Categories
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:

4:5

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

4:6

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.'”

4:7

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

4:8

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:

10:17

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

10:18

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”.

Conclusion

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, https://bismikaallahuma.org/muhammad/demon-possessed-prophet/
Categories
Muhammad

Another Rational Approach To The Prophethood of Muhammad

This is a continuation of our earlier discussion where we have talked about a rational approach to the prophethood of Muhammad. It is well known that the Prophet Muhammad(P) was victorious over all his opponents, to him and to his followers subdued many states and kingdoms, people entered Islam in large numbers and his call resulted in Islamic Caliphate and civilization for so many centuries. We also agree that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Wise.

So is it possible for the Most Wise to enable a liar to be victorious, assist him, aid him against his opponents and make the end result in his favour and his followers, although this liar continuously invent lies and forgeries against God claiming that He sent him, attributing to Him false religion and false laws and making all this God’s Words and inspiration, then this liar stays victorious and overpowering during his lifetime and after his death, while people are fooled by him accepting his lies and forgeries against God? Or does God’s Wisdom require that he is beaten in every battle and every field, and overpowered and defeated by everyone in every war and that he builds no state but God destroys it, so he dies conquered and overpowered as God does with all those who falsely claim prophethood, divinity or inspiration?

If we apply this to Muhammad’s claim of prophethood, we notice that he(P) made it clear that he is a prophet of God, inspired by Him and reciting His Words.

Moreover, Muhammad(P) made it clear that God aids him against his opponents and He was going to make him victorious over all, the Holy Qur’an says:

If any thinks that Allah will not help him (His Messenger) in this world and the Hereafter, let him stretch out a rope to the ceiling and cut (himself) off: then let him see whether his plan will remove that which enrages (him).1

The meaning is that if anyone thinks that Allah would not make Muhammad(P) victorious in this life and in the Hereafter, then let him do his best in fighting and opposing him (peace be upon him), and if he failed, let him stretch a rope to the ceiling of his house and hang himself on for Allah will inevitably aid His prophet.

Just imagine it. A man claiming prophethood and inspiration recites verses affirming that God helps him and will make him victorious over his enemies, and then he actually defeats all these enemies and becomes victorious over them in the end.

And imagine again. This man recites the following verse:

And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, and We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart: nor could any of you withhold him (from Our wrath).2

Please read the verses again and ponder upon their meaning.

Here we have a man claiming he is inspired and sent by God and challenging that if he does not tell the truth, God will certainly destroy him. However, we see that God never destroyed this man, on the contrary, he supported and assisted him and made him victorious and glorious before all his opponents.

This means one of the following:

1) God does not exist in the first place.
2) God exists but He is ignorant for He is unaware of all these challenges spoken by this impostor.
3) God exists and is Omniscient, but He is impotent for He can do nothing about the challenges spoken by this impostor. So He sits and watches the promises and challenges of the impostor come true.
4) God exists and is Omniscient and Omnipotent, but He is unwise for He misleads people to the utmost, by swallowing the challenges of impostors while He can actually stop them. Not only that, He also executes all their promises with victory and glory for them.
5) God exists and is Omniscient, Omnipotent and Wise, and Muhammad is truly His Prophet whom He aided and supported.

So, choose for yourself!

So, we conclude that it is impossible of Muhammad(P) to lie regarding prophethood because we believe that God’s Wisdom necessitates that if he was an impostor, God would humiliate him. But this did not happen. On the contrary, God aided and supported him during his lifetime and after his death which is a decisive indication that he was a true prophet of Allah.

This decisive argument is irrefutable; for we believe that Allah’s Wisdom necessitates aid of true prophet and humiliation of false prophet, and we know that Allah supported Muhammad(P) and did not let him down, so he must be a true prophet.

In the light of this argument, we cannot accept the claim that Muhammad’s victory was due to worldly reasons for this would be a complete rejection of God’s Wisdom and Omnipotence. Moreover, it is well known that Muslims were markedly fewer in number than their opponents in all the wars they fought beginning with the battle of Badr till their wars with Persian and Roman armies, except for the battle of Hunayn.

Before the advent of Islam, it was very usual of a small number of Persian or Roman soldiers to attack a large populated Arab tribe, capture their men and enslave their women. During wars, large numbers of Arab fighters were often defeated by small numbers of Roman or Persian soldiers.

After the advent of Islam, the opposite was true; small numbers of Prophet’s Companions used to defeat large numbers of Roman or Persian soldiers, even though Muslim soldiers were poorly equipped. Roman and Persian kings were always amazed how their huge well-equipped armies were defeated at hands of Muslims despite their small number, weakness and lack of equipment.

