Allah (God) Polemical Rebuttals

Do Muslims Really Worship Allah The Moon God?

Christians who try to claim that the word Allah (Arabic: الله) is the name of the moon god are influenced by the writings of Dr. Robert Morey, who wrote as such in his book The Islamic Invasion, alleging that a statue at Hazor represents Allah. Regardless, they (and Dr. Morey included) are playing a silly game. It should be noted right from the start that the writings of Dr. Morey are nothing more than the thoughts of a mid-Western, creationist closet-fascist that were not originally intended for a wide audience.

Muhammad Polemical Rebuttals

Will the Real “Demon-Possessed” Prophet Please Stand Up?

The following is our partial response to the tirade authored by the belligerent Christian missionary Sam Shamoun, to be found here. This article will clearly establish Prophet Muhammad(P) as the true Prophet, insha’Allah. In the forthcoming papers, we will provide a detailed critique of the shoddy polemics of the missionary, together with a detailed examination of his false prophet Paul.

Magic Effect On The Prophet

Although we will address this polemic in detail in the subsequent papers, let us make one thing clear: Having magic worked upon a person does not make that person “demon-possessed”. There is no doubt that Christian missionaries like Sam Shamoun can only insult and malign Islam because they do not have a valid argument against it. But it is important for all Muslims reading this article to refrain from “returning fire” and insult the religion of Christianity, or making insulting caricatures of any of the characters in the Bible, despite the fact, that there are several stories in the Bible, which people can make hilarious parodies about. This is very important. And this is exactly what Answering Islam wants Muslims to do, so they can say, “There, look! See I told you, that’s how Muslims are!”.

Of course, there are several atheist websites which completely mocks Jesus(P) and create gross caricatures about him, but we will not link to them. Instead, we will respond with sound irrefutable arguments and dismantle the missionary’s deception, God willing.

The type of attacks the missionary has levelled against the Prophet(P) is not new. Rather, we read in history, that smutty Christians the likes of Shamoun have a long and horrific track record of accusing innocent people of being demon-possessed. One of the most blatant examples was the infamous Salem Witch Trials, in which dozens of innocent people were accused of being witches and demon-possessed and then executed by pious Christians. The Puritans who conducted these inquisitions concocted their own personal criteria on who was a “witch” or “demon-possessed”, and then made it the law.

This neo-puritan Sam Shamoun, does exactly the same thing with Prophet Muhammad(P). Nevertheless, Sam Shamoun is not fooling anyone, as many of his fellow Christians who have left his faith, have made a parody in which they expose this type of ignorant behaviour, in which Shamoun is engaged in.

There is not a single shred of evidence which would indicate that if a person has magic worked on him, he is “demon-possessed”, as Shamoun fantasizes. For the Muslim, the story of magic only increases his faith in Islam, because this shows how the forces of evil tried so desperately to attack the Prophet(P), yet, Prophet Muhammad(P) had unwavering faith, and by the help of God, they were defeated and sent into retreat, humiliated. Shamoun simply took this story and made his own disgusting caricature, based on meaningless unproven criteria such as the Bible. We will at a later time, address each and every one of his arguments point by point.

As you will soon see if we take the missionary?s phoney criteria, and apply it to the Jesus of the Bible, you will see that Jesus Christ was 1000 times more demon-possessed and evil than anyone, and the missionary will be forced to admit that his lord and saviour, was actually a “demon”. So do Jesus a favour, and refrain from such insults, which can easily be turned around against him.

Jesus Was Demon-Possessed

Let us ask a question: if you were walking home one day, and out of nowhere, Satan appeared to you, and said, “Come here and follow me, I want to take you somewhere”, would you go? Any true believer in God will immediately rebuke Satan right then and there, and shout NEVER! GO TO HELL SATAN! STAY AWAY FROM ME! Perhaps, they may even pick up a baseball bat and start swinging till the evil spirit runs away. Or run for their lives in the opposite direction.

But not the Jesus of the Bible. Shockingly, the Bible teaches in Mathew 4:5-8 that the devil appeared to Jesus, and asked him to go (mountain-climbing) with him, and instead of striking out against Satan right then and there, Jesus actually accepted Satan’s invitation, and together, Satan and Jesus went mountain climbing. Here are the verses in question, or better put, Christianity’s Satanic verses, Matthew ch. 4 vs. 8:


Then the devil took him to the holy city, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple,


and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you,’ and ‘On their hands, they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'”


Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'”


Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them;

The Bible does not say that there was any kind of fight or resistance on the part of Jesus when Satan appeared to him and invited him to follow him, therefore, we will have to assume that Jesus went willingly. Therefore, we see from this outrageous story in the Bible, that Jesus was clearly “demon-possessed”, so much to the point, that he took Satan as a comrade (wali) and a travelling partner. In addition to that, it is clear, that Jesus was NOT sinless. Answering the call of Satan, is a sin. This is simply an irreconcilable contradiction. This story is much worse according to Shamoun’s standards than simply having magic worked on a person, and then later God defeating those agents. Please keep in mind, that Muslims firmly believe in Jesus(P), but we do not believe in the man-made stories about Jesus(P) that we read in the New Testament.

It gets worse as Jesus was allegedly also suicidal. Jesus openly admits that he committed suicide on the cross in John 10:17-18:


For this reason, the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.


No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have the power to lay it down, and I have the power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.”

A psychological analysis reveals that Jesus harboured suicidal tendencies. He saw the moral injustice and strife of the world he lived in, and felt that if he killed himself, he would benefit the world. Perhaps, he suffered from depression. Rather than jumping off a cliff, or slashing his wrists, or leaping in front a heard of roman chariots, he devised an elaborate plan of crucifixion, one which would be an appeal to gain the sympathy of others. and finally, in the end, Jesus committed suicide.

Will the Real “Demon-Possessed Prophet” Please Stand Up?

Let us move away from these “Salem Witch trial”-type inquisitions, in which Shamoun creates artificial criteria solely based upon his personal whims and blind Biblical indoctrination. Despite his 50+ pages of irrelevant and incoherent ranting, the missionary has not proved a thing. Instead, his article is a laughably desperate attempt to export his own personal prejudices to his readers. Although, you will find that the matter is quite simple.

We would like to raise the question, why would we indulge in such personal opinions, and baseless, subjective evidence when, OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE EXISTS? If such evidence did exist for Christianity, we are sure we would have seen it by now. But, let us assure you, that no such evidence exists for the Christian faith, and Shamoun’s 50+ page sham monster paper is proof of that. And that is a direct challenge.

Yes, we said objectively verifiable evidence. Therefore, the question begs, does such evidence exist for Islam? The answer is YES. And it will be clear, and undeniable.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, lets move on to the objective clear and concise evidence. But first, let’s remove these meaningless and dubious labels like “demon-possessed” and replace it with something more meaningful and less insidious, like “false prophet”. As it has been demonstrated in the following article, Christianity rests upon the truth claim of an alleged “prophet” who came after Jesus, Paul.

Let us now examine the religion of Paul and the religion of Prophet Muhammad(P) and we will see if these religions have the foresight of addressing the problems of today’s society, or do they lead to destruction. Before we begin, we would encourage everyone to read and understand the following article.

Our society is literally being eaten alive by these terrible vices of drugs like cocaine, marijuana, heroin etc. There is no need to go into detail at all of the destructive nature of these drugs, and the terrible toll it has taken on our youth and society. That is a given. We believe both Muslims and Christians, agree that these drugs, are the vices of Satan, and lead to destruction. Therefore, we need to ask: What do these two religions say about using drugs like cocaine, marijuana, heroin, ecstasy. etc?

As we have seen from the article and Ahmed-Slick debate, Paul’s religion (Christianity) allows for drug abuse such as cocaine, marijuana and heroin. There is no condemnation of these drugs at all.

Yet Prophet Muhammad(P)‘s Islam, unlike Paul’s Christianity, has completely forbidden all illicit forms of drug abuse. How can a false religion, or as the missionary puts it, a “demon-possessed” religion, condemn one of the evilest and luring poisons of Satan, his pride and joy, all the while God’s supposedly-true religion, Christianity, allows it?

That is the most asinine, lame-brained and monstrous statement anyone can make!

Therefore, the matter is crystal clear according to the evidence, as to who is the false prophet. That false prophet is none other than Paul. And the true Prophet is Muhammad.

There is no need to go further, but let us bring up a few more points. As we have seen from the debate and the article, Paul’s Christianity allows women and men to wear whatever they want, it is completely based upon the individual’s subjective taste. Prophet Muhammad(P)‘s Islam, of course, has a clear dress code which aids in preventing lewdness.

Paul’s Christianity allows men and woman to engage in all kinds of sexual behaviours except intercourse, Prophet Muhammad(P)‘s Islam forbids all sexual or non-sexual contact till marriage.

Here is thus the lifestyle which is promoted by Paul’s Christianity:

Men and woman walking around in tight fitted, skimpy outfits exposing much of their parts like that of Britney Spears, her style of dancing is also completely allowed, each one engaged in flirting and indiscreetly seducing each other (there is no condemnation in the Bible for any of this), and not only that, but engaging in several if not all sexual acts except for sexual intercourse, engaging in “mashing”, and all the free cocaine, heroin and marijuana that they desire. Please keep in mind, all of this behaviour as mentioned above, completely falls within the guidelines of Biblical moral conduct. No wonder we have a screwed up society.

Islam clearly forbids this destructive lifestyle. The reason why we used the word promotes instead of allows, is because, it is the nature for the average human being seeks the path of least resistance, although not all. If two ways are presented before the average human, he is going to pick the apparently easier path. Therefore, the average Christian would like to live within the guidelines of Biblical morality, and not create any “extra work” for themselves.

