Tag Archives: Refutation

Did Prophet Muhammad Copy And Plagiarize Bible?? Did Prophet Muhammad Author Qur’an for Worldly Gains?? – A reply to Anti-Islam Liars

Could Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) Have Read Bible And Copied??

Qur’an and the Hadith state that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was Ummi. Qur’an 7:158 states:

[007:158] Say (O Muhammad): O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah to you all – (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. There is no God save Him. He quickeneth and He giveth death. So believe in Allah and His messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believeth in Allah and in His Words, and follow him that happily ye may be led aright. (Pickthall Translation, Quran 7:158)

Pickthall translated the word Ummi as “who can neither read nor write”.

According to Ectaco English-Arabic Online Dictionary (http://www-old.ectaco.com), arabic word Ummi (أمي) means:
“ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED”

Source: http://www-old.ectaco.com/online/diction.php3?lang=3&q=1&refid=316𝔯_id=1&rqt_id=19731153&pagelang=23&word=%C3%E3%ED&direction=2&x=37&y=15

And according to Ectaco English-Arabic Online Dictionary ( http://www-old.ectaco.com), arabic words for illiterate are:

أمي ِ يقرأ وِ يكتب, جاهل,

Source: http://www-old.ectaco.com/online/diction.php3?lang=3&q=2&refid=316𝔯_id=1&rqt_id=19731153&pagelang=23&word=ILLITERATE&direction=1

Qur’an also states that Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was illiterate. Qur’an 29:048 says:

[029:048] And thou wast not (able) to recite a Book before this (Book came), nor art thou (able) to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted. (Yusuf Ali Translation, Qur’an 29:48)

So until that point we can be sure that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) could not read nor write. Naturally, if prophet could read or write then Non-Muslims would have claimed  prophet Muhammed as a liar. They would have seen Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) writing or reading and used that as an evidence that he lied in Qur’an 29:48. Their reaction and refusal to use 29:48 as a proof to demonstrate that prophet Muhammad was a liar is a solid proof that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayho wasallam) could really not read nor write and nor could he consquently have read Bible personally.

Allegation that Waraqa Ibn Nawfal taught Prophet Muhammed

Waraqa was a cousin of Khatija (radhiyallahu anha), first wife of Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). He was a learned man and was well versed in New Testament. Some morons assert that Waraqa could have been teaching prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). There are several historical and logical flaws in that assertion.

Sahih bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3 states:
“…Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, “Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly.” But after a few days Waraqa died” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3)

Firstly, Waraqa died few days later after Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) recieved the first revelation of the Qur’an. Since Waraqa died after few days later then he cannot have been the source of Qur’an, since the Qur’an continued to be revealed continuously upto 23 years after his death. Naturally, since he was dead he could not have been teaching Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or been the source of Qur’an!

Secondly, Waraqa was a pious and a wise man, who dedicated much of his life in the search of God. However, he stated in Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605:

“Narrated ‘Aisha(radhiyallahu anha):
The Prophet returned to Khadija (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) 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 Waraqa asked (the Prophet), “What do you see?” When he told him, Waraqa said, “That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605)

Thus he was intending to support Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and accepted his prophethood. If he (Waraqa) had been the source of Qur’an then he would have exposed prophet Muhammed and refused to follow him! It must be remembered that Waraqa was a god-fearing and a noble person.

When was Bible translated into Arabic according to historian?

According to all scholarly sources Bible was not translated into Arabic during Prophet’s time. The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics admits this:

there is no evidence of any parts of the Bible having been translated into arabic before Islam. (Hastings, James. The Encyclopedia of Rleigion and Ethics. Vol. X, p. 540)

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible attributes the first arabic translation of the Bible to the tenth century (Source: Hastings, James. Dictionary of the Bible. p. 105). However, Encyclopedia Judaica attributes the first arabic translation of the Old Testament either to Hunayn Ibn Ishaq (800-873CE) or to Saadiah bin Joseph Gaon (882-942CE) (Source: Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 4, p. 863)

Paul Wegner explains that the Christian and Jewish traditions that were circulating in Arabia were oral traditions. But the Christian and Jewish groups in Arabia were not orthodox at all, and there were numerous heretical groups:

The Scriptures do not seem to have been extant in an Arabic version before the time of Muhammad (570-632), who knew the Gospel story only in oral form, and mainly from Syriac sources. These Syriac sources were marked by Docetism (believed that Jesus had only a divine nature and only appeared to be incarnate – they thought the material world and thus one’s body was inherently evil)… (Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations. 1999. Grand Rapids: Baker Books. p. 250)

According to New Catholic Encyclopedia:

Neither Arabian Jews nor Arabian Christians, unfortunately, were to be classed among the better representatives of their faiths at the time. The former had lived in comparative isolation possibly since the middle of the 1st millenium B.C., although they had been mildly successful in proselytism and the latter were mainly heretical Monophysites, remote in every sense from the centers of Christian learning. (New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol 9, p.1001)

There are hadiths stating Waraqah Ibn Nawful translated and read New Testament in Arabic. Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478 states:

…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. …” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478)

There is no hadith stating that Waraqah Ibn Nawfal translated the whole bible into Arabic, including Old Testament and New Testament, which was official and available to public. As the hadith states Waraqah translated the Gospel as much as Allah willed him to write. He also became blind, which naturally would have prevented him from translating further. Furthermore, history dictates that his translation was for personal usage and not an official translation of the Bible accessible to the Public, therefore Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) getting a copy of his translation and reading it is very unlikely. He only translated fragments of the Bible, which was for his personal study. Therefore, the hadiths and history do not contradict on this issue.

Allegation that Qur’an was taught to Prophet Muhammad by a Roman Blacksmith

Some pagans accused Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) of learning the Qur’an from the Roman blacksmith, who lived in the outskirts of Makkah and was a Christian. Prophet used to go and watch him do his work often. However, Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala Himself refuted this claim by the use of logic:

[016:103] We know indeed that they say, “It is a man that teaches him.” The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear. (Yusuf Ali Translation, Qur’an 16:103)

That would be like stating that a Chinese immigrant, who didn’t know English well, authored Shakespere’s work; which is obviously illogical. In a same manner how could a blacksmith who didn’t know arabic well have authored Qur’an, linguistics of which exceed excellence?? Indeed, he would not have managed to even convey and explain his basic believes to the Prophet!

Accusation that ‘Hanif’ taught Prophet Muhammad the Qur’an

Hanif were the group of people at Makkah who tried to follow religion of Abraham (Qur’anic Ibraheem alayhissalaam), and therefore believed in monotheism. Before the revelation of the Qur’an, Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself was a Hanif.

However, the Hanifs were not learned about Christianity and Judaism. Indeed as it is demonstrated from Sahih Hadith Volume 5, Book 58, Number 169, many of the Hanif knew no background knowledge of Judaism and Christianity, and their religion seems contradicting to Hanifs beliefs. Therefore, even the Hanifs were not aware of Judeo-Christian beliefs, so there is no possibilty or proof of them teaching Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) about Judeo-Christian beliefs.

