prose work, written in simple, direct style; and an introductory chapter indicates a date after the Arab conquest. This late redaction was made in Pars, and is probably one of the 9th/10th century literary products of the province.
[M. Boyce, “Middle Persian Literature”, Handbuch Der Orientalistik, 1968, Band VIII, Iranistik: Zweitter Abschnitt, E. J. Brill: Leiden/Köln, p. 48.]

Vahman the Translator of Arda Wiraz Namag said:

The introductory chapter indicates a date after the Arab conquest and was apparently written in Pars. It is probably one of the 9th or 10th century literary products of the province. A linguistic analysis supports this view. [F. Vahman, Arda Wiraz Namag: The Iranian ‘Divina Commendia’, op cit., p. 11.]

P. Gignoux did a study on this book and reached the conclusion it was dated from the 9th or 10th centuries.

That is why Scholars dating this work say:

…. when it was set down is unknown. [M. Boyce, “Middle Persian Literature”, Handbuch Der Orientalistik, op cit., p. 48.]

The First Orientalist who claimed Zoroastrianism influenced islam was Goldziher

[I. Goldziher, ”Islamisme et Parsisme”, Revue De L’Histoire Des Religions, 1901, Volume XLIII, pp. 1-29.]

So it has Been Established that Arda Viraf was a later day fabrication to be used against Islam and this book went under several Redactions like most Pahlavi literature.

Also it must be noted that the Qur’an only mentions the raising to the heavens in the Surah Al-Isra and not the story of Buraq and a Flying Horse is mentioned in the sunnah. And it is the belief of the Ahlus Sunnah that the Meraj was Physical and not just spiritual as is the case with the above quoted book.

English Translation of the Qur’an:

Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things).
[Surah Al-‘Isra]

Refuting the ‘Divinity’ of Jesus [Analysis of John 3:16: For God so loved the World…]


Christians so often quote John 3:16 to prove how Jesus is the son of God and how he died for our sins. Basically this verse sums up the entire Christian faith. The purpose of this piece is to refute such a verse and prove that there is no reason for God to make any form of sacrifice in order to pay for the sins of humankind.

1-First, let’s look at it from a logical stance: If God is all about love, how could He sacrifice His only son? This makes us wonder about the definition of love according to the Biblical God…

Moreover, this verse makes us question the fairness of the biblical God. Is it fair to kill someone innocent for sins he didn’t commit? How can the biblical God be so loving if He is unfair? Furthermore, if Jesus died for the sins of every criminal and rapist, why would they stop spreading their evil? The whole idea of retribution and punishment disappears with such a way of salvation.

2-John 3:16 also makes us ask the following: is God unable to forgive sins without killing His own son?

If it is proven that God had no problem at all in forgiving sins without blood sacrifices then why did he have to crucify His only “begotten” son Jesus” and declare to the whole world that from then onwards the only way to forgiveness is through Jesus’ death? Why would He radically change His nature when it’s stated in Malachi 3:6, ”For I am the Lord, I DO NOT CHANGE“?

Let’s read the following verses to understand more :

“As surely as I live, says the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of wicked people. I only want them to turn from their wicked ways so they can live. Turn! Turn from your wickedness, O people of Israel! Why should you die?”  (Ezekiel 33:11)

The word “turn” here in Hebrew is shuvu which is similar with the word teshuvah which carries the same meaning as tawbah in Arabic i.e. return/repent.

“And suppose I tell some wicked people that they will surely die, but then they turn from their sins and do what is just and right. For instance, they might give back a debtor’s security, return what they have stolen, and obey my life-giving laws, no longer doing what is evil. If they do this, then they will surely live and not die. None of their past sins will be brought up again, for they have done what is just and right, and they will surely live.”  (Ezekiel 33:14-16)

“The person who sins is the one who will die. The child will not be punished for the parent’s sins, and the parent will not be punished for the child’s sins. Righteous people will be rewarded for their own righteous behavior, and wicked people will be punished for their own wickedness. But if wicked people turn away from all their sins and begin to obey my decrees and do what is just and right, they will surely live and not die. All their past sins will be forgotten, and they will live because of the righteous things they have done.”  (Ezekiel 18: 20-22)

In the verses quoted above one can clearly see that the idea of inherited sin is totally debunked. Repentance is taught as a means for salvation and that if repentance is sought and one adheres to that which is lawful, All one’s past sins will be forgotten. This amazing show of mercy from God is again free of any blood sacrifice.

The same message is repeated again in the same chapter:

“And if wicked people turn from their wickedness, obey the law, and do what is just and right, they will save their lives. They will live because they thought it over and decided to turn from their sins. Such people will not die.”   (Ezekiel 18:27-28)

“Therefore, I will judge each of you, O people of Israel, according to your actions, says the Sovereign Lord. Repent, and turn from your sins. Don’t let them destroy you!”  (Ezekiel 18:30)

“Then if my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and restore their land.”  (2 Chronicles 7:14)

“Perhaps the people of Judah will repent when they hear again all the terrible things I have planned for them. Then I will be able to forgive their sins and wrongdoings.” (Jeremiah 36:3)

“Let the wicked change their ways and banish the very thought of doing wrong. Let them turn to the Lord that he may have mercy on them. Yes, turn to our God, for he will forgive generously.”   (Isaiah 55:7)

“For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.”   (Hosea 6:6)

God is not required to kill anyone for atonement of your sins!

3-What is true sacrifice in God’s eyes?

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart”   (Psalm 51:17)

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord ? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams”  (I Samuel 15:22)

Christians as taught by Paul always say that obedience and works are worthless. Accept Jesus’ sacrifice and you will be saved! Just believe! Faith comes first, then works will ensue. Yet, in 1 Samuel 15:22 we see a different idea. The Christian point of view is apparently in reverse to that of God’s as portrayed in 1 Samuel 15:22 ! If God said once that obedience is better than sacrifice, how can He again radically change that and reverse the idea?

4- The biblical God has sons by tons. Jesus is not the only son of God and he is not even the only begotten son as well !