Christianity as compared to Islam appears to some much more attractive, due to the moral “freedom” which it offers. In many Muslim-Christian marriages, oftentimes the children chose to become part of Paul’s Christianity because they desperately desire to be on the cheerleading team at school, engage in dating, experiment with different types of sexual contact, drinking, drugs, wearing “Britney Spears”-type of dressing, nude or erotic dancing, all of which is well within the guidelines of Paul’s Christianity. Prophet Muhammad’s(P) Islam, on the other hand, crashes the party and sends everyone home.

It is said that many of these children at that age are not mature enough to see that they are being lured by the false apostle Paul, may Allah save us from this wickedness. This is because the “freedom”, which Paul’s Christianity offers, is a major marketing tool for his religion. You know the saying, “there is always free cheese in the mousetrap”.


In conclusion, we have spared Sam Shamoun’s prophet from derogatory terms such as “demon-possessed”. The truth has no need for such antics.

In addition to that, we want to extend this invitation to leave Paul’s religion and come to the truth of Islam.

Accept the truth of Islam, before it is too late. Come to Islam!

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Will the Real “Demon-Possessed” Prophet Please Stand Up?," in Bismika Allahuma, September 20, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022,
Polemical Rebuttals Qur'anic Commentary The Qur'an

Does “Musi’un” Mean “Expanding”?


It has come to our attention that Avijit Roy, webmaster of the Mukto Mona website, wrote an article titled Does the Qur’an Have any Scientific Miracles? One portion of the article on the subject of Sura’ az-Zaariyaat is worth commenting on, as it is an exhibition of some of the common problems with non-Muslim critiques of Muslim arguments over the Internet. These would include an unjustified confidence with the relevant subject matter, a poor understanding of the arguments involved and a possible tendency to bluff with the hopes that no one else notices.

What is at issue here is the fact that the word (musi`un) in Sura’ az-Zaariyaat 51:47 can be translated as “expanding”, thus some Muslims have argued that this is a Quranic reference to the expanding of the universe. Whatever the soundness of that position, Mr. Roy’s attempt to refute it included some statements that were so ridiculous that one could not simply let them pass.

Deceit or Sincere Ignorance?

One of the first statements that raised a red flag was one that attempted to lean on the arguments of Denis Giron.

Mr. Roy writes:

    Denish [sic] Giron also explained in one of his wonderfully written pieces that the verb from which the Arabic word (musi’un) is derived cannot mean “expand”

Then Mr. Roy cites Giron’s article entitled Expansion of the Universe in the Bible and the Qur’an: Comparing Isaiah to Soorat az-Zaariyaat.

The first problem is that Giron’s article blatantly contradicts Mr. Roy’s claim. In fact, Giron’s article explicitly states that “the verb from which this word is derived can mean expand.”

One has to wonder: did Mr. Roy even bother to read Giron’s article? The simple fact is that Mr. Roy’s argument says that the word cannot be translated as “expanding”, yet he calls to witness an article that gives a rather clear argument for why it can be translated as “expanding”!

After that, Mr. Roy calls to witness an article by Ali Sina. In this case, Mr. Roy actually manages to cite a person who agrees with him, but Sina’s argument is simply ridiculous, to put it mildly. Roy’s mentioning of this article is appreciated, however, as it can serve as a prime example of Sina’s total ignorance regarding the Arabic language. Mr. Sina argues as follows:

The word used here is moosiAAoona which drives from word vaseun. It means vast. It has nothing to do with expanding. When you say al rezwano vaseun (the garden is vast). It does not mean that the garden is expanding.

While this may seem like a case of belaboring a minor point, it might be worth noting that most people who employ a double-A (“AA”) in their transliterations of Qur’anic words or phrases over the net are probably novices who merely lifted the relevant transliteration off one of the websites which provide this odd symbol as designation of the presence of the Arabic letter ayn. Regardless, Sina’s attempt to prove that musi’un cannot be translated as “expanding” betrays a rather pathetic ignorance on his part regarding the Arabic language, and thus Mr. Roy’s decision to call him to witness is a true example of “the blind leading the blind”. Most ironic of all, the article by Denis Giron itself refutes Ali Sina’s ridiculous claim.

The Islamophobes’ “Expanding” Stupidity

As it was noted in Giron’s article, and would be known by just about anyone familiar with Arabic grammar, a verbal root in Arabic can take different verbal forms (or known as wazan). The following chart will serve to illustrate the various forms of wazan in the Arabic language and this chart will form the basis of what follows.

When the verbal root is in the (af`ala) form (or, as Giron puts it, “the FORM IV verb stem”), it can take on a causative function.

E.H. Palmer states that:

This is also expressed by Socin as follows:

The word musi’un is the plural of a participle from the verb root in this verbal form, which is (awsa`a). Thus, the related verb can mean something along the lines of causing something else to be wide or vast (i.e. expanding that thing). This is supported by various modern Arabic-English dictionaries and concordances.3 Hans Wehr4 gives the meaning “expand” under the form II stem for the root, and notes that the form IV stem can have all the same meanings as the form II.5 For form II as given by Wehr, Lane6 gives “made wide, broad, spacious […] amplified, enlarged, made ample”.

As also has been noted in Giron’s article, participles can be translated as the verbal form in the present tense. This is explained by Thackston, who says that:


Regarding the example provided by Thackston (saajid), it appears in the plural (saajideen) in Sura’ ash-Shu’ara, 26:46. The reader might be interested in comparing all translations of this verse. Critics of the claim that m?si’un can be translated “expanding” (present tense) try and lean on the fact that “certain” translations don’t render it that way. Looking at the translations with a non-controversial example such as Sura’ ash-Shu’ara, 26:46 might be worthwhile because we see that while “certain” translations do not render the active participle as a present tense verb, others do (e.g. “prostrating” or “bowing”), and this is a very possible translation.

We are also told in another reference that:


One may ask, what does the derived participles from the verb signify? Kasis explains:

The participles are derived from the verb to signify the doer (active participle) or recipient (passive participle) of the action. In addition, they signify an action which may be temporary, continuous or in a habitual state of being […] The active participle is very frequently translated as an adjective or as a substantive noun. Thus katib may be translated, depending on the context, as either “writing” (adj) or “scribe” (n).9

Thus “expanding” is a very real meaning for the word musi’un. Our points above are hence summarised as follows:

    (1) That the (Form IV) af`ala stem is causative.
    (2) That awsa`a (or musi`) can have the meaning “expand”.
    (3) That active participles can be translated as present tense verbs.

But here is a food-for-thought for even those unfamiliar with Arabic to ponder. The word under discussion was (musi’un). Yet Ali Sina went on to expound on the word “vaseun” without making any recourse to the word originally under discussion. It should be noted that there is no consonant “v” in Arabic. Perhaps he meant wasee` or (waasi`). This is not a very subtle attempt of bait and switch, which makes one wonder how had this argument managed to fool Avijit Roy. Do these two men honestly believe that every word from the same root in Arabic have the same meaning? When trying to discuss the meaning of a word, why hinge your entire argument on the meaning of a completely different word? The question even those who do not know Arabic can ask Sina and Mr. Roy is: are we discussing thw word “vaseun” or are we discussing musi`un?


How seriously can Muslims take Ali Sina or his cohort Aijit Roy when they put forth such poor arguments which is reflective of their command in Arabic? Certainly when it comes to issues of Arabic grammar, even their supporters should not hold to closely to their arguments. Did either of these men honestly believe they could just bluff their way through these arguments? Or did they actually convince themselves that these were good arguments? What kind of (a lack of) attention is required for one to not realize that they are calling to witness an article which disagrees with the very core of their claim? How did Mr. Roy managed to attribute a claim to an article which states the exact opposite?

Now non-Muslim readers (particularly the supporters of Ali Sina or Mr. Roy) may object that we have not mentioned the fact that Denis Giron’s article was attempting to disprove the claim that Sura’ az-Zaariyaat is a scientific miracle. This was not the issue under discussion here. Note that we did not make any positive claim about this verse necessarily being an obvious scientific miracle, hence we are not under any requirement to defend such a position or refute every attempt to critique it.

However, it should be stated that Denis Giron’s actual argument should not be considered terribly controversial by any Muslim who understands it. What was at issue here was the absurd level reached in these articles by Ali Sina and Mr. Roy in their attempt to tackle this issue. Can their supporters at least agree with us that in these instances, these two men committed some rather laughable errors and put on an exhibition of just how little they know about Arabic grammar?

And only God knows best!

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Does “Musi’un” Mean “Expanding”?," in Bismika Allahuma, November 25, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022,
  1. E.H. Palmer, Simplified Grammar of Hindustani Persian and Arabic, 3rd ed., (Kegan Paul Trench Trubner & Co., 1890), p. 65 []
  2. A. Socin, Arabic Grammar, (GE Stechert & Co., 1922), p. 26 []
  3. See, for example Rohi Baalbaki, al-Mawrid: Modern-Arabic English Dictionary, (Dar el-Ilm Lilmalayin, 1988), p. 1233 and Hanna E. Kassis, A Concordance of the Qur’an, (University of California Press, 1983), p. 1294. The latter gives the meaning “extend”. []
  4. J. Milton Cowan, Hans Wehr: A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic, 4th ed. (Otto Harrassowitz, 1979), p. 1251 []
  5. It should be noted that ibid., 2nd ed. (Cornell University Press, 1966), p. 1067, is exactly the same as the previous edition. []
  6. Edward William Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon (Islamic Book Center, 1978), p. 3053 []
  7. Wheeler M. Thackston, An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic, (Iranbooks, 1994), p. 58 []
  8. Eckehard Schulz, Gunther Krahl & Wolfgang Reuschel, Standard Arabic (Cambridge, 2000), p. 280 []
  9. Hanna E. Kassis, A Concordance of the Qur’an (University of California Press, 1983), p. xxxiv []
History Jerusalem Polemical Rebuttals

A History of Zionism and Its Ideological Roots


This article was written to provide a scholarly analysis on the ideology of Zionism, its origins and purpose, as well as its past “achievements” in having successfully displaced thousands of Palestinians who suddenly lost their homeland to this group of terrorists. We seek to confront and expose the true nature of the ideology of Zionism, often touted as “Jewish nationalism”. Can Zionism be equated with the Jews and Judaism? Is Zionism wholly grounded on religious grounds as the Zionist themselves try to claim, or just another name for the secular and/or racist ideologies that we have seen in the last century in the likes of Nazism, Fascism and Apartheid? These are the fruits of our research on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we leave it to the reader to form their own conclusions and decide whether Zionism should be rightfully confronted and opposed, or otherwise.