Allegation that Priest and Rabbi taught Prophet Muhammad the Qur’an

The discussions between priest and Rabbi and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) took place in Madinah, however much of the Qur’an, especially the stories of Prophets Such as Jesus (Surah Maryam), Joseph (Surah 12) and others were revealed in Makkah. That theory would only be worth considering if the stories of Prophet and other bible-related stories were ONLY revealed in Madinah. But the bible-related stories were revealed in Makkah, where Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not participate in debates with priests and rabbi.

Were the occasional trips to Syria source of Prophet’s knowledge?

There are 2 recorded travel of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaalahu alayhi wasallam) to Syria. One when he was 12 years old and second when he was around the age of 25.

On his journey to Syria when he was 12, he met a monk by the name of Bahira. An immediate question arises, how can a child of 12 learn the theology of different religions in such detail at a brief visit, whilst constanly accompanied by his Uncle and other traders and yet manages to remember all this information until the age of 40?? This is a logical fallacy! Naturally a child at such an age cannot have enough intelligence to comprehend complex theology (in detail), and yet remember for more than 28 years.

Furthermore, Seerah (Biography of Prophet Muhammad) tells us that Prophet Muhammad was accompanied by his Uncle and many other traders, naturally they would not forsake a child in a totally different country; they would accompany him to every possible corner! This would minimize the time he has for learning complex theology.

Bahira himself believed in prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Indeed, the invitation to entertainment itself was in honour of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). His belief in prophethood of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam is described in many seerah texts, this visit is recorded as follows:

Bahira said that he had seen the stones and the trees prostrating to Muhammad as Muhammad had been walking by. They only do this for a prophet of Allah. He looked at the Muhammad’s back and noticed the seal of the prophet, which was an oval shape protruding just below Muhammad’s shoulder blades. He said that this was one of the signs of a great prophet to come that was taught to them in their books.

Second journey was for trade, the story is narrated here:

Khadija soon sent word to Muhammad asking him if he would take a trade caravan to Syria. She would pay him a high fee, which was double that of which she had paid any other person. She also gave Muhammad the services of a young lad by the name of Maysarah who would look after him on the journey. When Muhammad reached Basra, he was shading under a tree when a Monk saw him by the name of Nestor. Nestor asked Maysarah about the person sitting under the tree; Maysarah replied that it was Muhammad. Nestor said, that person is no other than a messenger of Allah. Maysarah soon realised that he was in the company of a very special person. He said that he noticed that the heat was extreme when he saw a clear vision of two angels shading Muhammad from the heat of the day.

Main point to notice is that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was again followed closely by Maysarah, therefore he would have realised if Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had been learning about Bible. And once again the monk Nestor believed in the prophethood of Prophet Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Muhammad Mohar Ali writes in his book on this topic:

Had Muhammad contacted during his trade journeys to Syria any Christian monk or layman for obtaining information or even for casual discussion, the Quraysh opponents, many of whom had accompanied him to Syria, would not have failed to make the most of it in their attack against himThat no such allegation was made by them is a decisive proof that he had not sought information about Christianity or Judaism from anyone in the course of his journey to Syria. (Sirat Al-Nabi And the Orientalists Vol. I A by Muhammed Mohar Ali, Page 266)

Did Prophet Muhammad heard Quss preach Christianity at the Ukaz fair??

In his book Sirat Al-Nabi And the Orientalists Vol. I A, Muhammad Mohar Ali writes regarding this:

It is stated that the Prophet heard Quss preach at the Ukaz fair. This tradition is unanimously classified as spurious and is rejected as such. Specially, one of its narrators, Muhammed ibn al-hallaj al-Lakhmi, is condemned as a confirmed liar (kadhdhab). And even according to this spurious report, the Prophet was only one of the audience and did not make any enquiries as such with the speaker. The orientalists’s use of this report without any indication of its weakness and untrustworthiness is indicative of how such materials are uncritically accepted and cited to support a particular assumption. (Sirat Al-Nabi And the Orientalists Vol. I A by Muhammed Mohar Ali, page 266-267)

Did Prophet Muhammad Author Qur’an for Worldly Gains?

It is very evident from Seerah (biography of Prophet’s life) that Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) could not have authored Qur’an for worldly gains.

After unsuccessful attempts of Quraysh (tribe of Makkah) they could do little to prevent islam from spreading. Therefore they tried to bribe Prophet Muhammad into leaving islam. Utbah Ibn Rabiah was sent for this task. This story is narrated in a Seerah called “Muhammed The Last Prophet”, by Sayyed Abdul hasan ‘Ali Nadwi (rahimahullah), page 43:

‘Nephew,’ he [Utbah] said, ‘you know your standing among us, but you have brought a matter of grave concern to your people. You have divided their community, made fun of their customs, criticised their gods and their religion and declared some of their ancestors to be unbelievers. Now, listen to me. I will make some proposals for you to examine and perhaps you will accept some of them.’ The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Speak, Abul-Walid. I am listening.’ ‘Nephew, ‘Utbah continued, ‘if you want money by this business, we will collect some of our property and make you the wealthiest among us. If you want honour, we will make you our chief so that every decision is yours. If you want a kingdom, we will make you our king. If you are possessed by a ghost of a jinn that you cannot drive away from yourself, we will find skilful doctors to help you. We will spend our wealth on it till you are cured.’When Utbah had finished, the Messenger of Allah asked, ‘Have you finished, Abul-Walid?’
‘Yes.’ 
‘Then listen to me.’‘I will,’ said Utbah. Then the Messenger of Allah recited some verses from Surah Fussilat. Utbah listened intently, putting his hands behind his back and leaning on them. When the Messenger of Allah reached the place mentioning prostration, he prostrated and then said, ‘You have heard what you have heard, Abul-Walid. It is now up to you.’ (“Muhammed The Last Prophet”, by Sayyed Abdul hasan ‘Ali Nadwi, page 43)

If Prophet Muhammed had been after money, women, kingdom or any other worldly desire then now would have been a perfect chance! But Prophet Muhammed chose Islam above all.
Furthermore, history dictates that Prophet’s financial status worsened after the Prophethood mission. “Muhammed The Last Prophet”, by Sayyed Abdul hasan ‘Ali Nadwi, page 185 narrates:

‘A’ishah has related, ‘When the Messenger of Allah left this world, there was nothing in the house that a creature could eat except a little barley on a shelf. (“Muhammed The Last Prophet”, by Sayyed Abdul hasan ‘Ali Nadwi, page 185)

Even a person considered poor by today’s standards would have had more luxuries than that. If Prophet’s intentions were to gain wealth then surely he would have had large amount of wealth and luxuries by the time of his death.

Did ʼAmir Muʻāwiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) curse or order the cursing of ʻAlī (radhiyallahu anhu)

By Shaykh Mumtāz al-Ḥaqq Mālik
Edited byʻAbd Allāh al-Afrīqī 

Shīʻahs [and many amongst the Sunnī’s] are led to believe that ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) started the despicable innovation of cursing and ordering the cursing of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) – (Na’audhubillah) Allāh forbid!