“…Adam, which was the son of God.” (Luke 3:38)

“That the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair….” (Genesis 6:2)

“…Israel is my son, even my firstborn”. (Exodus 4:22)

“…the LORD hath said unto me, ‘Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.’” (Psalms 2: 7)

“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)

You may say all these are metaphorical verses but Jesus is the only begotten son of God. However, Jesus is not the only begotten son of God, David is also described as the begotten son of God

The verse which prove David was the begotten son of God:

“…the LORD hath said unto me, ‘Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.’” (Psalms 2: 7)

5-The Bible states that Jesus was sent only to Israel

So how can He forgive the sins of mankind?
He (Jesus) answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

I would like to conclude with the following biblical verse;

“To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.”   (Proverbs 21:3)

You either have to  accept that no one has to die for your sins or accept that the Bible is contradictory. Either way Christian missionaries should reconsider John 3:16 before trying to trick people with it.

Critical Review of Atabek Shukurov’s Book “Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith”

Review by: Waqar Akbar Cheema


Atabek Shukurov wrote a book called Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith, translated by his student Sulaiman Ahmed. Here is a factual review of the book:

The past century and a half has been marked by scores of books, and articles written to question the authority of hadith in varying ways. Some of the proponents of these ideas were blunt and bold enough to say that they considered no hadith as a valid source of Islamic law and etiquette. There were and still are, others who do not claim to reject all hadiths but through their ad hoc approach they provide for themselves the laxity to reject almost every hadith at will. The common, identifying aspects of these groups is in their frank and loud disavowal of the traditional knowledge stream.

Atabek Shukurov’s work Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith, with translation and commentary by Sulaiman Ahmed, is however different because it makes no sweeping claims of the kind. In fact, it uses the name of the earliest and most widely followed scholarly stream within the broader Sunnite tradition. The central and incessantly repeated clamour on almost every page of the book is about rejuvenating and resuscitating the hadith approaches of the Hanafi school. And it is under this label that all the claims are made against hadith, the second primary source of the Islamic worldview.

Knowing the tree by its fruits.

The third manifestation of practical application of Hanafi methodology is in the arguments about hadith reports about the Holy Prophet (ﷺ) being affected by Black Magic. Claiming that the Qur’an is “quite clear”, and that those who claim the Prophet (ﷺ) was affected by magic are wrongdoers and that, if these reports were accepted, they would raise doubts about revelation. The author after rejecting them based on asinine assumptions about the traditional explanations offered, proceeds to claim that accepting these hadith reports and yet being outraged at the publications of the Prophet’s caricatures, “alludes to double standards” (p.241). Finally, as in the beginning of the book (p.4) it is claimed that Abu Mansur Al-Maturidi (d. 333) rejected the hadiths on this account, and denied that the last two chapters of the Qur’an were revealed on this background (p.242). It is, however, striking to note that far from rejecting the hadith and the incident of magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ), Al-Maturidi actually finds in it, a two-fold proof of Prophethood (wajhān fi ithbāt risālatahu wa nabuwatahu). (Ta’wilāt Ahlul Sunnah, Vol.10, 653)[1] Besides Al-Maturidi, the major Hanafi authority in Hadith, Abu Ja’far Al-Tahawi (d. 321) also accepted the hadith about magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ) (Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, Hadith 5935). Among Hanafis Al-Jassās (d. 370) surely rejected the hadith on the subject but this rejection was due to his theologically Mu’tazalite inclinations rather than his expertise as a Hanafi jurist.

Factual errors, insinuations, frauds

The work is also riddled with factual errors, insinuations and even outright fraudulent statements. For instance, it is claimed that Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH) had “students who were Maturidi in theology” (p.8) when the founder of the Maturidi school was born no earlier than 235 AH. It is like saying Ibn Mas’ud (d. 32 AH) or ‘Alqama bin Qais (d. 70 AH) were Hanafis.

In arguing against the preservation of hadith the author claims that while we have the divine guarantee for protection of the Qur’an there is no such promise in favor of the hadith reports (p.109). In an attempt to refute the “salafi” claim that Qur’an 15:9 entails the same promise for hadith as well, the author states, “why God does not say what he means if he indeed meant ‘hadith’ when he says ‘Qur’an’” (p.110) while the verse in question (i.e. Qur’an 15:9) does not really use the word “Qur’an” it simply says “dhikr”. It is, however, pertinent to note that just a few pages later the verse is translated correctly and the word ‘Qur’an’ is mentioned only in parenthesis (p.118), apparently because unlike in p.110, there the purpose was not to neutralize an argument for hadith preservation.

In his mention of ‘problems’ with the black magic hadith, in the prologue to the book there is another factual misrepresentation by Atabek Shukurov. He mentions “Abdullah ibn Omar Al-Baidawi”, the author of Anwār Al-Tanzil as “a Hanafi scholar from the thirteenth century” (p.4) whereas in reality Al-Baidāwi was a recognized Shafi’i scholar as evident from his juristic discussions in his tafsir and also from the accounts in biographical dictionaries. That his tafsir is largely a condensation of Hanafi_in_Fiqh Al-Zamakhshari’s tafsir and many later Hanafis wrote glosses over it is not enough to classify Al-Baidāwi as a Hanafi.

Using weak and even fabricated hadith reports to emphasize textual criticism

Regarding the treatment of specific narrations, while the undertone across all chapters of the book is that as per Hanafi methodology isnād analysis alone is not enough to separate the chaff from the wheat, and that textual (matn) criticism is very important, what we find is that in many cases the examples brought are hadith reports that are isnād-wise signally, weak and at times outright fabrications.

On p.36 a report reading “The first thing that was created was a horse, then himself [God]. Then the Prophet ()” is mentioned. Besides the fact that the translation is not faithful the hadith has been recognized as a fabrication. In fact the reference cited for this narration is a Shafiite Al-Suyuti’s “Al-La’ali Al-masnu’ah fi Al-ahadith Al-mawdu’ah” (The Fake Pearls in Fabricated Hadiths), and yet right after quoting the above report it is stated that, “even if the chain is authentic according to the Shafi’is, this is irrelevant to Hanafis” (p.36), which clearly insinuates that Shafi’is somehow accept the chain of this report as authentic.

As an example of “an ahād hadith that is accepted as ‘Sahih’ (according to Shafi’is and Salafis)” contradicting the Qur’an, the author quotes the narration from ‘Umar given by Abu Dawud etc. “The husband will never be asked [by God] concerning the reason for hitting his wife” (p.118). However, many prominent scholars including the ‘celebrated’ salafi hadith scholar Al-Albani have declared it as weak. Others who showed its weakness or graded it as such include ‘Ali bin Al-Madini (as quoted by Ibn Kathir in Musnad Al-Fārūq), Ibn Mulaqqan Al-Shafi’i, Ahmad Shakir, Muhammad bin ‘Abdul Muhsin Al-Turki, Mustafa Al-’Adwi, and Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut.