The Origins of Zionism

“Tyranny is always weakness”, said James R. Lowell, and tyranny constitutes the fundamental implementations of Zionism. Contrary to common belief, Zionism first emerged as a secular ideology in the 19th century. Under “Zionism”, the Encyclopedia Britannica (Vol. 12, 1990, p. 922) states that:

…Zionism originated in Eastern and Central Europe in the latter part of the 19th century.

This is further collaborated by Sierra Reference Encyclopedia (Collier’s, 1995), when it states under “Zionism” that:

ZIONISM, a Jewish national movement, which had as its objective the reconstitution of an independent Jewish life in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews. Zionism was rooted in the traditional attachment of Jews to their homeland. This feeling was strengthened when the political emancipation of Jewish communities in Western Europe in the 19th century and their assimilation of European culture failed to gain them acceptance. The movement was given urgency by new waves of anti-Semitism in Europe in the late 19th century, particularly the pogroms in Russia, and by the genocidal policies of Hitler’s Germany in the 1930’s and 1940’s. The Zionist movement achieved its aim with the founding of Israel in 1948.

Theodor Herzl was an Jewish-Austrian journalist largely credited with being the “Father of Zionism”, just as Karl Marx and Hitler were credited with being the fathers of Communism and Nazism respectively. Theodor Herzl’s book Der Judenstat (The Jewish State), clearly stated that a future Jewish state should not build upon democracy, and in fact suggests that it should be built upon dictatorship. This is contrary to the Zionist cries of Israel being “the only democracy in the Middle East”.

We read that:

People are not fit for democracy, and will no be so in future either. Sane and mature policies are not the product of parliamentary institutions. Personalities, which are the product of forces of history, best represent the wishes of the people and safeguard the interests and security of the state. It is these personalities and not people who are born to rule and it is their will which should ultimately prevail. 1

A publication issued by the Zionist Organization in London wrote that:

Democracy in American too commonly means majority rule without regard to diversities of types or stages of civilization or differences of quality. Democracy in that sense has been called the melting pot in which that quantitatively lesser is assimilated into quantitatively greater. This doubtless is natural in America, and works on the whole very well. But if American idea were applied as an American administration might apply it to Palestine, what would happen? The numerical majority in Palestine today is [Palestinian] Arab, not Jewish. Qualitatively, it is a simple fact that the Jews are now predominant in Palestine, and given proper conditions they will be predominant quantitatively also in a generation or two. But if the crude arithmetical conception of democracy were to be applied now, or at some early stage in the future to Palestinian conditions, the majority that would rule would be the Arab majority, and the task of establishing and developing a great Jewish Palestine would be infinitely more difficult. The problem at the heart of the Zionist claim was rarely articulated so clearly: the Zionist dream ran counter to the principle of democracy. 2

The Zionist desire for the alienation and eventual expulsion of the original inhabitants residing in the land designed for a “Jewish state” is no secret. Earlier in 1895, Theodor Herzl wrote in his Diary that:

We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.3

In October 1882, Validimir Dubnow, one of the earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote to his brother articulating the ultimate goals of the Zionists movement:

The ultimate goal…is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been deprived of for these two thousand years…The Jews will yet arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the masters of their ancient homeland.4

In October 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines, few of the earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote describing the indigenous Palestinians, that

…There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their hostility before we become the strong and populous ones. 5

In 1916 Lord Balfour declared that he is a “Zionist” during a British Cabinet meeting. In an encounter between Weizmann and Balfour:

“[Weizmann] laid out his much repeated argument – that Zionists and British interests are identical. The Zionist movement spoke, Weizmann said, with the vocabulary of modern statesmanship, but was fueled by a deep religious consciousness. Balfour, himself a modern statesman, also considered Zionism as an inherent part of his Christian faith. . . . Soon after, Balfour declared in a cabinet meeting, I am a Zionist.”6

In 1936 the Mapai leader David Hacohen explained how Zionist socialism should be for Jews not Arabs, he stated that:

I remember being one of the first of our comrades [of the Ahdut Ha’avodah] to got to London after the first World War. … There I became a socialist. … [In Palestine] I had to fight my friends on the issue of Jewish socialism, to defend the fact that I would not accept Arabs in my trade union, the Histadrut; to defend preaching to the housewives that they not buy at [Palestinian] Arab stores, to prevent [Palestinian] Arab workers from getting jobs there. …. To pour kerosene on the [Palestinian] Arab tomatoes; to attack Jewish housewives in the markets and smash the Arab eggs they had bought; to praise to the skies the Keneen Kayemet [Jewish National Fund] that sent Hankin to Beirut to buy land from absentee effendi [landlords] and to throw the fellahin [peasants] off the land– to buy dozens of dunums– from an Arab is permitted, but to sell, God forbid, one Jewish dunam to an Arab is prohibited.7

In 1937, David Ben-Gurion eloquently articulated the Zionist goals regarding population transfer as the following:

With compulsory transfer we [would] have a vast area [for settlement] ….I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.8

Such racist sentiment was the norm among the early Zionist leaders, similar statements were constantly repeated by Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky. Zionism has always been recognized as a form of racism and this is evident when in 1975 the U.N. General Assembly first adopted a resolution equating Zionism with racism. The U.N. adopted that resolution annually until 1991 when the Madrid Accord began.

The Zionist Expansionism and The Palestinian Dilemma

“…after a lapse of 1800 years, it could not be said that Palestine was the land of the Jews. Otherwise the United States of America should now belong to the Red Indians and the situation in England, and in many countries of the world should be different. In my opinion, the Jews have no right in Palestine except their right to personal property. They do not have the right to establish a State. It is most unfortunate that a state is based on religious basis.

The above citation is from A. Toynbee, a well-known historian. His criticism of the Zionist theory of returning to Palestine clearly underlined the sentiments of those who clearly see no justification for a Jewish State to be established in Palestine. Palestine has always been recognized as belonging to Palestinians, not to a group of secular terrorists who uses religion as a justification for a State. As a researcher points out:

History tells us that the first people to settle in Palestine were the Canaanites, six thousand years BCE. They were an Arab tribe who came to Palestine from the Arabian Peninsula, and after their arrival, Palestine was named after them [i.e., Canaan]. 9

And further, he added that:

As for the Jews, the first time they entered Palestine was approximately six hundred years after Abraham had entered the land, i.e., they entered it approximately 1400 years BCE. So the Canaanites entered Palestine and lived there approximately 4500 years before the Jews.10

Hence it is clear that the Jews have no right to the land, whether according to religious law or in terms of who lived there first and possessed the land. Despite this, the state of Israel was recognized by the U.N. in 1948 on condition that it accepted the right of the Palestinians to an independent state, and implementation of Security Council Resolution 194 guaranteeing the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes. Over half a century later, these inalienable rights remain unfulfilled. The implantation of the Zionist entity in Palestine has been rightly described as An-Nakba (The Catastrophe) by the Palestinians. The hoopla surrounding Israel conveniently ignores the fact that Palestine was stolen by European Jewish terrorists in connivance with the European powers, primarily Britain but also France (and later the U.S.) to create a western beach-head in the heartland of Islam. This was only made possible by driving out the indigenous population – the Palestinians – from their ancestral lands, through terror and mass murder.

The Zionists have also constantly peddled the mythology of turning ‘deserts into orchards’, a claim already responded to, with the active collaboration of the Western media. Their claim to Palestine is based on a complete perversion of historical facts sprinkled with Biblical references to geography. The Zionists – most of them secular fanatics who have nothing to do with Judaism — have reduced the Bible to a real estate manual.

The Zionist colonial settler enterprise was launched by shedding the blood of the Palestinians. It has been sustained through terror, the most common characteristic of the Zionists, for 50 years. More than 475 Palestinian towns and villages were completely wiped out. There is no trace left of them anymore. Soon after the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war, Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed Israeli general, had boasted to a group of visiting Jews from the U.S. that the present generation had expanded the boundaries of the State of Israel this far. Now it was up to the next generation to take them further. He also candidly admitted that hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns had been wiped out. And it was this same general who proclaimed that:

“…a new State of Israel with broad frontiers, strong and solid, with the authority of the Israel Government extending from the Jordan [river] to the Suez Canal.11

The above quote should clarify the reality of Zionist expansionism. This certainly refutes the Zionist propaganda that Palestinian inhabitants of towns fled on orders from the Arab governments, it is clear that they fled in the face of the Zionist terror machine. Deir Yassin (April 9, 1948) was but one example of numerous Zionist atrocities perpetrated against innocent civilians. Palestinian women were paraded naked in the streets. Many of them were bayoneted to death before their bodies were dumped in wells. At least 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their homes in this campaign to settle the European Jews in Palestine. This obscenity is being celebrated today as a great achievement. Former Israel Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, boasted of the importance of the massacre of Deir Yassin in his book “The Revolt: The Story of the Irgun”. He wrote that there would not have been a State of Israel without the “victory” of Deir Yassin: “The Hagganah carried out victorious attacks on other fronts… In a state of terror, the Arabs fled, crying, ‘Deir Yassin’.”

Nor did the massacres cease after the establishment of the Jewish State; they continued in times of both peace and war. Following are the names of some of them: Sharafat Massacre, Kibya Massacre, Kafr Qasem Massacre, Al-Sammou’ Massacre, the Sabra And Shatila Massacre, Oyon Qara Massacre, Al-Aqsa Mosque Massacre, the Ibrahimi Mosque Massacre, the Jabalia Massacre.