There is absolutely no authentic proof found in Sunni sources to support this idea. This is purely a Shiʻah accusation against a noble Companion of Rasūl Allāh (ṣallallāhu ʻalayhi wasallam), a scribe of revelation (waḥy), the uncle of believers, ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu).

The only Ṣāḥīḥ narration in Sunnī literature is that by Saʻd ibn ʼAbī Waqqaṣ (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu), one of the ʻAsharah Mubasharah, as reported in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Shīʻahs often misquote this ḥadīth to prove their point. The actual ḥadīth is,

حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبَّادٍ، – وَتَقَارَبَا فِي اللَّفْظِ – قَالاَ حَدَّثَنَا حَاتِمٌ، – وَهُوَ ابْنُ إِسْمَاعِيلَ – عَنْ بُكَيْرِ بْنِ مِسْمَارٍ، عَنْ عَامِرِ بْنِ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، قَالَ أَمَرَ مُعَاوِيَةُ بْنُ أَبِي سُفْيَانَ سَعْدًا فَقَالَ مَا مَنَعَكَ أَنْ تَسُبَّ أَبَا التُّرَابِ فَقَالَ أَمَّا مَا ذَكَرْتُ ثَلاَثًا قَالَهُنَّ لَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَلَنْ أَسُبَّهُ لأَنْ تَكُونَ لِي وَاحِدَةٌ مِنْهُنَّ أَحَبُّ إِلَىَّ مِنْ حُمْرِ النَّعَمِ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ لَهُ خَلَّفَهُ فِي بَعْضِ مَغَازِيهِ فَقَالَ لَهُ عَلِيٌّ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ خَلَّفْتَنِي مَعَ النِّسَاءِ وَالصِّبْيَانِ فَقَالَ لَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏”‏ أَمَا تَرْضَى أَنْ تَكُونَ مِنِّي بِمَنْزِلَةِ هَارُونَ مِنْ مُوسَى إِلاَّ أَنَّهُ لاَ نُبُوَّةَ بَعْدِي ‏”‏ ‏.‏ وَسَمِعْتُهُ يَقُولُ يَوْمَ خَيْبَرَ ‏”‏ لأُعْطِيَنَّ الرَّايَةَ رَجُلاً يُحِبُّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيُحِبُّهُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ قَالَ فَتَطَاوَلْنَا لَهَا فَقَالَ ‏”‏ ادْعُوا لِي عَلِيًّا ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَأُتِيَ بِهِ أَرْمَدَ فَبَصَقَ فِي عَيْنِهِ وَدَفَعَ الرَّايَةَ إِلَيْهِ فَفَتَحَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَمَّا نَزَلَتْ هَذِهِ الآيَة{‏ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْا نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءَنَا وَأَبْنَاءَكُمْ‏}‏ دَعَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلِيًّا وَفَاطِمَةَ وَحَسَنًا وَحُسَيْنًا فَقَالَ ‏”‏ اللَّهُمَّ هَؤُلاَءِ أَهْلِي ‏”‏ ‏.‏

Saʻd ibn ʼAbī Waqqaṣ (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) said, “Muʻāwiyah ibn ʼAbī Sufyān (radhiyallahu anhu) said (to him) , “What prevents you from making sabb of ʼAbū Turāb (ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu))?” So He (Saʻd) said, “Because I remember three things Rasūl Allāh (ṣallallāhu ʻalayhi wasallam) said about him. So I will never make sabb of him. Even one of those things would have been more dear to me than red camels…” to the end. (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim)

The above narration is about a meeting between ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and Saʻd ibn ʼAbī Waqqaṣ (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu), which occurred at Ḥājj after ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) had been martyred and ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) had been appointed Khalīfah. ʻUthmān’s (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) killers were amongst the supporters of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu).

Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr had come with them and brought them to assassinate ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu). This was due to a grudge he had with ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu). When Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr grabbed ʻUthmān’s beard to push and throw him down, ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) said to him, “If your father saw this, he would not have been happy.”

These words of ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) shook Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr and he left ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and stepped back. The others who had come with him jumped on ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and martyred him. ʻUthmān’s (radhiyallahu anhu’s) wife tried to intervene and was also hurt in this struggle. She later testified to the whole event and the role of Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr that he had brought the killers with him but then did not take part in the eventual killing.

Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr’s mother ʼAsmāʼ bint ʻUmais (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhā), after the death of ʼAbū Bakr (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu), married ʻAlī (raḍiyallāhu ʻanhu). So Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr was his step son.

When ʻUthmān’s (radhiyallahu anhu) wife identified Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr as a culprit and the killers were known to him as he came with them, so when ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and the other Ṣaḥābah demanded prompt justice for the killing of ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) felt unable to deliver that justice promptly, ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiya -llāhu ʻanhu) blamed ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) for this apparent inability to deliver justice for ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu). Especially as well because the killers were among the supporters of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and known to his step son, Muḥammad ibn ʼAbī Bakr.

ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) then lobbied some of the senior Ṣaḥābah for this. Saʻd ibn ʼAbī Waqqaṣ (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) was amongst the few most senior Ṣaḥābah alive as he was from amongst the ʻAsharah Mubasharah and one of the six members of the committee appointed by ʻUmar (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) to choose the Khalīfah after him and he was also amongst those who had initially appointed ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and then ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) to be Khalīfah as well. Hence, Saʻd ibn ʼAbī Waqqaṣ (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) was a powerful figure and a very senior Ṣaḥābī.

When ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) met him at Hajj , he questioned him, مامنعكانتسباباتراب “What prevents you from making sabb of ʼAbū Turāb? “

Sabb in Arabic does not mean curse. Although it generally means to swear but it also means to blame someone. If ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) had wanted Saʻd (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) to curse ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) then he would have said, مامنعكانتلعناباتراب “What prevents you from cursing ʼAbū Turāb?” But he does not say that. ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) only questioned Saʻd (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu), that, “What prevents you from making sabb of ʼAbū Turāb?” He did not force him to do so. When Saʻd (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) replied that he can’t and won’t, and gave his reasons, ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) stopped, did not pressure him and left him. From this it is clear that there is no compulsion of cursing ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) from ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu).

The entire issue has been exaggerated and misunderstood. The reality is as explained above. ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) only wanted Saʻd (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) to blame ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) for not being able to deliver justice for ʻUthmān (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu).

In any case , if ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) was ever cursed by ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu), then why did Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhum) give him allegiance, visit him and stay with him, and accept his gifts? Would anybody behave that way towards someone who cursed their father and especially if that father was ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and the children were the likes of Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhum). Secondly, from the many sons and grandsons of ʻAlī (raḍiyallāhu ʻanhu), did none of them have the courage and respect to stand up in honour of their father and grandfather, if and when ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) was being cursed?

If the Shīʻah version of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) being cursed had any truth, then it leaves the entire ʼAhl al-Bayt and descendents of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) as being unable and unwilling to stand up in defence of the honour of their noble father and grandfather, which cannot be defined as a virtuous character trait.