There is more queer stuff in an example of ahād reports contradicting theology which as quoted in the book reads, “Then above the seventh heaven there is a sea, between whose top and bottom is a distance …” This has been referred to as “a Sahih hadith narrated in Abu Dawood and Ibn Majah …” (p.124) and the citation for this is the Al-Risalah’s First Edition (2009) of Sunan Abu Dawud Hadith 4723 (p.293), but if we check this work we find that the editor Shu’ayb Al-Arna’ut has categorically stated that the report is “da’if” (weak). Likewise, the Salafi scholar Al-Albani has also graded it as weak. One wonders how the author fabricated the notion of hadith being “Sahih” in the first place when the very citation he brings mentions its weakness.

Along with the hadith reports from the Messenger of Allah, there is a similar oblivion with regards to a narration from Imam Abu Hanifa. On p.11 the author refers to a report from Tarikh Baghdad wherein it is alleged that Abu Hanifa called a hadith (which is narrated in Sahih Bukhari as well) a “delusion”. However, as clarified by the editor of the referenced edition the report is dubious as it is related on the authority of a weak narrator.

More play on narrations

At one place the author takes exception to a hadith reported by Abu Dawud etc. condemning people who do one of four things including “twisting one’s beard” (p.65). The hadith is clearly mistranslated. The hadith actually condemns “one who ties (a knot in) his beard” (man ‘aqada lihyatahu). Moreover, the author not only refuses to see the actual context of condemnation in the practice being a remnant of the pre-Islamic (jahili) practices, he claims that the hadith was largely unknown and that “Umar had the habit of twisting his beard as did other Sahabah”, and as a reference he provides Al-Tabarani’s Al-Mujam Al-Kabeer, Hadith 54 is cited (p.282). Yet, when we check the cited source we find that it mentions Umar’s twisting of the mustaches, and not beard, in state of anger. The author, as we can see, resorts to two-fold fraud (twisting for tying and beard for mustaches) to cast aspersions on an otherwise authentic hadith.

Disregard for Interpretive devices. Boldness in rejecting hadiths

For the authentic reports discussed, the author is always in a hurry to reject the hadith reports and seeks to attribute rejection of them by Hanafi scholars. He makes no mention of the use of interpretative devices like ta’wīl (interpretation other than the apparent), takhsīs  (specification), tansīkh (abrogation), or tatbīq (reconciliation) etc. It reminds one of Al-Tahawi complaining that one interpreting the hadith differently should not be accused of rejecting it (Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, Vol.2, 134). It seems Atabek Shukurov and co. who claims to revive the Hanafi methodology has taken the approach of intra-Islamic polemicists that Al-Tahawi -arguably the most prominent hadith scholar among the Hanafis ever-once encountered, but they are doing it to a more dangerous end.

Atabek Shukurov takes up the issue of another hadith translated in his book as, “When two people engage in a transaction, each of them has the right to choose to annul it as long as they haven’t parted and are still together …”  (pp.10-11) Using the statements of the scholars who differed with Imam Abu Hanifa’s position and accused him of going against it, Shukurov brings it as an example of “some hadith which are completely rejected based on a variety of principles”  (p.10). The reality of the matter, however, is simply that Imam Abu Hanifa interpreted the hadith differently. He said the parting mentioned in the hadith is not in the physical sense, but rather in the sense of agreement. (Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, Vol.13, 272)

However, it is to be noted that in the above quoted translation of the hadith, the words “and are still together” are unwarranted and actually against the interpretation made by Imam Abu Hanifa. Among “the hadiths [that] are rejected by Hanafi principles”, according to the author, is a “hadith narrated in Abu Dawood by Abu Hurairah; “the illegitimate child is the most evil of the three [meaning out of the mother, father and child”” (p.119). Al-Tahawi Al-Hanafi, however, feels no qualms in accepting this hadith because he brings a report in which Aisha, the mother of the believers, explained the right context of the narration, in that it was actually about a specific person. Al-Tahawi further elucidates that the hadith is not general about every illegitimate child, rather it was specific to a person who hurt the Prophet (ﷺ), and the Prophet (ﷺ) pronounced that he was more evil than his mother and the man who illegally begat him. (Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, Vol.2, 367-369).

The author then brings the hadith “in Tirmidhi that “whoever drinks wine, then, lash him. If he return to it, then on the fourth time kill him”” as an example of reports contradicting the action of their narrators. He then argues, “this hadith was completely ignored by the Sahabah and never implemented” and therefore, he says, “the Hanafis also reject this hadith” (p.121). Hanafis, like others, do not question the authenticity of this hadith and instead argue that it was in fact abrogated as stated by Al-Tahawi (Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, Hadith 4944).

As already noted not all Salafi and Shafi’i scholars have accepted the hadith translated in the book as, “The husband will never be asked [by God] concerning the reason for hitting his wife” (p.118). Furthermore, whereas the author alleges that it contradicts the Qur’anic verse, “If women are obedient do not oppress them” (4:34), it is important to note that the scholars who accepted it (or did not dwell on its authenticity) actually reconciled it with the Qur’an and understood it within the parameters of the said verse.

Since the first part of the verse 4:34 mentions conditional permission to correct wives, Mulla Ali Al-Qari (Al-Hanafi) says “it is for someone who remains mindful of the stipulations and limits regarding hitting” (idha ra’a shurut al-darb wa hududahu) his wife which naturally include not being harsh to her if she remains obedient. (Mirqat al-Mafatih, Vol.6, 375). Worryingly, the notion of a contradiction is fabricated by inserting the words “by God” in the translation of the hadith. In reality the hadith is not by the way of information as to what is not questionable in the sight of Allah, rather it is an instruction to the people that if a husband hits his wife to the extent permissible then they should not infringe their privacy by questioning him about it as is evident from the context in which ‘Umar narrated it (Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 122).

On the science and narrators of hadith

The producers of this book seem to be on a mission to reject everything that Muslims in the West, the vast majority of whom are uninitiated in the Islamic sciences find difficult to comprehend. Thus we find that besides attacks on peculiar hadith reports, the axe also falls on the very science of hadith. It is alleged that the “chain of a hadith can be fabricated quite easily” and that “an expert forger” can work in ways “ensuring that the narrators and chains are acceptable” and he, the forger, “can then add any text to this chain and after a few generations when it has been become [sic] widespread it is considered a Sahih hadith, … especially if this tradition is then later narrated in one of the highly respected canonical collections of hadith” (p.110). In hardly minced words the seed of doubt has been sown with regards to all the hadith collections and hadith reports. The emphasis on textual criticism over and above isnād  criticism has taken an override and as an unfortunate consequence, isnād criticism is laid to rest.