Many leaders of the Zionist terrorist gangs — Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, et al — later became prime ministers of ‘the only democracy in the Middle East’. The ‘most powerful democracy’ in the world – the U.S. – has such a close relationship with the so-called ‘only democracy’ that massive annual handouts are bestowed upon it even while American citizens are denied many of their basic needs. Further, these very same Zionists are wasting U.S. taxpayers’ money by advocating and supporting the building of a shrine to a militant Jew, Baruch Goldstein who massacred a group of praying Muslims at a mosque in Hebron, in 1994. And we see that until today, thousands of militant Jews visit his grave annually to ‘celebrate’ the murders committed by this Jewish terrorist. This is just one out of the various examples on why it is the Zionist regime of Israel that is the ‘only American-funded country in the Middle East’ to fund and to support State terrorism. But as we have seen, State terrorism is nothing new to the Zionist regime.

And if taking away their land is not enough to humiliate the Palestinians, the Zionists tried to wipe out the identity of the Palestinians, by pretending that they do not exist as a people and as a nation. A Zionist scholar, Israel Eldad, also promulgates this claim of ‘no Palestine or Palestinians’ , in his book The Jewish Revolution as follows:

Can this [Jewish] rich existence be compared with the Palestinian nation? Who is that nation? What is it? Where and when was it born? What is its identity? What are its distinctive features- physical and mental? And except for the feats of its marauding gangs, what has it ever been known for?” (p. 119)

In an interview with the Sunday Times, Golda Meir, Israel’s Prime Minister between 1969-1974, stated in June 1969

It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them, they did not exist.12

Of course Ms. Meir conveniently fails to mention that prior to 1948, the Jews do not exist with a single national identity, but that did not stop them from being identified as such, did it? We don’t expect her and her ilk to mention it anyway, since it is clear that it was the Zionists who drove Palestinians into the sea, not vice-versa. And as recent as 1968, the Jewish historian Maxime Rodinson wrote that

the Arab population of Palestine was native in all the usual senses of the word. 13

Claiming that there was no such thing as Palestinians is merely but one of the many ways the Zionists perform their version of ‘ethnic cleansing’, effectively wiping out the existence of the Palestinians as a distinct social, political, and cultural entity and rewriting the history books with their perverted ‘version’ of the events.

The Palestinian Resistance and Zionist War Machine

The attacks by the Zionists, whether militarily or by propaganda, prompted several Palestinian resistance groups to be formed against the Zionist regime, which the regime conveniently labels them as “terrorists”. But a distinction must be made between terrorism and the resistance to occupation which international conventions authorize. The Declaration on Principles of International Law (1970) emphasized that all states are under a duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives people of their right to self-determination. The Declaration also notes that “in their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action” such peoples could receive support in accordance with the purpose and principles of the UN Charter. Various UN resolutions have reaffirmed the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for liberation from colonial domination and alien subjection, “by all available means including armed struggle” (see UNGA 3070, 3103, 3246, 3328, 3481, 31/91, 32/42 and 32/154). Article 1(4) of Protocol I (additional to the Geneva Conventions) considers self-determination struggles as international armed conflicts situations. The principle of self-determination itself provides that where forcible action has been taken to suppress the right, force may be used in order to counter this and achieve self-determination.

It is obvious that with the systematic ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Zionist regime, these Palestinian resistance groups are certainly not “terrorists”. On the contrary, these resistance groups are fighting a legitimate war, against a enemy that has oppressed their people for so long that it would be a crime to themselves and to the Palestinians if they do not oppose the enemy and stand by and watch the Zionist pillaging what is left of Palestine.

Israel is the only country in the world where torture of political prisoners is not only legal but its supreme court actively endorses it. Palestinians are held without trial under what is euphemistically called ‘administrative detention.’ The maximum period is six months but it is routinely extended. There are Palestinians who have been held without charge or trial for four or five years. While the Western media routinely present Israel as a beleaguered State in a sea of hostile neighbors, it is the only nuclear power in the region with more than 200 nuclear weapons. Its army has grown to 600,000 and it can deploy more than 2,800 tanks and 700 combat planes, according to the Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. This gives it a formidable military muscle against the Arab armies which it has defeated in almost all the wars. But since 1982, Israel’s military has found itself mired in less glorious adventures, including the costly 1982-1985 invasion of Lebanon and its attempts to crush the Intifada from 1987 to 1994. In Lebanon it got a bloody nose at the hands of the Hizbullah, whose spirit of sacrifice put the fear of God into the pleasure-loving Zionist thugs. Instead of confronting the Islamic fighters, the Zionists bombard Lebanese villages using long-range artillery and planes.

Hostage-taking is also a favorite ploy of the Zionists. Literally hundreds of Palestinians and Lebanese are incarcerated in the Khiam concentration camp where torture is rampant. Similarly, Palestinians held without trial are also tortured in prisons inside what is called Israel. If young Palestinians are incarcerated, their leaders are expelled from their own land. It is ironic that alien occupiers from eastern Europe and America should expel people from their own homes and land where their forefathers have lived for millennia. The Zionists are also extremely sadistic. Young children are targeted for special wrath. Thousands of Palestinian children have been brutally beaten up by the gun-toting Zionists. Young stone-throwing Palestinians have been buried alive; others have had their bones broken with rocks, on direct orders from Yitzhak Rabin, the Nobel peace prize winner! During the Intifada, the Zionist occupiers frequently used tear gas in confined spaces, resulting in hundreds of pregnant Palestinian women suffering miscarriages. Another of their favorite ploys is to mix flour and kerosene in Palestinian homes, making it unfit for consumption. Despite such cruelties, the Zionists have failed to break the spirit of the Palestinians. Every Israeli cruelty brings out an even greater determination to stand up to the occupiers. As the Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem admitted, “An army which fights against the weak, becomes weak itself.” He went on: “In these instances, the army is the sure loser because its victories are without honor and its defeats are always humiliating”.

The Jerusalem Issue and Al-Aqsa Mosque

Jerusalem is better known to the Muslims by the means of Bayt al-Maqdis (the holy house) or simply al-Quds (the holy); the latter is the most common name at the present. Since 638 A.D. when the second Caliph ‘Umar Al-Khattab liberated the city, Jerusalem had always been ruled by a succession of Muslim rulers. But of course, the Zionist mind is uncomfortable with the fact that Jerusalem has always been Muslim in history and therefore tries to manipulate Jerusalem’s history. The UN Resolution 181, which divided Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, specifically declared Jerusalem “corpus separatum” and placed the city under international jurisdiction. However, in 1948 the military forces of Israel occupied the western part of the city. In 1967 the conquest was completed when Israel forcibly occupied the city’s eastern half. In 1980, Israel passed a Basic Law declaring Jerusalem its capital. The international community responded decisively to this provocative act. UN Security Council Resolution 476 (June 30, 1980) says that Israeli actions to change the status of Jerusalem “constitute a flagrant violation of the Geneva Convention” and declares such measures ‘null and void'”. UN Security Council Resolution 478 (August 20, 1980) states that “the enactment of the ‘basic law’ by Israel constitutes a violation of international law”. All nations have kept their embassies in Tel Aviv.

In the past, the Zionists tried to and partially succeeded in burning-down Islam’s third holiest sanctuary, the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque. The nefarious sacrilege was by no means, as the Israeli government then suggested, an isolated act committed by a deranged man who acted on his own. Quite the contrary, the morbid Israeli designs against the sacred Muslim shrine show that diabolical feat was a deliberate collective act of aggression carried out with the unmistakable acquiescence of the Israeli political establishment and the active encouragement of much of the world’s Jewry and their fundamentalist Christian allies.

The following is a list of the acts of aggression and desecration against Al-Aqsa Mosque since June 7, 1967:

    June 7, 1967: The occupation authorities confiscated the keys of the Western Gate known as Bab El-Magharba immediately after Israeli troops seized the town from the fleeing Jordanians.

    June 9, 1967: The congregational Friday prayer was not held on orders from the occupation authorities. That was the first time the Juma’a prayer didn’t take place since the liberation of Jerusalem from the hands of the Crusades in 1167 AD on October 19,1990, The Juma’a prayer was delayed for two hours because the the occupation authorities denied Muslim worshiper entry to the Haram compound.

    June 21, 1969: An Australian-born terrorist, Denis Michael Rohan, entered the mosque and set the magnificent Nurruddin Zinki Mihrab on fire. The fire gutted the unique Mihrab, which has restored. The sacrilegious act against the mosque was condemned world-wide, but was praised by wide segments of world Jewry and Christian fundamentalists who view the creation of Israeli in Palestine as a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and a precedence to the second advent of Jesus.

    November 16, 1969: The Israeli occupation authorities seized the Fakhriyya Corner on the south-western side of the Haram Al-Sharif.

    August 14, 1970: The Gershon Solomon group, and ultra-fanatic groups dedicated to the so-called rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon of the site of Al-Aqsa Mosque after it is demolished, forcibly entered the premises of the Haram, but were repulsed by Muslims. The confrontation resulted in tens of worshippers being injured by Israeli troop gunfire.

    April 19, 1980: A group of Jewish rabbis and sages held a semi-secret conference devoted to exploring ways and means “to liberate the Temple Mount from Muslim hands”.

    August 28,1980: The Israeli occupation authorities dug a tunnel right underneath the Mosque.

    March 30, 1982: Numerous letters were sent by Muslim Waqf authorities urging them to abandon the Temple Mount and warning them of the dire consequence of their “usurpation of our Temple”. The letters were written in Hebrew, English, French ,Spanish and Polish.

    May 20, 1982: Several Zionist organizations sent death threats to Waqf officials.

    April 11, 1982: An Israeli soldier named Allen Goodman stormed the interior of the Mosque, spraying worshipers with bullets from his M-16 assault rifle, killing and wounding over 60 Palestinians.