If ʼAmīr Muʻāwiyah (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) used to curse and ordered the cursing of ʻAlī (raḍhiyallāhu ʻanhu) and this evil practice supposedly continued for many years, then we ask:

Where were the Shīʻahs of ʻAlī  during all of this period? Did they simply not exist? Were they not faithful and loyal to ʻAlī at all?

And Allāh – Most High – knows best!

Refuting the Baseless Claim that Allah is a ‘Moon-god’

THE CLAIM THAT JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS REJECTED ALLAH AS A FALSE DIETY

The argument that lays the floor work for the people that argue that Allah is a pre-Islamic pagan deity known and worshipped as the moon-god is their claim that Allah was alien to the Jews and the Christians and they rejected Him as a false deity. We find in Robert Morey’s The Moon-god In the Archaeology of The Middle East, p. 1

The religion of Islam has as its focus of worship a deity by the name of “Allah.” The Muslims claim that Allah in pre-Islamic times was the biblical God of the Patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. The issue is thus one of continuity. Was “Allah” the biblical God or a pagan god in ‘Arabia during pre-Islamic times? The Muslim’s claim of continuity is essential to their attempt to convert Jews and Christians for if “Allah” is part of the flow of divine revelation in Scripture, then it is the next step in biblical religion. Thus we should all become Muslims. But, on the other hand, if Allah was a pre-Islamic pagan deity, then its core claim is refuted.”

The first problem is that the above statement implies that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and in continuation, the Muslims are trying to sell the Jews and the Christians a lie by saying that Allah is the God mentioned within their scriptures. This opinion is demonstrated further in his next statement:

Muhammad attempted to have it both ways. To the pagans, he said that he still believed in the Moon-god Allah. To the Jews and the Christians, he said that Allah was their God too. But both the Jews and the Christians knew better and that is why they rejected his god Allah as a false god.”

The above sentence is combined with two blatant lies. The first being that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was trying to convince the pagans he worshipped what they worshipped. We know this claim to be false for many reasons as we will refute shortly. The second false claim is that the Jews and the Christians rejected Allah as a false god. Our main focus will be on refuting this false premise.

DID MUHAMMAD ﷺ TRY TO PLEASE THE PAGANS??

It is very easy to prove that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ rejected the idolatrous worship in Arabia and that the Makkan pagans actually rejected Allah. This can be witnessed by any sensible mind who reads the Qur’an, the Ahaadeeth, or the Biography of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ , even at a basic level. Prophet Muhammad ﷺ made no efforts at all to try and convince the pagans of Makkah that he worshipped what they worshipped, and just to prove this I will quote a few passages from the Qur’an.

The following passages can be found in Surat al-Kaafirun: “Say [to them] O disbelievers: I worship not what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship, and I will never worship what you worship, so to you your religion, and to me my religion” The Chapter of the Disbelivers”  It is reported in the Seerah compiled by Ibn Hisham , p. 285 , also in what is said to be Ibn Ihsaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 165 that the Prophet was doing the circumbalation of the Ka’bah when al-Aswaad b. Muttalib b. Asad and Umayyah b. Khalaf approached him and said “O Muhammad, worship our Lord for some time and we will worship your Lord for sometime; if yours is better, then we will benefit from that and if ours is better you will benefit from that. It was at this moment that Surat ul-Kaafirun was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. It is clear from this account alone that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was not trying to please the pagans by saying we worship the same god. In fact, he made it a common practice to differ with them at nearly every turn! [Footnote, this also refutes Robert Morey’s claim in which he uses the ayah “Tales of the ancients dictated to him day and night, for this is an example of how the revelation would come down in spontanious circumstances].

DID THE JEWS AND THE CHRISTIANS REJECT ALLAH AS A FALSE DEITY??

Dr. Robert Morey also claimed in the above statement that the Jews and the Christians  rejected Allah as a false god. So what name did the Arabic Bible use  if it did not use Yahweh?? What did the Jews and Christians of Arabia call their deity before Islam and after Islam?? The oldest Syriac New Testament dating back to 465 AD [after departure], the Peshitta which is written in the native tongue of ‘Eesa alayhissalaam [Jesus Christ], Aramaic, uses the name Alaha for God. Furthermore, the oldest Arabic Bible, the Mt Sinai Arabic Codex 151, which dates back to 867 AD also uses the name Allah for God. Just this simple fact alone is enough to destroy Dr. Robert Morey’s argument. However, let us look further into this baseless claim.

The fact of the matter is, the Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe that Allah is the true universal God.  Had Allah been a pagan deity that the Jews and Christians rejected as a false deity, then surely there would have been record of this in early Jewsish, Christian-Muslim debates. It would have been recorded in the primary and secondary sources, which include the Qur’an and the Ahaadeeth, yet we find no such objections. Not from the Jews, not from the Christians, not even the pagans!

The Qur’an clearly responds to the Jewish claim regarding parts of their Torah in which they substituted:

“Woe to those who write the book with their own hands and then say ‘This is from Allah’…” Al-Qur’an Surah al-Baqarah, ayah 2:79

We can deduce from this evidence that the Jews used to forge scripture and then claim that is was directly from Allah. Firstly you need to ask why would the Jews attribute their Torah to a pre-Islamic pagan deity if they (according to Robert Morey) believed Allah to be such?? Secondly, why do we not see any recorded argument from the Jews saying “We did not say this book is from Allah” in response to this ayah??

In the following ayah from the Qur’an the Jews claimed that they had made a promise to Allah not to believe in a messenger unless he showed them a sacrifice consumed by fire, they said:

“Allah took our promise not to believe in a Messenger unless he showed us a sacrifice consumed by fire.” Al-Qur’an, Surah al Imraan .3:183

We can see further from the Qur’an that the Jews and the Christians claimed to be the children of Allah:

“And both the Jews and the Christians say ‘we are the children of Allah and His loved ones…” Al-Qur’an Surat ul Maa’idah, ayah 5:18

It does not stop here as we can see the Jews using the name Allāh for their deity can be seen further in Surah 2, verse 89, where it is noted that the Jews of Madinah used to pray to Allah for victory over the pagan tribes in that residence.  Concerning this verse Imaam as-Suyuti [rahimahullah] said:

Ibn Abi Hatim narrated through Said or Ikrima from Ibn Abbas: the Jews used to pray for the Prophet ﷺ to come so they could be victorious against the Aws and the Khajaz , before he was sent. Then, Allāh sent him from amongst the ‘Arabs, but they disbelieved in him. They denied and rejected what they used to say about him.  At this Muaadh Ibn Jabaal, Bishr ibn al-Bara, and Dawud ibn Salama said: “O Jews! Fear Allaah and submit! For you used to pray for victory with the coming of Muhammad when we were disbelievers, and you used to tell us that he is a Messenger soon to be sent, and you would describe him for us.” Whereupon Salaam ibn Mashkam, one from amongst the Jewish tribe of Banu Naadir, said, “He did not come to us with something we recognize, and he is not the one we used to describe and speak about before” _Imaam Suyuti’s Asbaab al-Nuzuwl. from al-Itqaan fi Ulum ul-Qur’an

Imaam Suyuti [rahimahullah] also records the exact supplication the Jews used:

Allahumma unsurna alayhim bin-nabi i.e. “O Allah   please help us (be victorious) over them with the (promised) Messenger ﷺ” _Imaam Suyuti’s Tafseer Jalalayn, ayah 2:89

On another occasion, the Jews were asked by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ what would they think if their main priest converted to Islam and upon hearing that they replied:

May Allah protect him from that”  _Saheeh al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, No. 275

This Hadeeth is known to Dr. Robert Morey as he quoted from it on p. 61 of his book, “Winning The War Against Radical Islam,” however he has chose to ignore this evidence along with many others, as it would destroy the credibility of his thesis that Allah was alien to the Jews. Dr. Robert Morey does not want you to know that the Jews used the name Allah for their deity! He knows fully well that their argument was not concerning the name of God, but, the prophet hood of Muhammad ﷺ, as the Jews only objection was with the Prophet-hood of Muhammad ﷺ.