The book highlights criticism of ‘Ikrama, the freed-slave of Ibn ‘Abbas (pp.133, 227-228) and goes on to claim that “it is agreed by consensus that he was from the Khawarij” (p.228). Besides the questions around merit and the truth of this allegation against ‘Ikrama, the claim of consensus on this point is certainly false. Ahmad, Al-‘Ijli and Al-Tabari are reported to have vindicated ‘Ikrama of this accusation. (Fath Al-Bāri, Vol.1, 428).

Likewise, the claim that Imam Al-Bukhari “does not narrate from Hanafis” (p.134) is erroneous. Mufīḍ Al-Rahman Al-Shātghāmi’s treatise on the subject, Al-Wardah Al-Hāḍirah, wholly refutes this claim.

Among the weirdest things is the comparison of Muslim narrators and their reports with those of St. Paul and other Christians. In criticism of ahād reports the rhetoric leads the author to say, “if the chain was authentic we would accept the testimony of one person (or a few) that Jesus was indeed crucified or that he was the pre-existent ‘son’ of God? Or how about the testimony of Paul that he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus?” (p.41). This is truly ridiculous as the author conveniently overlooks the simple issue of the reliability of the narrators in the first place and conflates apparent incongruity  between the Qur’an and Hadith, with the Judaeo-Christian beliefs that are plainly refuted in the Qur’an. The absurdity of this line of reasoning reaches the ultimate level when the author goes on to refer to St. Paul as “Tābi’” (p.42) in attempting to fabricate brownie points against hadiths. It is however, interesting to consider how this rhetoric originally aimed at ahād reports focuses on the tabi’un

One of the claims often repeated in the book is about Abu Huraira not being a faqīh (pp.56, 187-188). To this end he uses an anecdote mentioned by Al-Sarakhsi and ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari about Ibn ‘Abbas’s comment regarding Abu Huraira’s narration on performing ablution (wudu’) for carrying a dead person(p.56). The anecdote is reported without any isnād in the said works. The issue is similar to the better known anecdote in which Ibn ‘Abbas raises a similar question regarding Abu Huraira’s narration on performing ablution for taking something cooked on fire. Just as the ruling for performing ablution, and for taking something cooked on fire is explained by the interpretive device of tansikh (abrogation), which is supported by a narration of Abu Huraira himself (Abu Yusuf’s Kitāb Al-Athār, Hadith 41), this ruling can also be specific in some ways or considered to be abrogated, if verified for its authenticity in the first place. There is proof that Ibn ‘Abbas asked Abu Huraira to give a legal verdict on the more complex subject of divorce, (Muwatta Mālik, Hadith 2110, Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, Hadith 4478). ‘Abdul Majīd Al-Turkamani has addressed this issue in his work, Dirāsat fi ‘Ulum Al-Hadith ‘ala Manhaj Al-Hanafiyya  p.236-241, and has given names of Hanafi scholars who have categorically mentioned that Abu Huraira was indeed a faqīh. ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Al-Bukhari from whom the author quotes the above-mentioned anecdote himself writes just a few pages later, “We do not accept that Abu Huraira was not a faqīh. Indeed he was a faqīh.” (Kashf Al-Asrar, Vol.2, 559)

The author also claims about those known for the ability and qualities of narration, unlike those recognized for knowledge and the ability of giving rulings, “if their narration conflicts with analogy, then the analogy takes precedence due to necessity of independent reasoning,” and mentions Abu Huraira and Anas bin Malik as examples (p.54). He further writes, “When there is conflict between analogy and the narration of non-faqīh Sahabi, Imam Karkhi gives priority to the narration whereas Imam Eisaa ibn Abbaan gives priority to analogy and his position is the official stance (‘mu’tamad’)” (p.58). The citation for this claim is Nizamuddin Al-Laknawi’s “Fawatih Al-Rahamut”, whereas in reality the author of the cited work makes no claim for any “official stance” on the issue and merely describes what ‘Eisa bin Aban (and Abu Zaid Al-Dabusi) preferred. Al-Turkamani in his earlier mentioned work  (pp.210-243) has treated the subject at length and shown that unconditional preference of narration over analogy is the opinion authentically narrated from Abu Hanifa, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad bin Al-Hasan Al-Shaibani and the majority of Hanafi scholars. Conditional preference of analogy over narration is a minority opinion. Naturally, the opinion of the founders of the school and the majority is the one that matters.

Inconsistencies or manifestations of ad hoc approach

Besides, the merits of the positions taken, the book is internally inconsistent as well. While the author first alleged that Hanafis “completely rejected” the hadith about two people engaged in a transaction and the choice to annul it (pp.10-11), later in the book he presents the same hadith as a case of “when the hadith has many meanings … The narrator acting on one of the meanings does not eliminate the possibility of other meanings being correct,” (pp.186-187).

At one place the author finds fault with the hadith; “If a woman marries without the permission of a representative, her marriage is not valid” for being “narrated from one lady Sahabiyah” (i.e. Aisha) and contradicting the principle of “‘Umum Al-Balwaa’” (p.37), but later the same is presented as an example of a case where “the hadith is accepted” (p.186).

Et Cetera Et Cetera

On p.116 the following statement regarding the enumerated eight “Types of Opposition” is translated in a weird and possibly misleading way.

و قبلها الإمام الشافعي رحمة الله في رواية عنه اكتفاء بظاهر الاتصال. و في رواية ردها

The translation of this statement is given as, “In one narration Imam Shafi’i rejects all these categories due to their implicit disconnection and in a second narration he accepts them.” This translation is problematic; one can only wonder why there is an alteration in transposing the sequence of narrations, by placing the acceptance for connection second and the rejection due to disconnection first. Was it to highlight the alleged narration on Al-Shafi’i’s rejection of those categories?

Referencing is also sometimes faulty. A couple of examples from those cross examined include the citation simply “Abu Bakr Al-Rāzi Al-Jassās, “Al-Fusul fi Al-Usul”, Volume 2” without the publisher’s name or a page number (p.286), and for the hadith of Aisha “narrated by Tirmidhi” related to marriage (p.186) the reference is a report from Sunan Abu Dawud, from the chapters on purification.