    March 26, 1983: The main entrance to the Jerusalem’s Waqf department collapsed due to Israeli excavations underneath.

    August 21, 1985: The Israeli police permitted Jewish extremists to hold prayers within the confines of the Haram premises.

    August 4, 1986: A group of Rabbis issued final ruling allowing Jews to pray at the Haram Al-Sharif and demanded the establishment of a Synagogue in the area.

    May 12, 1988: Israeli soldiers opened fire on a peaceful Muslim march at the Haram, killing and wounding about a hundred Palestinians.

    August 8, 1990: The Israeli authorities committed a grisly massacre at the Al-Aqsa Mosque, killing 22 worshipers and injuring over 200.

    July 25, 1995: The Israeli High Court of Justice issued a ruling, allowing Jews to pray at the “Temple Mount”. The decision sparked off widespread protests among Muslims.


We have seen the origins and the basic goals of Zionism, at the expense of its original inhabitants. The Zionists, in the mould of the colonialism of the British, French, Portuguese and Dutch in the 17th and 18th century, seek to rewrite history and thus effectively try to blot out the historical existence of Palestine and the right of Palestinians to their own State. In the process, the Zionist regime have built Israel upon the blood of thousands of Palestinians killed during An-Nakba, as well as the millions of Palestinians that were dispossessed of their land, citizenship, culture and history. Not to mention that these power-hungry Zionist thugs also try to deny Muslim control of Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state and Haram As-Shareef, the third-most holiest site in Islam.

No one, after weighing the evidence above, would consider Zionism to be a legitimate ideology of peace. On the contrary, Zionism must be condemned and rejected in the same way Fascism, Apartheid, Nazism and other racist ideologies had been rejected in the past. The day Israel shakes free of its Zionist ideals and its anti-Arab schizophrenia is the day Palestine will finally exist with Jerusalem as its capital, and only then will the Israel-Palestine conflict will come to an end.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "A History of Zionism and Its Ideological Roots," in Bismika Allahuma, December 14, 2006, last accessed September 25, 2022,


Online resources:

  1. Theodor Hertzl, The Jewish State, p. 69 []
  2. One Palestine Complete, p. 119 []
  3. America and The Founding Of Israel, p. 49 []
  4. Righteous Victims, p. 49 []
  5. Righteous Victims, p. 49 []
  6. One Palestine Complete, p. 41 []
  7. Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 25 []
  8. Righteous Victims, p. 144 []
  9. Ahmad al-‘Awadi, al-Suhyooniyyah, Nash’atuhaa, Tanzeemaatuhaa, Inshitatuhaa, p. 7 []
  10. Ibid., p. 8 []
  11. Iron Wall, p. 316 []
  12. Iron Wall, p. 311 []
  13. Rodinson, M., Israel and the Arabs, Penguin, 1968, p. 216 []
Polemical Rebuttals

Whaling A Taqiya

We recently came face-to-face with the lies of a low-level Christian missionary on the voice channel Paltalk with regard to the so-called “abrogration” of Qur’an, 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion…”). When this author took the microphone and attempted to address the claims which has no basis in Qur’anic tafsir (commentary), he was shouted down by the same Christian missionary who accused this author of committing taqiyyah, which is exclusively a Shia belief.

Unfortunately for the missionary, the author in question is a Sunni Muslim and hence could not be committing taqiyyah as per the missionary’s claims.1. The missionary thus resorted to the tafsir (commentary) of Sura’ al-Imraan (3):28 by Ibn Kathir from the same volume (the abridged translation) to lend “support” to his further misinterpretation of the Qur’anic text.

Hence our purpose in writing this article is two-fold: what exactly did Ibn Kathir say with regard to the issue of taqiyyah? What is Sunni Islam’s position on this exclusively Shia doctrine? And what is the deal with the so-called “abrogation” of Qur’an, 2:256, which the Christian missionary claims is no longer “valid” in Islam?

We seek to answer these questions, insha’Allah.

The Deal With Taqiyyah: What Did Ibn Kathir Really Say?

The Christian missionary had referred to Qur’an 3:28 and relied on his copy of Ibn Kathir’s commentary2 for some “interesting” information of taqiyyah and quoted it (partially) in his speech over Paltalk when we deflected the charge of taqiyyah. What he “failed” to mention was the context in which this commentary was made. The context of the commentary is with regard to Muslims taking the disbelievers as their protectors or political allies.

We, therefore, reproduce the whole commentary here as follows.

{28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, unless you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself, and to Allah is the final return.}

The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers

Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said,

{And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way}

meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him.

Similarly, Allah said,

{0 you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them}


{And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.} [60:1]

Allah said,
{0 you who believe! Take not for friends disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves?} [4: 144]


{0 you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.} [5:51

Allah said, after mentioning the fact that the faithful believers gave their support to the faithful believers among the Muhajirin, Ansar and Bedouins,

{And those Who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you do not behave the same, there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption.} [8:73]

Allah said next,

{unless you indeed fear a danger from them.}

meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, “The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.” Allah said,

{And Allah warns you against Himself.}

meaning, He warns you against His anger and the severe torment He prepared for those who give their support to His enemies, and those who have enmity with His friends….3

Note the bold sentences in the above quote. If someone is threatening to kill you and is only willing to let you go if you say or do the things he demands, then in such a dire circumstances, a person is permitted to say what needs to be said to save his/her life. That is all there is to it.

Consider the example of the American journalist Jill Carrol who was recently released in Iraq by militants. While still in Iraq, she appeared on television praising the militants who kidnapped her and murdered her translator. Later, once she was released and returned to America, she said that she was demanded to say those types of things, or else her life would have been in danger. Can anyone blame her for doing that and for saying the things she said in Iraq?

Likewise, Ibn Kathir explains that in such a situation, where you are being threatened with violence and you are not strong enough to defend yourself, a person may say certain things so that the aggressor would not harm him/her. Ibn Kathir does not state anywhere that you can just lie “for fun” or whenever you want to. Nor is this act specifically named as a “doctrine” called taqiyyah.

In the Qur’an we also read (16:106):

“Whoever disbelieved in Allah after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a great torment.” (Yusuf Ali)

Ibn Kathir has this to say in the abridged commentary:

{except one who was forced while his heart is at peace with the faith}

This is an exception in the case of one who utters statements of disbelief and verbally agrees with the Mushrikin because he is forced to do so by the beatings and abuse to which he is subjected, but his heart refuses to accept what he is saying, and he is, in reality at peace with his faith in Allah and His Messenger(P).

The scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him to either go along with them in the interests of self-preservation, or to refuse, as Bilal did when they were inflicting all sorts of torture on him, even placing a huge rock on his chest in the intense heat and telling him to admit others as partners with Allah. He refused, saying, “Alone, Alone.” And he said, “By Allah, if I knew any word more annoying to you than this, I would say it.” May Allah be pleased with him.

Similarly, when the Liar Musaylimah asked Habib bin Zayd Al-Ansari, “Do you hear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?” He said, “Yes.” Then Musaylimah asked, “Do you bear witness that I am the messenger of Allah?” Habib said, “I do not hear you.” Musaylimah kept cutting him, piece by piece, but he remained steadfast insisting on his words.

It is better and preferable for the Muslim to remain steadfast In his religion, even if that leads to him being killed, as was mentioned by Al-Hafiz lbn ‘Asakir in his biography of ‘Abdullah bin Hudhih Al-Sahmi, one of the Companions….4

And so, according to Ibn Kathir, if someone is being compelled and forced, then they can do and say certain things — even pretend to renounce Islam — in order to save their lives, although it is preferable they face the torture and stick to Islam.

The Qur’an clearly speaks against lying and acts of deception in numerous passages and in Islam lying is absolutely wrong and condemned.

“Woe to every wicked liar.” (Qur’an, 45:7)

Allah will say: “This is the Day when the truthfulness of the truthful will benefit them. They will have Gardens with rivers flowing under them, remaining in them timelessly, forever and ever. Allah is pleased with them, and they are pleased with Him. That is a Great Victory.” (Qur’an, 5:119)

“Anyone who commits an error or an evil action, and then ascribes it to someone innocent, bears the weight of slander and clear wrongdoing.” (Qur’an, 4:112)

They are people who listen to lies and consume ill-gotten gains. If they come to you, you can either judge between them or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they cannot harm you in any way. But if you do judge, judge between them justly. Allah loves the just. (Qur’an, 5:42)

Why, when you heard it, did you not, as male and female believers, instinctively think good thoughts and say: “This is obviously a lie?” Why did they not produce four witnesses to it? Since they did not bring four witnesses, in Allah’s sight they are liars. Were it not for Allah’s favor to you and His mercy, both in this world and the Hereafter, a terrible punishment would have afflicted you for your plunging headlong into it [slander]. You were bandying it about on your tongues, your mouths uttering something about which you had no knowledge. You considered it to be a trivial matter, but in Allah’s sight, it is immense. Why, when you heard it, did you not say: “We have no business speaking about this. Glory be to You! This is a terrible slander!”? (Qur’an, 24:12-16)

O you who believe! If a deviator brings you a report, scrutinize it carefully in case you attack people in ignorance and so come to greatly regret what you have done. (Qur’an, 49:6)

Do not say about what your lying tongues describe: “This is lawful and this is forbidden,” inventing lies against Allah. Those who invent lies against Allah are not successful. (Qur’an, 16:116)

Who could do greater wrong than those who lie about Allah and deny the truth when it comes to them? Do the unbelievers not have a dwelling place in Hell? (Qur’an, 39:32)

On the Day of Rising you will see those who lied against Allah with their faces blackened. Do not the arrogant have a dwelling place in Hell? (Qur’an, 39:60)

Say: “People who invent lies against Allah will not be successful.” (Qur’an, 10:69)

Look how they invent lies against Allah. That suffices as an outright sin. (Qur’an, 4:50)

Hence what the missionary has claimed about the concept of taqiyyah in Islam is a false lie and goes against the spirit of the Qur’an. One can also see the numerous statements by the Prophet(P) against lying and liars, as well as the statements of Muslim scholars against lying and liars.