Another example is the changing of the direction of the Qiblah.   For many years, the Muslims faced towards Jerusalem for their daily prayers until Allah sent down a revelation commanding the Muslims to face the direction of the Kabah in Makkah.   Ibn Ihsaaq reports that the change of direction happened one year and six months after the Holy Prophet ﷺ and the Muslims had emigrated to Madinah.

This demonstrates for us that, for so many years the Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem whilst they were in Makkah! Facing the direction of Jerusalem pleased The Jews and gave them hope that they could convert Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to Judaism. However, they had lost all hope when Muhammad ﷺ told them:

All nations are equal before Allah, and Allah   chooses whom He wishes for Prophet-hood and the distinction is not for Jews alone

This belief would have destroyed everything the Jews stood for concerning their beliefs that only they were to be the trustees and owners of Allah’s religion, thus making them thee chosen ones.  Allah shattered their delusions by revealing the command for the Muslims to change their direction to Makkah. The Jews objected to this strongly and Allah revealed the verse

The fools among the people say ‘What has made them turn away from the direction they used to face’”

It is strange that we do not find the Jews arguing anywhere about the name Allah, but, something a lot less serious, being the direction of prayer.

The Encyclopaedia Judaica also gives us strong irrefutable evidence that the Jews in ‘Arabia did in fact use the proper name Allah for their deity. If we look up the name ‘Abdullah Yusuf, we find the following submission:

Last of the false Messiahs to appear among the Jews of Yemen …His opponents (the Jews) mockingly named him “’Adu Allah” (“enemy of God”), a play on his name ‘Abdallah (“servant of God”). _Encyclopaedia Judiaca, Vol. 2, pp. 51-53.

These evidences demonstrate that the Jews used the name Allah before and after the advent of Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ declaration to his prophetic office. If there had been a problem with the usage of the name Allah, the Jews would have argued this point and such an argument would have been recorded either in the texts of the Ahadeeth or in historical documentation. However we find none. Had it been that the name Allah was pagan in origin, then the Jews would have strongly objected based on the ruling in the “Torah”  which states that one should not utter any name of any false god (see:Bible, Exodus 23:13).

We clearly see from the evidences that Allah was indeed the Jewish Deity, however, what about the Christians??

The Christians also raised many objections against Islam but we find it was never once about the name Allah. It is reported that the Christians of Najran listened attentively to Mughirah Ibn Shubah (radgiyallahu anhu) reciting the verses of the Qur’an that relate to Bibi Maryam (Biblical Mary) and the birth of Hadhrat ‘Eesa  alayhissalaam (Jesus) After hearing the recitation of the Qur’an they objected to Mary being referred to as “O sister of Aaron” accusing Prophet Muhammad ﷺ of Anachronism.

They never objected to the passages which quote baby ‘Eesa alayhissalaam (Jesus) as saying

Indeed I am a servant of Allah (‘Abdullah).

The Christian king Negus had these very same verses recited to him and he made no objections in regards to the name Allah either.

Let us also recall the sixty Christian riders from Najran who came to to hold a face to face dialogue with Prophet Muhammad ﷺ . They had many disagreements with the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ but Allah being the true name for God was never one of them. They were refuted for their notion of Trinity in a very clear cut manner, the very verse that says “wa la taquwlu thalatha” i.e. “do not say three”  – “innama al maseehu ‘isaabn maryam rasoolullahi” i.e. “Jesus the Messiah, son of Mary is only a Messenger of Allah” (S.4:171).

Note here that we fail to find one Christian in any historical account who says “Wait a minute, hold it right there! You said ‘Rasoolullah’! Allah is not God’s name! You must have it confused, why are you saying Jesus is the Messenger of the moon-god?” In fact, we find in the Qur’an and other historical documents the Christians argued that Jesus was Allah, and they still use this very argument to this day.  Furthermore, one of the Christians had the name ‘Abdullah i.e. servant of Allah, and he may have been born well before Muhammad’s ﷺ declaration to Prophet-hood. Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah by Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press, pgs. 270-277

Likewise, we find no objections from the pagans!

Had Allah been a pre-Islamic pagan deity housed inside of the Kabah, then the pagans of Makkah would have been the first to object to the idea that Allah was the same God that the Jews and the Christians worshipped. They would have been the first to argue that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Jews and the Christians. They would have jumped to this chance to call Prophet Muhammad ﷺ an imposter, a liar. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the pagans to disprove Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ beliefs, especially in the court of Negus, as mentioned before.  However these arguments are conspicuously absent from the texts of the Qur’an and the Ahadeeth, or any historical documentation.

Overall, these few examples demonstrate that even though the Jews, Christians and the pagans made objections, they shared a common belief in Allah as being the true universal God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Dr. Robert Morey confirms that the only challenge to the Qur’an that the infidels put forth was the claim that the Qur’an is just a bunch of tales from the ancients:

But the unbelievers say, “This is nothing but a lie which he has forged, and other have helped him do it …Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written; and they are dictated before him morning and evening” Qur’an S.25:4-5

However look more closely at this claim for Dr. Robert Morey says:

The authors of the Qur’an assumed that everyone already knew of these things and thus no explanation was needed_Winning The War Against Radical Islam p. 5

Dr. Robert Morey further documents on pgs 7-8 of this said work, that the Qur’an is composed of Jewish and Christian myths. Notice very closely that there was no objection was from the infidels claiming that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had transformed their pagan deity to the God of the Jews and the Christians. Reason being is that the pagans already believe that Allah, the supreme God of the universe was the same God that the Jews and the Christians worshipped. This is clearly seen from the following ayah from the Qur’an:

Say: ‘Who provides you from the sky and the earth? Or who owns his hearing and sight? And who brings out the dead from the living? And who disposes the affairs?’ They [the pagans] will say ‘Allah.’ Say: ‘Will you not then be afraid of Allah’s punishment [for setting up partners with Allah].”   Surah 10 ayah 31

This understanding is also seen in Imaam Muwaafaq ud-Deen’s lum’at ul-I’tiqaad:

The Holy Prophet ﷺ said to Hussain:  “How many deities do you worship?” He replied: “Seven! Six in the earth and one in the heavens” The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then asked him another question: “Which one do you turn to when you feel frightened or terrified or have a need to be fulfilled?” The man said:  “He who is in the heavens” So the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: “Abandon the six and worship He who is in the heavens and I will teach you two supplications” Upon hearing this from the Messenger of Allah the man then embraced Islam and learnt from the Holy Prophet ﷺ the following supplication: “O Allah inspire me and guide me and protect me from the evilness of my soulSunan at-Tirmidhi, Kitaab ud-Da’awaah, hadeeth  no. 3483. The whole quotation of this paragraph is found in the classical text Lum’at ul-I’tiqaad p. 45, translated by Andrew Sanders, Saladin Publishing 2009

Therefore it is clearly seen that the pagan ‘Arabs did believe Allah to be the true universal deity “The one in the heavens” and none of them ever understood Allah to be a stone pagan deity housed in the Ka’bah. Although, they “believed” in Allah, their disbeleief was due to associating partners to Him. Robert Morey wants to lead you to believe that Allah was once a stone deity. However it is clear from the evidence I have presented that Allah is the God of the Jews Christians and they had no objections to that.

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM DEBATES

In a previous discussion, Robert Morey accused me of making a factual error when I posed the question “why has no objection been made by the Jews and the Christians of Arabia in regards to the name of Allah?” instead of answering the question, he replied by saying:

You have committed a factual error in that you do not know the early debates between Christians and Muslims where the name “Allah” was rejected as pagan.”

The book that Robert Morey refers to is an edited version of The early Christian-Muslim dialogue by al-Kindi `Abd al-Masih ibn Ishaq.  This is best known as “The Apology of al-Kindi” and it documents an early Muslim-Christian debate in which letters were exchanged between a Muslim theologian and ‘Abd ul-Maseeh al-Kindi. This text has been translated from the ‘Arabic manuscript

[Risaalah ‘Abdullah Bin Isma’el al-Hashimy ilaa ‘Abdul-Maseeh Bin Ihsaaq al-Kindi. This text can be downloaded at http://www.jesus-for-all.net/hewar_adyan/pdf_266.pdf ] by Sir William Muir in 1880 and N. A. Newman later edited the English of this text adding a few comments of his own. Robert Morey has refered to this book in his “The moon-god in the Archeaology of the Middle East” on page 13.

So what do we learn from this book??

Firstly, al-Kindi uses the Arabic basmalah which Arabic speaking Jews, Christians and Muslims commonly did. This is to begin the book in Allah’s name by saying “Bismillahi” i.e. In the name of Allah.

The reply of al-Kindi is introduced thus… The Christian [al-Kindi] answered him [the Muslim scholar he was debating] In the name of God the Merciful” which in the original Arabic manuscript of this apology is “Bismillah ar-Rahmaan arRaheem” [See the apology of al-Kindi translated by Sir William Muir, p. 16 and the Arabic text  Risaalah ‘Abdullah Bin Isma’el al-Hashimy ilaa ‘Abdul-Maseeh Bin Ihsaaq al-Kindi The Arabic can be clearly seen athttp://www.jesus-for-all.net/hewar_adyan/pdf_266.pdf on p. 41]

Not only this, but we find al-kindi prefixing the name Allah with the ‘Arabic word “ta’alaa” which translates into English as “The Almighty” so along along al-Kindi is saying Allah the Almighty. Even the Biblical quotes that al-Kindi utilizes contain the name Allah as the name for his supreme deity. This factor destroys Robert Morey’s claim that Allah was rejected as a pagan deity. This really does tear apart his claim that:

The Jews and Christians… rejected… Allah as a false god_The moon-god in the Archeaology of the Middle East”  p. 13.

Especially given the fact Robert Morey then goes on to quote from al-Kindi directly after this statement. This only demonstrates that Robert Morey has not carefully read the text in English, let alone ‘Arabic. Let us look at how he quotes al-Kindi to his own little agenda:

Al-Kindi, one of the early Christian apologists against Islam, pointed out that Islam and its god Allah did not come from the Bible but from the paganism of the Sabeans.” The moon-god in the Archeaology of the Middle East, By Robert A. Morey, p. 13

Robert Morey wants us to believe that al-Kindi is suggesting that Allah is a pagan deity who is unknown to the Bible, however we have successfully demolished this claim with overwhelming factual evidence. However, let us see what Sir William Muir undertstands from al-Kindi’s statement:

His friend [Al-Hishamy] had invited him to embrace the Hanyfite, faith of Abraham, their common father. Our Apologist answers that the Hanyfite faith was in reality the idolatrous religion of the Sabeans, which the patriarch professed before his conversion to the worship of the one true God.” The Apology of Al-Kindy, 2nd Edition, page 41

We see from Sir William Muir’s commentary that Al-Kindy alleges that the Hanifite faith of Islam, i.e. the Abrahamic faith, stems from the paganism of the Sabeans, then, he further alleges that Abraham was of this idolatrous religion until he turned in his worship to the one true God. He is not saying Allah is a pagan deity, he is saying that Abraham used to worship pagan deities before his “conversion”.

In Islam we know this to be untrue as the Qur’an clearly states that Abraham was never one of the idolaters in many places, as the Qur’an says “Wa maa kaana minal mushrikeen – He [Abraham was not one of the pagans

I would like the readers to take note what Sir William Muir writes in the footnote to this point:

But the only argument in this passage as to the propriety of circulating or translating which I have doubts is that in which he asserts the Hanyfite religion of Abraham to have been, not the Catholic faith of the Unity (as is clearly intended in the Coran)  , but Sabean idolatry. To support this view, our Author twists texts of the Coran…Mahometan readers will with reason object to such misrepresentation of their Scripture.” Ibid page 43.

Please take special care in noticing how Sir William Muir freely admits that he, himself, doubts what al-Kindi has asserted regarding the alleged paganism of Abraham, due to Al-Kindi’s deliberate twisting and misrepresentation and cherrypicking of the Qur’an to deceive the readers into arriving at his own concocted conclusion that Abraham was formerly a pagan. [He uses the ayah’s from the Qur’an 6:74-82, however it must be understood clearly that Abraham was making an example to his people in order to lead them to the One true God and he was never one of the mushrikeen as proven in Surat ul-Baqarah (2), ayah 135]

Therefore the integrity of Al-Kindi is questioned, not by the Muslim but by a Christian Missionary. Al-Kindi only alleged that Abraham [Qur’anic Ibraheem alayhissalaam] was formerly a pagan and attempted to cherrypick ayahs from the Qur’an to prove his case.  How then has Robert Morey managed to derive without any hard solid evidence to back up his theory that somehow al-Kindi has implied that Allah was the Sabean Moon-god? Robert Morey’s referral to the early Christian and Muslim debates has failed dismally, and the evidence i against his thesis, not with his thesis.