The index is equally as poor. There is no entry for certain proper names such as, Abu Yusuf, Al-Tahawi and Ikrama. Against the entry “Khawarij” five pages (139, 2014, 205, 206, 243) are mentioned and you do not find anything about Khawarij on these pages.

Finally, while the whole book is about the rant on ‘delivering’ contemporary Hanafis from the ‘Shafi’i Musatalah’, it is ironic that for a qualification of a condition of tawatur (p.25, note 40), the only citation presented is Nuzhat Al-Nazr  of “Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani Al-Shafi” (p.270).


The only thing worthwhile in the book is its binding and the quality of paper used. Content wise it is poor, erroneous, misleading and even carelessly worked out. Far from being a good source to know the Hanafi positions on issues in Hadith sciences, the book altogether misrepresents the school and tries to put a traditionalist garb over the heretical agendas of hadith rejecters. No matter how much the author may have attempted to preempt the expected reaction about his book by creating an air of innocence around him, the fact remains it is clearly an attempt to bereave the Ummah of confidence in hadith and implicating the bastions of Hadith and Sunnah in this sinister game.


[1] Here we quote for our readers relevant passage from Al-Maturidi’s tafsir’s on Surah Al-Falaq;

قيل: إن واحدًا من اليهود سحر رسول اللَّه – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ -، فنزل هذا.

قال أبو بكر الأصم: ذكروا في هذه السورة حديثا فيه ما لا يجوز؛ فتركته.

قال الفقيه – رحمه اللَّه -: ولكن عندنا فيما قيل: إن رسول اللَّه – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ وَسَلَّمَ – سحر – وجهان في إثبات رسالته ونبوته.

أحدهما: بما أعلمه بالوحي أنه سحر، وذلك فعل فعلوه سرا منه، ولا وقوف لأحد على الغيب إلا بالوحي.

والثاني: بما أبطل عمل السحر بتلاوة القرآن؛ فيصير لتلاوته في إبطال عمل السحر ما لعصا موسى – عليه السلام …

It has been said (qeel) that a Jew did magic on the Prophet (ﷺ), so this (surah) was revealed.

Abu Bakr Al-Asamm said: They have mentioned regarding this surah some hadith which is impossible. Therefore, I rejected it.

Al-Faqih [Al-Maturidi] said: But to us in what has been said (lakin ‘indana fi ma qeel) about the Messenger of Allah getting affected by magic, there are two ways in proving his prophethood.

First: that he learnt through revelation that magic was performed on him, though it was done secretly. And no one can learn about the Unseen (ghaib) except through revelation.

Second: by the way of removing the effect of magic through the recitation of Qur’an as it happened with the staff of Musa, ‘alaihi al-salam …

Al-Maturidi first refers to the hadith reports about magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ). He then mentions Abu Bakr al-Asamm, the Mu’tazalite, who rejected hadith reports on this issue. He then responds and mentions his own view in that, it is a two-fold evidence for affirming and proving the Prophet’s truthfulness.

Therefore, regardless of the implications of the word “qeel” in mentioning the hadith about magic affecting the Prophet (ﷺ), it is evident that Al-Maturidi took exception to Al-Asamm’s rejection of the reports on the subject and went on to claim that the reports actually stand among the proofs of Prophethood.

Moreover, careful study of Al-Maturidi’s usage of the word “qeel” in his tafsir, proves that he did not use it to imply weakness of what he related in this way. He used it along with other similar words in the linguistic sense for different reported opinions before forming an opinion about them, and preferring one over the other as mentioned by Dr. Majdi Basallum in introduction to his edition of Al-Maturidi’s tafsir Ta’wilāt Ahlul Sunnah (Vol.1, 331). In the case at hand we see, that he finds no issue with the reports about the incident and rather counts them among the Proofs of Prophethood.


Abu Yusuf, Kitāb Al-Athār, (Beirut: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, n.d.)Al-Bukhari, ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, Kashf Al-Asrār, (Beirut: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, 1997)Ibn Hajar, Fath Al-Bāri, (Beirut: Dar Al-Ma’arifa, 1979)Malik bin Anas, Muwatta, (Abu Dhabi, Moassasah Zayd bin Nahyan, 2005)Al-Maturidi, Abu Mansur, Ta’wilāt Ahlul Sunnah, edited by Dr. Majdi Basallum (Beirut: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, 2005)Al-Qāri, Mullah ‘Ali bin Sultan, Mirqāt al-Mafātih Sharh Mishkāt al-Masābih, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiya, 2001)Al-Shatghami, Mufiḍ Al-Rahman, Al-Wardah Al-hāḍirah fi ahadith talamidh Al-Imam Al-Aʻẓam wa-ahadith Al-ʻulamaʼ Al-Ahnaf fi Al-Jamiʻ Al-sahih lil-Imam Al-Bukhari, (Karachi: ZamZam Publishers, 2002)Al-Tahawi, Abu Ja’far, Sharh Ma’āni Al-Athār, (Beirut: Darul Kitab, 1994)Al-Tahawi, Abu Ja’far, Sharh Mushkil Al-Athār, (Beirut: Mo’assasat Al-Risalah, 1994)Al-Tukamani, Abdul Majid, Dirāsat fi ‘Ulum Al-Hadith ‘ala Manhaj Al-Hanafiyya, (Karachi: Madrasa Al-Nu’man, 2009)

A note on Sulaiman Ahmad: He is only a student at best, and no where near the level of even a basic scholar. This is shown by his many blunders on basic matters in his various “fatwas” of fitna, as well as not knowing basic Hanafi usool, as well as his not understanding basic Hanafi terms. One of his former teachers (whom I keep as anonymous, since Atabek and his cult are fanatical Muslims that persecute and attack all of their opponents) considered him a “Jahil aami” with very poor knowledge of Arabic. 

Refuting the Christian Lie that Roman Catholic Vatican ‘Created’ Islam

When Christian publisher Jack T. Chick started producing his Crusader Comics in 1974 they were initially devoted to exposing the influence of the occult in the world. Their popularity increased in 1979 with the publication of number 12 in the series “Alberto”, the supposed story of how a young boy by the name of Alberto Rivera is taken and indoctrinated into the Roman Catholic Church’s religious order of the Society of Jesus (S.J.), otherwise known as the Jesuits. The “dirty tricks” of the Jesuits’ war against other denominations are exposed after Alberto realises the truth and eventually escapes the clutches of this organisation.