Qur’an 2:256: Where is the Abrogation?

Now we come to the gist of the whole issue, namely the so-called “abrogation” of Qur’an 2:256. The Christian missionary cited Ibn Kathir’s commentary to this verse in order to “prove” that this verse was “abrogated” according to Ibn Kathir. However, Ibn Kathir does not say in the abridged commentary that this verse has been abrogated, which is contrary to the missionary claim on Paltalk.

We cite the relevant passage as follows.

No Compulsion in Religion

Allah said,

{There is no compulsion in religion}, meaning, “Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear. and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam. Rather, whoever Allah directs to Islam, opens his heart for it and enlightens his mind, will embrace Islam with certainty. Whoever Allah blinds his heart and seals his hearing and sight, then he will not benefit from being forced to embrace Islam.”

It was reported that the Ansar were the reason behind revealing this Ayah, although its indication is general in meaning. Ibn Jarir recorded that Ibn ‘Abbas said [that before Islam], “When (an Ansar) woman would not bear children who would live, she would vow that if she gives birth to a child who remains alive, she would raise him as a Jew. When Banu An-Nadir (the Jewish tribe) were evacuated [from Al-Madinah], some of the children of the Ansar were being raised among them, and the Ansar said, “We will not abandon our children.” Allah revealed,

{There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the right path has become distinct from the wrong path}

Abu Daud and An-Nasa’i also recorded this hadith.

As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah(T) said to a man,

{“Embrace Islam.” The man said, “I dislike it.” The Prophet(P) said, “Even if you dislike it.”}

First, this is an authentic Hadith, with only three narrators between Imam Ahmad and the Prophet(P). However, it is not relevant to the subject under discussion, for the Prophet(P) did not force that man to become Muslim. The Prophet(P) merely invited this man to become Muslim, and he replied that he does not find himself eager to become Muslim. The Prophet(P) said to the man that even though he dislikes embracing Islam, he should still embrace it, ?for Allah will grant you sincerity and true intent.’5

The following points are to be noted in order to understand the above passage by Ibn Kathir:

    1. According to Ibn Kathir, the verse is a general statement.
    2. Ibn Kathir states that no one is to be forced to become a Muslim. It is a person’s choice to accept or reject Islam.
    3. Ibn Kathir does not state anywhere in this commentary that this passage has been “abrogated.”

Therefore there is no basis in the missionary claim that this verse was “abrogated” according to Ibn Kathir.

What About the “Christian Taqiyyah“?

While Islam does not have any notion of a taqiyyah except in the minds of those who whale about it, in Christianity we find an interesting example of how one can resort to taqiyyah. Namely, the example of Paul of Tarsus, who was not only a scheming imposter, but a hypocrite and a false prophet. Such is the taqiyyah resorted to by this man that he said thus:

“But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless being crafty, I caught you with guile.” (2 Corinthians 12:16)

Now here is a person who openly admits that he uses guile (understood as deception or lying) in order to spread his message. Is this the kind of man that the Christian missionaries expect us to follow?

Another passage clearly displays the flip-flop mentality of this Great Deceiver from Tarsus:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law — though not being myself under the law — that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law — not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ — that I might win those outside the law.” (I Corinthians 9:20)

Geza Vermes, a former Christian who is one of the leading scholars in historical Jesus research today, says:

“He [Paul] could also be calculating and ready to compromise: ‘To the Jews I became as a Jew…to those under the law I became as one under the law…To those outside the law I became as one outside the law…I have become all things to all men‘…Or in short, ‘I try to please all men in everything I do’ (I Cor. 10:33).”6

Paul’s deceptive methodology of “winning” converts resulted in him being viewed as an opportunist by the Jews:

“His goal is not self-gratification but the interests of the gospel, and in particular the desire to ‘win’ converts. Like a demagogue who enslaves himself to the populace to compaign for their rights, Paul has deliberately renounced rights and demeaned himself to advance the cause of the gospel (v. 19). His self-sacrifice is first illustrated by the chief characteristic of his mission, his cross-cultural adaptability (vv. 20-1). Among the Jews he could live like a Jew; that is, among the law-observant he observes the law, although not considering himself utterly bound to it (v. 20). The purpose is to win Jews for the gospel; for, although his call was ‘to the Gentiles’ (Rom 1:5), Paul still associated with Jews, as his synagogue visits testifies (2 Cor 11:24). Similarly, for Gentiles ‘outside the law’ Paul lived in a Gentile fashion, although in truth not lawless before God, but under full obligation to Christ (v. 21, ‘under Christ’s law’; no code of teaching is here envisaged). Again the purpose is to win Gentiles, the task in which Paul was so successful, though at the cost of his reputation among most fellow Jews, who took his adaptability to be merely opportunism (Gal 1:10).”7

Now here is a person who can be rightfully charged with the practice of a Christian taqiyyah. Such a lying, sinful person is not worthy to be considered as a follower of Jesus(P), much less an apostle. Only a product of Satan will resort to such lies and trickery to spread their message.

For more information, please see Lying In Christianity.


We have cited from Ibn Kathir and showed how his commentary was misused by a low-level missionary who whales about taqiyyah and abrogation and yet ended up citing texts which do not support his claims. Hence we are obliged to ask, from where did he get his poppycock stories from? One wonders why was this person wailing about taqiyyah and a so-called “abrogation” when neither one existed in the passages we have cited above.

It is obvious that this rabid missionary has no idea on what he was talking about and was just whaling for some sort of argument in order to smear Muslims with and tarnish their claims. In logical fallacy circles, this is called poisoning the well and an ad hominem attack. Perhaps the Christian missionary should return to his Logic 101 classes to learn the finer points of debating instead of resorting to wailing about taqiyyah or cutting his opponent off from the microphone when his opponent is speaking.

And only God knows best.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Whaling A Taqiya," in Bismika Allahuma, December 9, 2006, last accessed September 25, 2022,
  1. For the Sunni perspective on the Shia doctrine of taqiyyah, see this article. []
  2. Tafsir Ibn Kathir (abridged), Vol. 2 (Darussalam, 2000), pp. 141-142 []
  3. ibid. []
  4. ibid., Vol. 5, p. 530. []
  5. ibid., pp. 30-31 []
  6. Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus (Penguin Books, 2000), p. 66. Italics are by Vermes. []
  7. John Barton, John Muddiman (eds.), The Oxford Bible Commentary (Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 1123 []
Hadith Hadith Exegesis Polemical Rebuttals

Nursing of Adults and Perverted Missionary Mentality

In accordance with classical missionary habits, the Christian missionary Sam Shamoun — who is notorious for his perverted and filthy misinterpretations — has taken the event of Sahla bint Suhail nursing an adult boy, Salim the ally of Abu Huzaifah, as an opportunity to assault Islam by calling it “shameful and disgusting to say the least”.

In this paper, insha’Allah, we are going to refute this perverted missionary whose mind is filled with nothing but filth, wa Allah-ul-Musta’aan.

What is the Significance of Nursing?

According to numerous Prophetic traditions, foster relations are treated like blood relations in marital affairs. These relations can render one Muhram (i.e., unmarriageable), so he can attend at his foster relatives and see them as he does with his blood relatives.

Narrated ‘Aisha: Aflah asked the permission to visit me but I did not allow him. He said, “Do you veil yourself before me although I am your uncle?” `Aisha said, “How is that?” Aflah replied, “You were suckled by my brother’s wife with my brother’s milk.” I asked Allah’s Apostle about it, and he said, “Aflah is right, so permit him to visit you.”1

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Prophet said about Hamza’s daughter, “I am not legally permitted to marry her, as foster relations are treated like blood relations (in marital affairs). She is the daughter of my foster brother.”2

Narrated `Amra bint `Abdur-Rahman: That ‘Aisha the wife of the Prophet told her uncle that once, while the Prophet was in her house, she heard a man asking Hafsa’s permission to enter her house. ‘Aisha said, “I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! I think the man is Hafsa’s foster uncle.'” ‘Aisha added, “O Allah’s Apostle! There is a man asking permission to enter your house.” Allah’s Apostle replied, “I think the man is Hafsa’s foster uncle.” ‘Aisha said, “If so-and-so were living (i.e. her foster uncle) would he be allowed to visit me?” Allah’s Apostle said, “Yes, he would, as the foster relations are treated like blood relations (in marital affairs).3

Narrated Aisha: Once the Prophet came to me while a man was in my house. He said, “O ‘Aisha! Who is this (man)?” I replied, “My foster brothers,” He said, “O ‘Aisha! Be sure about your foster brothers, as fostership is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age).4

So the purpose of the Prophet’s(P) permission to Sahla bint Suhail was to make Salim her foster son in order that he could attend at her the same way he used to when he was under age of puberty.

Will The Real Pervert Please Stand Up?

Shamoun’s filthy interpretation of the Prophetic permission reminds us of a famous Egyptian joke about an idiot who once wanted to drink hot milk, so he burnt his cow.

Shamoun typically thinks like this idiot. If you wanted to drink some cow milk, will you go below the cow and suckle it? Would you put the cow on a fire to heat its milk and then suckle her?

If you are Sam Shamoun, the answer must be a YES! Only a filthy idiot diseased with congenital hypothyroidism would think like that! However, this is the only way of thinking familiar to Shamoun’s perverted mind.

Direct contact is not necessary for nursing. In other words, the milk is collected in a cup or pot and the foster son drinks it without getting into close contact with the foster mother. This was what actually happened in the case of Sahla bint Suhail and Salim, as reported by Muhamad Ibn Sa’ad and Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani in their respective biographies of Sahla bint Suhail:

    Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar told us: Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdullah, Az-Zuhri’s nephew, told us on the authority of his father that he said: an amount of one milk drink was collected in a pot or glass, so Salim used to drink it every day, for five days. After this, he used to enter while her head is uncovered. This was permission from Messenger of Allah to Sahla bint Suhail.5

We believe that this is a fatal refutation to Shamoun’s perverted mentality. The charge that he had wanted to direct at our Holy Prophet(P) has backfired upon him. It is crystal-clear that this missionary did not derive his filthy interpretation from any Islamic source, rather, it came from his equally filthy mind.