Robert Morey’s deceptive style of quotation does not stop here as he then tries to conclude from the evidence we just refuted that Dr. Newman concludes his study of the early Christian-Muslim debates by stating:

Islam proved itself to be…a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry.” moon-god booklet, p.13

However, Dr Newman actually wrote:

The first three centuries of the Christian-Muslim dialogue to a great degree moulded the form of the relationship which was to prevail between the two faiths afterward. During this period, Islam proved itself to be less a wayward sect of the “Hagarenes,” from a Christian perspective, and more a separate and antagonistic religion which had sprung up from idolatry. ” N. A. Newman (Ed.), The Early Christian-Muslim Dialogue: A Collection Of Documents From The First Three Islamic Centuries (632 – 900 A.D.) Translations With Commentary, 1993, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 719.

Dr Robert Morey conveniently left out that the idea that Islam originating from paganism is from a Christian perspective i.e. this is a point of view, and does not serve as evidence, nor does it have any citations to even strengthen this bias Christian perspective. Unfortunately, Dr Robert Morey has misunderstood and misused the evidences al-Kindi to form baseless assumptions and misinterpretation of what the text actually says. Once again, we are to find this unscrupulousness all too common when it comes to Dr. Morey’s “truthful” integrity and “careful” scholarship.

A Look at Hadith Rejecters’ Claims

[By Khalid Baig]

Summary of Hadith Rejecters’ Claims

Claim 1 A): We, Quranists, do not make a distinction between obeying Allah and obeying His Messenger, (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) Anyone who obeys the Qur’an has no other option but to obey the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) too. Had we been living with him, we would have no hesitation in blindly following his orders. We do make a distinction but that is between Allah and Hadith collectors like Bukhari, Muslim, Nassai, Ibn Majah, Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud. We accept Allah’s Word that He has protected the Quran from corruption, but why should we accept the words of these hadith collectors? Are they as infallible as Allah?

Claim 1. B): Qur’an is sufficient and does not need any further explanation.

Claim 2: Hadith is the same as the gospels of Christianity. Indeed the time span between death of Messenger Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and the compilation of Sahihs was almost the same as that between the departure of ‘Eesa Maseeh (alayhissalam), and compilation of the Bible. How can Muslims reject one but accept the other??

Claim 3: Dr. Maurice Bucaille finds that Saheeh is as unscientific as the Bible.

Claim 4: The Messenger (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), may have elaborated on items like mode of salah. Such hadith is probably from the Messenger, (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and should be obeyed. But what about the hadith that contradict the Qur’an.

Claim 5: The root cause of Muslim decay is their reverence for the hadith.

Claim 6: Allah has protected only the Qur’an – not Islam – from corruption.

Claim 7: Allah expects from His slaves exclusive servitude. When Sunnis talk of Qur’an and Sunnah, the Qur’an is undermined for its exclusivity is lost……etc..etc…

“If anyone disobeys Allah and His Messenger he is indeed on a clearly wrong path.” [Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:36]

“He that obeys Allah and His Messenger has already attained the great victory.” [Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:71].

For the past fourteen centuries Qur’an and Sunnah have been the twin undisputed sources of Guidance for Muslims. In every generation, the Muslims devoted the best of their minds and talents to their study. They learned both the words and meanings of the Qur’an through the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and made an unprecedented effort in preserving them for the next generation. The result: The development of the marvelous — and unparalleled — science of hadith, one of the brightest aspects of Muslim history.

What does it mean to believe in a Prophet except to pledge to follow him?? And so the teachings of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have always guided this Ummah. No body, in his right mind, could or did question this practice.

Then something happened. During the colonial period, when most of the Muslim world came under the subjugation of the West, some “scholars” arose in places like Egypt (Taha Hussein), India (Abdullah Chakralawi and Ghulam Ahmad Parvez), and Turkey (Zia Gogelup), who began questioning the authenticity and relevance of hadith. It was not that some genius had found flaws in the hadith study that had eluded the entire ummah for thirteen centuries. It was simply that the pressures from the dominant Western civilization to conform were too strong for them to withstand. They buckled. Prophetic teachings and life example — Hadith — was the obstacle in this process and so it became the target.

Another factor helped them. Today most Muslims, including the vast majority of the western-educated Muslims, have meager knowledge of hadith, having spent no time in studying even the fundamentals of this vast subject. How many know the difference between Sahih and Hasan, or between Maudu and Dhaif ?? The certification process used in hadith transmission?? Names of any hadith book produced in the first century of Hijrah, or the number of such books?? A majority probably would not be able to name even the six principal hadith books (Sihah Sitta) or know anything about the history of their compilation. Obviously such atmosphere provides a fertile ground for sowing suspicions and doubts.

They call themselves as ‘ahle-Qur’an’ or Quranists. This is misleading. For their distinction is not in affirming the Qur’an, but in rejecting the Hadith. The ideas of munkareen-e-hadith (hadith-rejectors) evolve into three mutually contradictory strains.

The first holds that the job of the Prophet, (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was only to deliver the Qur’an. We are to follow only the Qur’an and nothing else, as were the Companions. Further, hadith is not needed to understand the Qur’an, which is sufficient for providing guidance.

The second group holds that the Companions were required to follow the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) but we are not.

The third holds that, in theory, we also have to follow the hadith but we did not receive ahadith through authentic sources and therefore we have to reject all ahadith collections!

Internal contradictions are a hallmark of false ideologies. How can anyone hold the first position yet profess belief in Qur’an while it says:

“And We have sent down unto You the Message so that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them.” [Surah An-Nahl, 16:44].
And this:

“Allah did confer a great favor on the Believers when He sent among them a Messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs (Verses) of Allah, purifying them, instructing them in Scripture, and teaching them Wisdom. While before that they were in manifest error.” [Surah A’ale Imran 3:164].

How can anyone hold the second position (limiting the Prophethood to 23 years) yet profess belief in Qur’an, while it says:

“We did not send you except as Mercy for all creatures.” [Surah Al-Ambiyaa, 21:107]

And,

“We have not sent you except as a Messenger to all mankind, giving them glad tidings and warning them against sin.” [Surah As-Saba, 34:28]

The third position seems to have avoided these obvious pitfalls, yet in reality it is no different.

Consider statements 1, 4, and 7 in the summary of hadith rejecters’ claims (at the beginning of this piece). So hadith undermines Qur’an’s exclusivity, yet would have been followed blindly at the time of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Ahadith cannot be followed because they are not reliable, yet can be followed for ritual prayers.

Salah And Hadith Rejecters

But we don’t need a favor for hadith about salah (coming from the same books and the same narrators who are declared as unreliable). We need an answer to this question: If the Qur’an is the only authentic source of Guidance, why did it never explain how to offer salah, although it repeatedly talks about its importance, associating it with eternal success and failure?? What would we think of a communication that repeatedly emphasizes a certain act but never explains how to perform it?? There are only two possibilities. Either it is a terrible omission (and in that case it cannot be from God) or another source for the how-to information is provided and it is a terrible mistake for any recipient to ignore that.