The comic book is a result of a man calling himself Alberto Rivera having approached Chick with his story. Rivera provides a copy of his ID and recounts what he claims to have been taught in the Vatican by Augustin Cardinal Bea S.J. Two years later, in 1981, the second of what will become a 6-part series is published by Chick Publications in which Rivera narrates the extent of the Vatican’s supposed involvement in the affairs of history. Much of the modern detail is taken from the writings of Avro Manhattan and Edmond Paris – whose books are also being published by Chick.

In 1988 the last of the “Alberto” series, part 6, is published. “The Prophet” details how the Vatican supposedly recruited a “suitable” Arab man to lead a new religion that they will create. According to Rivera this religion is created because the Roman Catholic Church “desperately” wants to gain Jerusalem “at the end of the third century” and that Augustine was involved in this plot. We then jump 300 years to the birth of Islam. Rivera recounts the traditional history of Islam which he sources from Martin Ling’s book Muhammad however with some changes. For example, Bahira, the Syrian Christian monk becomes a Roman Catholic monk and the Negus of Ethiopia becomes a Roman Catholic.

Rivera then reveals the “secret history”: that Muhammad’s wife, Khadijah, was actually a Roman Catholic nun who was ordered to find a suitable candidate to be a prophet to the Arabs. We are told that her uncle, Waraqah bin Naufal, another “devout Roman Catholic” is also part of the plot. Together, according to Rivera, they train Muhammad in the works of Augustine and prepare him to reveal a new message to the Arabs. He is taught that the Jews are the enemy and that the Roman Catholic Church is “the only true church”. Rivera tells us that the intention was to use the Arabs to conquer the non-Catholic nations and destroy the Jews and non-Catholic Christians but, according to Rivera, the Arabs rebel and develop a fanatical out-of-control religion hell-bent on conquering the world.

So begins one of the many “conspiracy theories” that abound within modern Christianity; that the religion of Islam was started by the Roman Catholic Church. This is endlessly repeated on web sites, in internet forums, blogs and YouTube videos yet when one asks for any evidence for the claims one is presented with the response of “everyone knows” and “even Muslim historians admit it” whilst no evidence is presented to actually back up these claims. This article is an attempt to discover the truth of the claim.

Their Fictional Claims

For clarity’s sake it may be worth specifying the fundamental claims that are to be addressed. There are many other errors and inconsistencies present in Rivera’s so-called account but it is the claims below on which the entire premise rests. They may be reduced to the following:

Khadija and Waraqah were Roman Catholic Christians;

Khadija was a nun;

Khadija lived in a convent;

These claims will now be explored one by one.

Christian Claim: Khadija was a Roman Catholic

In the early 7th century the Persian Empire dominated Arabia following their expulsion of the Abyssinians (Ethiopians) from Yaman. The Persian (Sassanid) Empire was also at war with the Christian Byzantine Empire and when the Persians inflicted heavy losses on the Christians in 614 AD this victory was particularly celebrated by the polytheists of Mecca [1].

The religion of the Persians was Zoroastrian however Syriac Christianity grew and emerged from that empire spreading across the Middle East and Arabia. Within the Sassanid empire the Christian church was the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. Despite the fact that the word “catholic” appears in the name one should not mistake it for the Roman Catholic Church. The Church of the East was not under the control of any other church whether Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestant. In Arabia the prevalent religions were pagan idol worship as reflected by the presence of multiple idols at the Kaaba in Mecca. However, Syed Razwy in his biography of Khadija states that not all were pagans,

“These individuals, who were very few in number, were called “Hanifs,” i.e., men and women “who had turned away from idol worship.” Makka also had a sprinkling of these “hanifs,” and some of them were in the clan of Khadija herself.” [2]

Yasin Al-Jibouri, on the same topic, states,

“One particular quality in Khadija was quite interesting, probably more so than any of her other qualities mentioned above: she, unlike her people, never believed in nor worshipped idols. There was a very small number of Christians and Jews in Mecca, and a fairly large number of Jews in Medina. Waraqah ibn Nawfal, one of Khadija’s cousins, had embraced Christianity and was a pious monk who believed in the Unity of the Almighty, just as all early Christians did, that is, before the concept of the Trinity crept into the Christian faith, widening the theological differences among the believers in Christ (as). He reportedly had translated the Bible from Hebrew into Arabic.” [3]

Evidence in the Ahadith

Waraqah ibn Nawfal, Khadija’s cousin is mentioned in the ahadith, in the sahih  (authentic) collection of al-Bukhari, in relation to the events immediately after Muhammad had his first encounter in the cave:

“The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic…” [4]

Book 1, Hadith 3 gives more detail,

“Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin ‘Abdul ‘Uzza, who, during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight.” [5]

“Khadija then took him to Waraqa bin Naufal, the son of Khadija’s paternal uncle. Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight.” [6]

Tradition confirms that both Khadija and Waraqa were both Christians but there is nothing to suggest that they followed Roman Catholicism. However, it does state that Waraqa was translating the Gospel into Arabic. Back to Razwy,

“Khadijah was strongly influenced by the ideas of Waraqa, and she shared his contempt for the idols and idolaters. She did not associate any partners with the Creator. Like Waraqa and some other members of the family; she too was a follower of the prophets Ibrahim and Ishmael. Khadijah was a Muwahhid (monotheist)!” [7]

Two important points in regard to their beliefs are given as them having contempt for idols and believing in one God as opposed to more than one. Considering the use that is made in Roman Catholicism of idols this description alone would set them apart from that denomination. Secondly, they are regarded as monotheist, or in Islamic terms, they believed in the Oneness of God. The Roman Catholics were regarded as believing in a three-god trinity. Writing about the Christians living in Mecca at the time when Islam arose Father John Hardon (S.J.) states that,

“the evidence of idolatry among the Arabs contrasted strongly with the monotheistic religion of the immigrant Jews and, mostly Nestorian, Christians” [8]

Hardon identifies the denomination or type of Christianity they practised as being Nestorian. Likewise, Griffith, having noted a continuous presence of Christianity in Arabia from the fourth century to the time of Muhammad, states the following,

“And it seems clear from these sources that the major Christian communities who made headway among the Arabs in the several centuries just prior to the rise of Islam were the so-called Melkites, Jacobites and Nestorians. Their principle ecclesiastical language was Syriac, or Christian Palestinian Aramaic among the Melkites, albeit that their ecclesial identities were largely determined by the positions they adopted in the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries.” [9]