In order for his argument to carry at least a little weight, the missionary needs to demonstrate to the readers that others besides him had also misunderstood the tradition in question, in exactly the same way as he did (note that quoting his fellow missionaries proves nothing other than that they are as perverted as he is). However, we are 100% certain that he is about the only person on this planet who has ever misunderstood the meaning of such a simple, straightforward tradition.

Therefore his lack of comprehension and the perverted nature of his feeble mind does not prove anything against Islam. That is to say that if Sam Shamoun cannot understand and comprehend an issue, then that proves nothing against Islam other than to demonstrate his own lack of intelligence, more so when he is the only individual who seems to have had a “problem” with the passage and got “confused” with its intended meaning.

Why Was the Nursing of Adults Permitted?

According to the following reports in Sahih Muslim, nursing of the young boy, Salim, was permission from the Messenger of Allah(P) to Sahla bint Suhail.

‘Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I see on the face of Abu Hudhaifa (signs of disgust) on entering of Salim (who is an ally) into (our house), whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She said: How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man? Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) smiled and said: I already know that he is a young man. ‘Amr has made this addition in his narration that he participated in the Battle of Badr and in the narration of Ibn ‘Umar (the words are): Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed.6

On quoting this particular hadith, Shamoun has made emphasis on Sahla’s wonderment “How can I suckle him as he is a grown-up man?”, implying that she found it disgusting to nurse an adult boy according to the missionary’s filthy interpretation, and on the Prophet’s(P) laugh implying that it was a “mischievous” one.

In response to this ugly gesture, we note that Sahla knew, as any Muslim, that nursing is effective only in the first two years, this is the reason why she expressed her wonder. When the Prophet(P) confirmed his command, she realized the exceptional nature of this permission.

It is well known that a newborn baby suckles directly from the breast because he/she is unable to drink from a cup in contrast to older children and adults. That is why it is only natural and logical to think of a cup or a similar object when one mentions a grown-up person, not direct suckling from the breast, especially when the Arabic word reda’ – which is rendered to nursing or suckling – does not indicate any direct contact. There is no room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation here.

nursing of adults breasts

We too would like to express our wonder regarding the dirty missionary interpretation and ask Shamoun to explain how the dismay and uneasiness of Abu Huzaifah, Sahla’s husband, on the mere idea of Salim getting a little close to his wife like a son, “disappeared” as the below hadith shows, if direct suckling from his wife’s breast had occurred? How could this act have made Abu Huzaifah any “happier” or receptive towards Salim?

We repeat again that Abu Huzaifah’s dismay was at the mere notion of Salim approaching his wife — as a son approaches his mother. Can we then imagine that such a jealous man would accept or allow a practice that, according to the pervert missionary, would require his wife to literally breast-feed another man, and that his dismay and uneasiness would just “vanish”? You must bring the most irrational explanation to answer this question with a “yes”.

We do congratulate Sam Shamoun for his extraordinary mental “integrity”!

‘Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hadhaifa, lived with him and his family in their house. She (i. e. the daughter of Suhail came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Salim has attained (puberty) as men attain, and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that something (rankles) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared.7

Umm Salama said to ‘Aisha (Allah be pleased with her): A young boy who is at the threshold of puberty comes to you. I, however, do not like that he should come to me, whereupon ‘Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) said: Don’t you see in Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) a model for you? She also said: The wife of Abu Hudhaifa said: Messenger of Allah, Salim comes to me and now he is a (grown-up) person, and there is something that (rankles) in the mind of Abu Hudhaifa about him, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him (so that he may become your foster-child), and thus he may be able to come to you (freely).8

Zainab daughter of Abu Salama reported: I heard Umm Salama, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), saying to ‘Aisha: By Allah, I do not like to be seen by a young boy who has passed the period of fosterage, whereupon she (‘Aisha) said: Why is it so? Sahla daughter of Suhail came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah’s Messenger, I swear by Allah that I see in the face of Abu Hudhaifa (the signs of disgust) on account of entering of Salim (in the house), whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Suckle him. She (Sahla bint Suhail) said: He has a beard. But he (again) said: Suckle him, and it would remove what is there (expression of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa. She said: (I did that) and, by Allah, I did not see (any sign of disgust) on the face of Abu Hudhaifa.9

The reader of this report can easily recognize that Salim used to enter Sahla’s home when he was her adopted son, but when Islam forbade the adoption, a transitional phase was necessary because Salim was like a real son to Sahla and it was difficult for her to push him away as a stranger. This is the reason for this kind permission of the Prophet(P). One is indeed shocked to see how this kind gesture of the Messenger(P) is given the most disgusting interpretation by a pervert Christian missionary!

Was this permission for Sahla alone? We say: “Yes!” because the general Islamic view on the matter is that there is no effective nursing after the first two years of age.

Our proof is the report on the authority of ‘Aisha herself that Allah’s Apostle(P) said:

Fosterage is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age).10

Imam Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Qur’an 2:233 notes that:

It is reported in both Sahihs that `Aisha thought that if a woman gives her milk to an older person (meaning beyond the age of two years) then this will establish fosterage. This is also the opinion of `Ata’ Ibn Abu Rabah and Al-Laith Ibn Sa`d. Hence, `Aisha thought that it is permissible to suckle the man whom the woman needs to be allowed in her house. She used as evidence the Hadith of Salim, the freed slave of Abu Huzaifah, where the Prophet ordered Abu Huzaifah’s wife to give some of her milk to Salim, although he was a man, and ever since then, he used to enter her house freely. However, the rest of the Prophet’s wives did not agree with this opinion and thought that this was only a special case. This is also the opinion of the Majority of the scholars (al-jumhur). The evidence of the Majority of scholars who are the Four Imams, the Seven Jurists, eminent Companions and the rest of the Prophet’s wives except ‘Aisha, is what is reported in both Sahihs on authority of ‘Aisha that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “Be sure about your foster brothers, as fosterage is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age).”11

For more information regarding the juristic aspects of Sahla’s hadith, there is a very valuable Arabic work by Dr. Muhammad Al-Hifnawi, Ar-Redaa’ wa Bunouk-ul-Laban”(i.e., Nursing and Milk Banks) for those who are interested.

Is the Nursing of Adults Permitted Now?

The obvious answer to this question is “No!”, for nursing which leads to fosterage is effective only in the first two years of age as the Prophet(P) said:

Fosterage is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age).12

This is the conclusion of the following authorities:

    ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab
    ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib
    Ibn ‘Abbas
    Ibn Mas’ud
    Abu Huraira
    Ibn ‘Umar
    Umm Salam,
    Sa’id Ibn-ul-Musayyab
    Sufyan Ath-Thawri
    Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
    Abu Thawr, and many others.

Imam Abu Hanifah is reported to have allowed an additional six months after the two years, but his chief disciples Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaybani disagreed with this view and joined the above authorities. All scholars of Abu Hanifah’s madhab (i.e., school of thought) follow the view of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaybani.

Yes, ‘Aisha did hold the view that nursing of adults is permissible, but her opinion cannot stand before the agreement of other wives of the Prophet(P), eminent Companions, Seven Jurists of Madinah (from the generation of tabi’un) and the Four Imams. And only Allah knows best.

Al-Qurtubi in his commentary on Qur’an 2:233 notes the following:

Imam Malik (may Allah be Merciful to him), his followers and a group of scholars has gathered from this verse that nursing which is treated like blood relation is what takes place in the (first) two years; because after two years, nursing is over and there is no considerable nursing after two years. This is his statement in his Muwatta in the report of Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Hakam on his authority. This is the opinion of ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbas and it was reported on the authority of Ibn Mas’ud. It was also stated by Az-Zuhri, Qatada, Ash-Shu’abi, Sufyan Ath-Thawri, Al-Awza’i, Ash-Shafi’i, Ahmad, Ishaq, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Abu Thawr. Ibn Abdul-Hakam reported on his authority: “two years with additional few days”. Abdul-Malik, “like a month”. Ibn-ul-Qasim related on the authority of Malik that he said, “Nursing is (considerable within) two years and two months later”. Al-Walid Ibn Muslim related on his authority that he said, ‘Nursing one, two or three months after the two years is still considered within the two years, whatever comes after this is nonsense’. It is reported on the authority of (Abu Hanifah) An-Nu’man that he said, “What is after the two years up to six months is (considered) nursing”. But the authentic (opinion) is the first one due to His saying “The mothers shall give suck to their offspring for two whole years”. This indicates that there is no significance of whatever the newborn suckles after the age of two years. Sufyan related on the authority of ‘Amr Ibn Dinar on the authority of Ibn Abbas that he said, Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “There is no nursing but within the (first) two years”. Ad-Darqatni said, it is related on the authority of Ibn ‘Uyaiinah but by Al-Haytham ibn Gamil and he is a trustworthy memorizer.

I say: This report in addition to the verse and its meaning disallows nursing of the adult and (indicates) that it has no significance. It was reported on the authority of ‘Aisha that she endorsed it and it was the opinion of Al-Laith Ibn Sa’d among scholars. It was reported about Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari that he used to validate it and reported that he retracted this opinion.13

Ibn Kathir in his commentary on Qur’an 2:233 notes that:

The opinion that nursing does not establish fosterage after the age of two years is reported on the authority of ‘Ali, Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn Mas’ud, Gaber, Abu Huraira, Ibn ‘Umar, Umm Salma, Sa’id Ibn-ul-Musayyib, ‘Attaa and the Majority of Scholars (Al-Jumhour). This is the Mazhab (School of Though) of Ash-Shaf’i, Ahmad, Ishaq, Ath-Thawri, Abu Yusuf, Muhammad and Malik in one report on his authority. It is reported on his authority that it is two years and two months, and in another report, two years and three months. Abu Hanifah said: “Two years and six months”. Zafar Ibn-ul-Huzayl said, “As long as he suckles, it is up to three years? this is reported on the authority of Al-Awza’i. Malik said, “If the baby weans before the age of two years, then a woman suckles him after weaning, it does not establish fosterage because it becomes like food”, this is reported on the authority of Al-Awza’i. It is reported on the authority of ‘Umar and ‘Ali that they said, “No nursing after weaning”. It is probable they meant either the two years as the Majority state whether he weans or not, or the act itself as Malik said, and Allah knows best.