(Recently some hadith rejecters have realized the difficulty of their position on salah. But they have made a claim that is even more ludicrous, namely that the Qur’an gives details on how to offer salah. “A careful reading of the Koran reveals that we are to get our Salaah from the Masjid al Haraam [the continuous practice at Makkah since the time of Abraham],” says one proponent, ” specifically the ‘place of Abraham (maqaam e Ibraheem ).'” Let us leave aside all the practical questions about such a fluid answer. Whose Salah?? When?? Are we to follow anyone and everyone we find praying at Maqam e Ibraheem?? How are those offering salah there are to determine proper way of offering Salah?? How do you resolve their differences?? In his enthusiasm in proposing this innovative solution, this proponent even forgot that the Qur’an says the following about the salah of mushrikeen at the Masjid-el Haraam:

“Their prayer at the House of Allah is nothing but whistling and clapping of hands. (Its only answer can be), ‘Taste the chastisement because you blasphemed.'” [Surah Al-Anfal 8:35]

The Reliability of Resources

To accept one and reject the other source on the basis of reliability (Claim 2) also defies reason, unless we received the Qur’an directly from Allah. But we have received both Qur’an and Hadith through the same channels. Same people transmitted this as the Word of Allah, that as the word of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Even the verse claiming that Qur’an will be protected came to us through the same people.

Through what logic can anyone declare that the channels are reliable for Qur’an and unreliable for Hadith?? On the contrary the Qur’anic promise of protection must apply to Hadith as well for there is no point in protecting the words but not the meanings of the Qur’an.

Protection of Qur’an

To say that Allah promised to protect only Qur’an but not Islam (Claim 6) is being as ridiculous as one can get. Let’s ignore the obvious question regarding the point of this Heavenly act. The question is if Islam has been corrupted and its true teachings have been lost, how can anyone claim to be its follower?? Moreover, Qur’an says:

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost” [Surah A’al-e-Imran, 3:85].

How are we to follow the religion acceptable to Allah if it was not to be protected??

Were Ahadith Written Down for the First Time in the Third Century of Hijra??

The above proves that ahadith must have been protected. Were they?? The very existence of a huge library of hadith — the only one of its kind among the religions of the world — answers the question in the affirmative. To dismiss all that as later day fabrication ( Claim 1A & 2) requires lots of guts — and equal parts ignorance. Were ahadith written down for the first time in the third century of Hijra?? Not at all. Actually hadith recording and collection started at the time of the Prophet, Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam. ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘As (radhiyallahu anhu) sought and was given the permission to write everything he heard from the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa Sallam) who said: “By the One in Whose Hands is my life! Whatever proceeds from here [pointing to his mouth] is the truth.” He produced Sahifa Sadiqa, which contained more than six thousand ahadith. Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu) who spent ten years in Prophet’s household, not only recorded the ahadith but also presented them to the Prophet, (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and got corrections. Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) had many volumes of his collections and even produced smaller compilations for his students. Prominent Hadith scholar Dr. Mustafa Azami has shown in his doctoral thesis that in the first century of Hijra many hundred booklets of hadith were in circulation. By the end of the second century, “by the most conservative estimate there were many thousands.”

Of course most of these books do not exist today. They were simply absorbed into the encyclopedic collections that emerged in the third century. One manuscript from the first century was discovered in this century and published by Dr. Hamidullah. It is Sahifa Hammam ibn Munabbah, who was a disciple of Abu Hurairah, (radhiyallahu anhu). It contains 138 ahadith. Muhadditheen knew that the ahadith of this Sahifa had been absorbed into Musnad Ahmed and Muslim collections, which have been published continuously since their third century debut. After the discovery of the original manuscript it was naturally compared with the ahadith in Muslim and Musnad Ahmed that were thought to have come from that Sahifa. And what did they find?? There was not an iota of difference between the two. Similarly Mussanaf of Abd al-Razzaq is extant and has been published. As has been Mu’ammar ibn Rashid’s al-Jami. These recently discovered original manuscripts bear out the Sihah Sitta. The recent appearance of these original manuscripts should bring the most skeptical into the fold of believers.

Saheeh and the Gospels

Regarding comparison of Saheeh with Gospels (Claim 2), let’s listen to Dr. Hamidullah. “The compilation of the Gospels, their preservation and transmission from one generation to the other, has not taken place in the way which governed the books of Hadith… We do not know who wrote them, who translated them, and who transmitted them. How were they transferred from the original Aramaic to Greek? Did the scribes make arrangements for a faithful reproduction of the original? The four Gospels are mentioned, for the first time, three hundred years after Christ. Should we rely on such an unauthentic book in preference to that of Bukhari who prefaces every statement of two lines with three to nine references?”

The Comments of Dr. Maurice Bucaille

Dr. Maurice Bucaille earned the admiration of many Muslims because of his study of some scientific phenomena mentioned in the Qur’an and his testimony based on that study that Qur’an must be the Book of Allah. However he is not a hadith scholar and it is unfair to drag him into this discussion. His account of history of hadith compilation contains many errors, for example the claim that the first gathering of hadith was performed roughly forty years after Hijra or that no instructions were given regarding hadith collection. He questions about a dozen or so entries in Bukhari that he thinks deal with scientific matters. Even if all that criticism were valid, would it be sufficient ground to throw away the 9082 total entries (2602 unique ahadith) in Bukhari ?? He himself does not think so, for he writes: “The truth of hadith, from a religious point of view, is beyond question.”

The Hadith Regarding the Sun

But even his criticism is of questionable value. Consider the hadith about the sun: “At sunset the sun prostrates itself underneath the Throne and takes permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then a time will come when it will be about to prostrate itself… it will seek permission to go on its course… it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the West.”  His criticism: “This implies the notion of a course the sun runs in relation to the Earth.” Bucaille fails to understand the real message of this hadith. It was not meant to teach astronomy. Its clear message is that sun is a slave of Allah, moving (as we grasp from our position on Earth) always through His Will. The hadith brings out that message very powerfully so that even the most illiterate bedouin would understand it fully. Moreover, Bucaille should know better than to criticize the implied notion of sun’s rotation around earth. Even today the astronomers, when calculating the time of sunrise and sunset, use a mathematical model in which the sun revolves around the earth. If that is acceptable for scientific work as it makes calculations easier, why is it questionable, when it makes communication easier??

Also there are other ahadith which clearly demonstrate a scientific fact beyond the knowledge of the times but Bucaille has failed to take notice. For example the hadith about solar eclipse: “The sun and moon are two signs of Allah. They are not eclipsed on account of anyone’s death or on account of anyone’s birth.” (Muslim, hadith #1966]. The eclipse had co-incided with the death of Prophet’s son. A false prophet would have tried to exploit the occasion. A fabricated hadith would require scientific knowledge that did not exist then.

The munkareen-e-hadith think that their beliefs are built on solid rock. Well, it is as solid as wax: The religion based on this idea can be fitted into any mold. For some hadith rejecters that was the motivation. For everyone, that is the inevitable result. But the good news is that their arguments are the same way. On the surface they appear to be solid. But faced with the light of truth, they melt away like wax.