It was during the 5th and 6th centuries AD that the Roman Catholic Church evolved as the pre-eminent church in the western Roman Empire. Following arguments over the nature of Christ large communities were declared heretics by the Roman Church. The Church of the East or the Nestorian Church was one of the first churches to distance itself from what would become the Roman Catholic Church. Mike Kuhn identifies Waraqah as a Nestorian Christian,

“Roughly six hundred years had transpired between Pentecost and Muhammad’s prophetic call. The Christian church had passed through a period of intense persecution at the hands of the Roman Empire and had risen to become a prestigious religion of Rome, whose capital was now Byzantine Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul, Turkey). The presence of Christians in the Arabian Peninsula is confirmed by Waraqa bin Naufal. Waraqa was likely an adherent of Nestorian Christianity, considered a heresy by the early church councils. He was, nonetheless, a man who evidenced desire for the things of God.” [10]

Any idea that the Nestorians were Roman Catholic Christians can be quickly dispelled by reference to Walter F. Aldeney’s description of the Nestorian Christians,

“They have no doctrine of transubstantiation, no purgatory; they do not sanction Mariolatry or image worship; nor will they even allow icons to be exhibited in their churches. Men and women take the communion in both kinds. All five orders of clergy below the bishops are permitted to marry. Dr. Layard could not find any convents either for men or for women. Thus in many respects the modern Nestorians are nearer to European Protestantism than to Roman Catholicism. While those who have succumbed to the Jesuit missions are bound to accept the full Western doctrine —if they really know what that is—the sturdy resistance of the old Nestorians to the papal pretensions throws them into an attitude which is essentially protestant.”  [11]

The description of their beliefs prohibits them from being Roman Catholics. Benjamin Wilkinson refers to the Nestorian split from Roman Catholicism when speaking of the Council of Constantinople in 553 AD. He states,

“At that council, the churches of the Roman Empire surrendered their freedom to the Papacy. Offended at the unscriptural innovations of medieval European compromises, four large communities in the East — the Armenian, the Coptic, the Jacobite, and the Church of the East (often falsely called the Nestorian Church) — separated from the western hierarchy.” [12]

Before the birth of Muhammad a schism has taken place between the Roman Catholic Church and the churches in the East. Stewart & Clark’s Nestorian Missionary Enterprise gives us the following,

“(P)rior to A.D. 547 when the great Jacobite revival began, the only form of Christian faith known in the whole independent Arabia and Hirtha was that held by the “Church of the East,” the so-called Nestorians, and it is practically certain that every presbyter and bishop in the whole of that area recognized and acknowledged allegiance to the Patriarch of Seleucia. When therefore, mention is found of Christians in Mecca and Medina and even in the tribe of Koreish, one is warranted in assuming that all such, prior to at least, the middle of the sixth century, were in communion with the same patriarchate. When the sudden rise of Islam took place it was the Nestorians who suffered most from the impact.” [13]

Samuel Zwemer, writing his foreword to Stewart & Clark’s book confirms this thought when he states that,

“There are many points of similarity between Muslim teaching and Nestorian Christianity, but the circle of ideas most prominent and characteristic, according to Tore Andre, is eschatology with its extraordinary stress on the day of Judgment.” [14]

Likewise, De Lacy O’Leary, writing in The Syriac Church and Fathers,

“To note some points of difference between the Church of the East and the Papacy, it may be observed that the first rejected the use of images, and interposed no mediator like the Virgin Mary between God and man. The Church of the East also dispensed with candles, incense, relics, and many other usages of imperial Christianity. They had a different Bible than that of Rome; for their Bible they used the Peshitta, evidently the work of the school of Lucian.” [15]

Indeed, when all the sources are assembled together, whether they be Islamic, Christian, or even Roman Catholic Jesuit, they all state that it was the Church of the East which could claim the allegiance of Waraqa bin Nawfal bin Asad and his cousin Khadija. From the very beginning of the Church of the East there were doctrines that separated them from the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church. They kept the seventh-day as their Sabbath not the first day, Sunday, which was championed by the Roman Catholic Church. They also rejected the idea of Mary being the mother of God. These and other theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of the East make it hard to imagine that the Roman Church was in a position to invent Islam in Arabia.

Christian Claim: Khadija was a nun

Turning to the suggestion that Khadija (radhiyallahu anha) was a nun, tradition recounts that Khadija was a wealthy businesswoman who gained her wealth from her first husband. There is nothing to tell us when or at what age she was widowed or when she would have entered a convent. Could she have been a nun at some point? In answering the first question we saw that there is no evidence that Roman Catholicism existed in Arabia in the 7th century. However, it may be just as valid to ask, Did the Church of the East have women who renounced the world to live in seclusion? William Harmless in his book Desert Christians relates that,

“Discoveries of papyri have profoundly enriched our understanding of the social world of Roman Egypt and of ancient monasticism. The following is an example. The papyrus quoted below is a rental contract between a Jewish man and two sisters, named Theodora and Tauris. What makes this interesting is that the sisters are described as “female-monk renouncers” (monachais apotaktikais). This indicates that ascetics—including women —might live in town, remain members of the local community, own property, and carry on business.” [16]

It is important to remember that this quote refers to the practices of Roman Egypt and not the part of Arabia where Khadija (radhiyallahu anha) lived. Is there any evidence that women of the Church of the East became nuns? Messrs. Robbins, Ward & Williams, speaking of the Nestorians have this to say,

“The Nestorians… are to be found… in greater numbers than any other sect of Christians, whence they not only call themselves the Eastern Christians, as already observed, but are sometimes so called by others. They celebrate the Eucharist with leavened bread, and administer it in both kinds they do not worship images, and they allow their clergy to marry once, twice, and even thrice ; but whether this liberty extends to the regular clergy, I have not yet been able to ascertain. Their monks are habited in a black gown, tied with a leathern girdle, and wear a blue turban ; and their nuns must be forty years old before they take the monastic habit, which is much the same with that of the monks, except that they tie a kind of black veil about their heads, and about their chins.” [17]

It is of some importance that “nuns must be forty years old before they take the monastic habit”. Khadijah (radhiyallahu anha) was forty years old when she married Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) which means that even if the claim is that she was a Nestorian “nun” rather than a Roman Catholic one, at the very age at which she could have entered cloisters she married Prophet Muhammed instead. This naturally leads us to the next question.