It is reported in both Sahihs that `Aisha thought that if a woman gives her milk to an older person (meaning beyond the age of two years) then this will establish fosterage. This is also the opinion of `Ata’ Ibn Abu Rabah and Al-Laith Ibn Sa`d. Hence, `Aisha thought that it is permissible to suckle the man whom the woman needs to be allowed in her house. She used as evidence the Hadith of Salim, the freed slave of Abu Huzaifah, where the Prophet ordered Abu Huzaifah’s wife to give some of her milk to Salim, although he was a man, and ever since then, he used to enter her house freely. However, the rest of the Prophet’s wives did not agree with this opinion and thought that this was only a special case. This is also the opinion of the Majority of the scholars (Al-Jumhour). The evidence of the Majority of scholars who are the Four Imams, the Seven Jurists, eminent Companions and the rest of the Prophet’s wives except for Aisha is what is reported in both Sahihs on authority of ‘Aisha that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said, “Be sure about your foster brothers, as fosterage is only valid if it takes place in the suckling period (before two years of age).” 14

Did Paul Had Homosexual Urges?

Sam Shamoun concluded his disgusting paper with the following:

    Whatever interpretation Aisha, Umar and Ibn Masud may have given to Muhammad’s instruction later on (correctly or incorrectly), the fact that Muhammad would command a woman to nurse a young man is shameful and disgusting, to say the least.

Since we have refuted in detail the distortion concocted by Sam Shamoun, let us now turn the tables upon him and apply his own perverted thoughts upon Christian religious personalities in order to see its outcome.

In the book of Acts we are informed that Paul had Timothy circumcised:

    1: And he came also to Derbe and to Lystra: and behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek.
    2: The same was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
    3: He would Paul have to go forth with him; and he took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek.15

Paul circumcised Timothy because he was facing stiff opposition from the Jews. Thus, in order to avoid getting into more trouble, Paul had Timothy circumcised, even though Timothy’s father happened to be a Greek Gentile.

But why was the circumcision debate important for the Jews whom Paul wanted to pacify?

To some Gentile readers, this circumcision debate might seem peripheral. Some men are circumcised, others not – so what? In order to see the revolution that Paul was effecting within Jewish circles (or satellites), we turn to the old rabbinic texts. The rabbis considered circumcision so important that they declared 6 that were it not for the blood of the covenant – that is to say, the blood which flowed from Abraham’s penis when, at God’s insistence, he circumcised himself – heaven and earth would not exist. The teaching of Judaism was that a child must still shed the blood of a covenant…even if he is born without a foreskin, and even if for some medical or other reason he is circumcised before the mystical eighth day. Even the angels are circumcised…

Converts to Judaism in the Roman period had to undergo circumcision…Strangely enough, in Palestine rules were more liberal than in the Diaspora, and there were Proselytes of the Gate, as they were known, who were allowed to ‘become Jews’ without circumcision. But such was not the general rule. It was widely believed that the admission of uncircumcised men into Jewish religious worship ‘impeded the arrival of the Messiah’. While ‘semi-converts’ were allowed, those who observed the Sabbath and the dietary laws, they were to be regarded as heathens if after a twelve-month period they had not undergone circumcision. These stringent rules did not deter converts…16

So now we need to ask, how was circumcision practised then? What was the method used in those days to circumcise someone?

A. N. Wilson further explains that:

By Roman times, circumcision was done with a metal knife, and, if we believe that Paul did insist on Timothy undergoing circumcision, it is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of the three essential parts of the ritual, without which it is not complete. The first part is milah, the cutting away of the outer part of the foreskin. The is done with one sweep of the knife. The second part, periah, is the tearing of the inner lining of the foreskin which still adheres to the gland, so as to lay it wholly bare. This was (and is) done by the operator – the mohel, the professional circumciser – with his thumb-nail and index finger. The third and essential part of the ritual is mesisah, the sucking of blood from the wound. Since the nineteenth century, it has been permissible to finish this part of the ritual with a swab, but in all preceding centuries and certainly in the time of Paul it was necessary for the mohel to clean the wound by taking the penis into his mouth. In the case of a young adult male such as Timothy the bleeding would have been copious. We can easily imagine why Paul’s Gentile converts were unwilling to undergo the ritual; and, given the more liberal attitudes towards the Torah which had already begun to emerge among the Hellenists of Syrian Antioch, it is not surprising that the custom of circumcision should have started to wane. It took the extremism of Paul to think that the knife of circumcision would actually ‘cut you…off from Christ’.17

In other words, Paul had to take the penis of Timothy in his mouth in order to circumcise him!

Note also how strongly Paul opposes circumcision elsewhere in the New Testament:

    2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing.
    3Yea, I testify again to every man that receiveth circumcision, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
    4Ye are severed from Christ, ye would be justified by the law; ye are fallen away from grace.
    5For us through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness.
    6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love.18

However, when it came to saving himself from some trouble, Paul immediately had Timothy circumcised so that the Jews would not bother him any further. Since we are aware of Paul’s intense opposition to circumcision no matter what the reasons are, surely his circumcision of Timothy indicates the hidden homosexual desires that he wished to fulfil at least once in his lifetime? He probably had a deep desire to take a penis into his mouth, so when an opportunity comes along, he decided to avail it. Hence he now has a good excuse to take a penis into his mouth and no one could object to that.

One cannot claim that someone other than Paul had circumcised Timothy because it is clearly stated that it was Paul who had circumcised him. There was no pressing need for Paul to circumcise Timothy if indeed he was staunchly opposed to the practice, as related in the account in Galatians. But that he did go ahead and conducted the circumcision gives us a reason to pause, as it suggests that he had homosexual urges.

Now it is our turn to say:

    Whatever interpretation Christians may have given to Paul’s action later on (whether correctly or incorrectly), the fact that Paul would put the penis of an adult man in his mouth is shameful and disgusting, to say the least.

Please note that if such a tradition was located within any Islamic literature or in the Qur’an, and if it is required to take the private organ with one’s mouth, the above is precisely the type of argument Sam Shamoun would have vigorously launched in his papers, in order to demonise Muslims and their religion. Hence the above paragraph is, in reality, the outcome if one happens to think like a pervert as Sam Shamoun obviously is.


What leads Sam Shamoun to be such a pervert and think like a mindless idiot? Is it because he is so “bright” and “intelligent” that he happens to be the only person on this planet who “understood” the tradition relating to Sahl bint Suhail correctly whereas everyone else on this planet had failed to comprehend it? This is surely an unlikely, nay, an impossible, presumption.

The reason why Sam Shamoun thinks the way that he does — which leads him to distort, misread and misinterpret simple straightforward passages — is not because he is “bright” but because he is a hate-filled bigot who lacks elementary intelligence. When the two combine and form a unit, that is hate + mediocre intelligence, the result is “Shamounion interpretations” — which are essentially stupid misreadings of the texts.

And only God knows best!

Addendum: Our Challenge to Sam Shamoun

The missionary is now required to offer an unconditional apology for concocting and spreading a vicious lie in order to abuse the Prophet(P) and the religion of Islam. He is required to remove the factually-erroneous and logically nonsensical paper from his website. If, however, he starts whining over something absolutely irrelevant and besides the point, then that would be taken as an indication of his denial of reality and his severe, mental imbalance.

Similarly, his notorious strategy of sending a number of highly abusive e-mails to Muslims will not accomplish anything in trying to cover his gross misuse and misreading of a non-controversial, straightforward passage. Someone who lacks such elementary intelligence, so much so that it drives him mad to the point of twisting and misusing straightforward passages, have absolutely no right to author papers concerning any aspect of Islam (or any topic for that matter), unless and until he makes an attempt to increase the level of his dwindling mental cognizance.

We now wait for his apology for spreading such a vicious and blatant lie about Islam.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Nursing of Adults and Perverted Missionary Mentality," in Bismika Allahuma, October 14, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022,
  1. Sahih-ul-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 812 []
  2. ibid., Number 813 []
  3. ibid., Number 814 []
  4. ibid., Number 815 []
  5. Ibn Sa’ad, Kitab At-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, Vol. 10, p. 257. Also see Ibn Hajar, Al-Isabah, Vol. 7, p. 717 []
  6. Sahih Muslim, Volume 5, Book 8, Number 3424 []
  7. ibid., Number 3425 []
  8. ibid., Number 3427 []
  9. ibid., Number 3428 []
  10. Sahih-ul-Bukhari, Op. Cit., Number 815 []
  11. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur’an Al-‘Azim, Volume 1, page 358. Published by Maktabat-ul-Iman, Mansoura, Egypt []
  12. Sahih-ul-Bukhari, op. cit. []
  13. Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami’ le Ahkam-el-Qur’an, Vol. 2, (Dar-ul-Hadith, Cairo, Egypt), pp. 139-140 []
  14. Ibn Kathir, Tafsir-ul-Qur’an Al-‘Azim, Vol. 1, (Maktabat-ul-Iman, Mansoura, Egypt), p. 358 []
  15. Acts 16:3, American Standard Version []
  16. A. N. Wilson, Paul The Mind Of The Apostle, (Pimlico, 1998), p. 128 []
  17. ibid., p. 131 []
  18. Gal 5:2-6, American Standard Version []