Christian Claim: Khadija lived in a convent

Again we must build on the answers to the first two questions. As previously mentioned, Roman Catholicism was not present in Arabia in the 7th century. Whilst there is evidence that within the Nestorian Church there were female “monk renouncers” it was only women over the age of forty who could take the monastic habit. Remember that in answer to the first question we have read the statement by Adeney that,

“Dr. Layard could not find any convents either for men or for women. Thus in many respects the modern Nestorians are nearer to European Protestantism than to Roman Catholicism.” [18]

In his account of Khadija’s (radhiyallahu anha) life al-Jibouri relates a story about a neighbour of Prophet Muhammad who,

“lived in the same alley in Mecca where Khadija’s house stood; his wife, also Jewish, used to collect dry thorny bushes from the desert just to throw them in the Prophet’s way.” [19]

Returning to Razwy’s account of Khadija’s life, he writes of the time after the death of her first husband, Khuwayled,

“After the death of Khuwayled, Khadija took charge of the family business, and rapidly expanded it. With the profits she made, she helped the poor, the widows, the orphans, the sick and the disabled. If there were any poor girls, Khadija married them off, and gave them dowry. One of her uncles acted as her adviser in business matters, and other members of the family also assisted her in the management of business if and when she sought their assistance. She, therefore, recruited an agent whenever a caravan was outfitted to go abroad, and made him responsible for carrying her merchandize to the foreign markets and for selling it in those markets. From her home in Makka, Khadija controlled an ever-growing business which spread into the neighboring countries. ” (Chap.2)

Following the death of her husband Khadija continued her husband’s business interests which she ran from her home in Mecca, where Muhammad used to visit her before they were married. Back to Sayyed Razwy’s account, where we learn that Khadija spent some years as a rich widow, obviously not in a convent as she was being frequently courted by various noblemen.

“Khadija spent many years of her life in the single state. As noted before, she received many offers of marriage from the lords and princes of Arabia but she turned them down. They could not impress her with their wealth. If they were rich, she was immeasurably richer than the richest of them. And in such personal qualities as the qualities of head, hand and heart, all of them were like the dust of her feet.” [20]


The only source for the idea that Islam was created by Roman Catholicism is “Alberto Rivera”. His claim is copied across the internet and quoted, often verbatim, across the web sites and YouTube videos that promote this theory. None of them produce any primary evidence to prove Rivera’s claims but rather rely solely on his word. Such conspiracy theories are by their very definition based on “secret” – and therefore untestable – information and involve active “conspiracies”. Rebuttals have been based on the credibility of Rivera and Chick rather than the credibility of the theory. Those who question the credibility of either the story or the storyteller are themselves drawn into the conspiracy as agents of the Roman Catholic Church.

The necessity is to find parts of the theory that are testable against what is independently known and accepted – historical fact. Some of the facts that are stated by Rivera are demonstrably incorrect. Rivera refers to the king of Abyssinia as “Negus, the Roman Catholic king of Abyssinia“. The Roman Catholic Church did not have a presence in Ethiopia at that time. Religion was separate from the state and the Christian religion had grown up independent of the Roman Church. Neither had they changed their day of worship to ally themselves with Roman Christianity. They continued to hold the seventh day of the week (Saturday) as their rest day rather than the first day (Sunday) as instituted by the Roman Church. It is an historic impossibility that the Negus (king) was Roman Catholic.

Then there are parts of the story that contradict tradition. Rivera refers to Muhammad as undergoing “intensive training” and that he “devoured” the works of Augustine. He refers to some of Muhammad’s “writings” being unpublished and states that the Qur’an “contains much of Muhammad’s writings“. For this to be true it would go against some of the most fundamental Islamic traditions: that Muhammad was illiterate and; that the Qur’an  (Qur’an, an Arabic word meaning: “recitation“) was written during Muhammad’s lifetime.

Lastly there is the absence of traditional or historical evidence: in regard to the presence of Roman Catholicism in 7th century Arabia; the description in tradition of the beliefs of both Khadija and Waraqa exclude them from being Roman Catholics; the absence of any convents in Arabia precludes Khadija from being in a convent; her history of at least one marriage prior and then marrying Prophet Muhammad at the age of 40 years means that, even if we turn to the example of Roman Egypt, at the time that she became eligible to enter a convent she married Prophet Muhammad.

So we are left with a story recounted by a man claiming to have “secret” knowledge and nothing more. Is Alberto Rivera right and tradition and history wrong?? Belief in this conspiracy theory is based solely on the testimony on one man and a willingness to believe that it could be so. However, there is no evidence to support what he claimed and what he claimed does not fit in with Sunnah, tradition or history.



[1] Life of Muhammad by Muhammad Husayn Haykal

[2] Khadija tul Kubra : A Short Story of Her Life by Syed A.A Razwy (Chap.20, unpaginated)

[3] Khadija, Daughter of Khuwaylid, Wife of Prophet Muhammad by Yasin T. al-Jibouri [art. May 12, 1994]

[4] Sahih Bukhari Book 55 Hadith 605 narrated by ‘Aisha

[5] Sahih Bukhari Book 1 Hadith 3 narrated by ‘Aisha

[6] Sahih Bukhari Book 60 Hadith 478 narrated by ‘Aisha (See also Book 87 Hadith 111)

[7] op. cit. Rawzy, Chapter 2

[8] Islam by Fr John Hardon S.J., unpaginated

[9] The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the ‘People of the Book’ in the Language of Islamby Sidney Griffith, p.12

[10] Fresh Vision for the Muslim World: An Incarnational Alternative by Mike Kuhn, p.22

[11] The Greek and Eastern Churches by Walter F. Adeney, p.496/7

[12] Truth Triumphant by Benjamin Wilkinson, p.94

[13] Nestorian Missionary Enterprise by J. Stewart, T. & T. Clark, 1928, pp. 70, 71

[14] op. cit. Zwemer, p. 8

[15] The Syriac Church and Fathers by De Lacy O’Leary, p. 46.

[16] Desert Christians by William Harmless, p.24

[17] All Religions and Religious Ceremonies by Thomas Robbins, William Ward, Thomas Williams, pub. 1823, p.161

[18] The Greek and Eastern Churches by Walter F. Adeney, p.497

[19] op. cit. al-Jibouri

[20] Syed A.A Razwy: op.cit. (Chap.20, unpaginated)