Rev. George Bush (1796-1859) says about Muhammad(P):

He laid the foundation of an empire, which, in the short space of eighty years, extended its sway over more kingdoms and countries than Rome had mastered in eight hundred. And when we pass from the political to the religious ascendancy which he gained and consider the rapid growth, the wide diffusion, and the enduring permanence of the Mohammedan imposture, we are still more astonished. Indeed, in this, as in every other instance where the fortunes of an individual are entirely disproportioned to the means employed and surpass all reasonable calculation …

And confesses:

…we are forced to resolve the problem into the special providence of God. Nothing short of this could have secured the achievement of such mighty results; and we must doubtless look upon Mohammedanism in the present day as a standing monument of the mysterious wisdom of Jehovah, designed to compass ends which are beyond the grasp of human minds, at least till they are accomplished.3

This is in fulfilment of God’s Promise in the Holy Qur’an:

Already has Our Word been passed before (this) to Our Servants sent (by Us), that they would certainly be assisted, and that Our forces, they surely must conquer.4

And:

We will, without doubt, help Our messengers and those who believe, (both) in this world’s life and on the Day when the Witnesses will stand fort.5

And:

Allah will certainly aid those who aid His (cause); for verily Allah is Full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (Able to enforce His Will).6

And God’s ultimate promise:

Allah has promised, to those among you who believe and work righteous deeds, that He will, of a surety, grant them in the land, inheritance (of power), as He granted it to those before them; that He will establish in authority their religion- the one which He has chosen for them; and that He will change (their state), after the fear in which they (lived), to one of security and peace: They will worship Me (alone) and not associate aught with Me.’ If any do reject Faith after this, they are rebellious and wicked.7

This is markedly different from disbelievers who are made victorious and established in authority for their establishment and victory is not due to divine aid, rather it is due to frank material causes like wealth and power. None of them ever claimed prophethood, nor that Allah ordered them to worship Him alone. None claimed that whoever obeyed him would go to Heaven and whoever disobeyed would go to Hell. On the contrary of the one who claims inspiration from Allah, he is either a truthful prophet of Allah, so Allah aids him and makes him victorious, or he is an impostor, so Allah humiliates him and cuts him off.

This is the answer to those who may argue that Allah had established in the land many disbelievers and followers of false religions and made them prevail and succeed like Buddhists and Confucius.

Others may argue that Muslims nowadays are weak in comparison to other nations of disbelief, so how come Allah assists them?

The answer is that Allah made Muslims victorious over other nations when they adhered to it, so He humiliated people of disbelief like Jews and Christians. This is the case with the true religion of God, if its people adhere to it, follow its commandments and abstain from its prohibitions, God will aid them and make them victorious. But if they do not, He will not till they return back.

If a doctor prescribes a certain medication for a certain disease, then the patient does not follow the prescription and his illness does not improve, no one can blame the doctor in this case, nor claim that he is not a real doctor.

This is the case with our nation, if they do not follow the commandments and teachings of Islam, Allah does not aid or help them, as the Caliph ‘Umar said: “Allah has honoured us with Islam. So if we are to seek honour in other than Islam, Allah will dishonour us.”

In brief, it is the habit of Allah to aid and support His true apostle to the degree that no one can ever oppose this apostle. It is well known that He incredibly aided Muhammad (peace be upon him) like no other apostle, it is also well known that none falsely alleged prophethood but Allah exposed him, humiliated him and cut him off, and all those aided by Allah were true prophets like Noah, Ibrahim, Moses, Jesus, David and Sulaiman, for it is the habit of Allah to aid His Messengers and their followers.

In addition, teachings of all prophets of God are the same, for all of them command with worship of God alone with no partner, belief in the Hereafter and the Judgement Day, and with praise of Allah, chastity, honesty, truthfulness in speech and deeds, and they forbid idol worship, lewdness, lying, cheating, dishonesty, etc So, if someone claims prophethood and preaches the same teachings of all previous prophets for the sake of guiding people, we know he is one of them, i.e., a true prophet, the same way we recognize the doctor if he prescribes the same medications prescribed by all other doctors and his treatment leads to cure of diseases.

This is evident in the speech of Ja’far ibn Abi Talib to the king of Abyssinia:

“O king! We were plunged into the depths of ignorance, and we were idolaters. We used to eat corpses, to commit abominations, to severe blood ties, to neglect our duties of hospitality and neighbourliness, and to use only the law of the strong. That was our life until Allah raised among us a man, whose lineage, truthfulness, honesty, and purity we knew. He called us to the Oneness of Allah and taught us not to associate anything with Him. He forbade us the worship of idols and enjoined us to speak the truth, to be faithful to our trusts, to be merciful and to regard the rights of the neighbours as well as kith and kin, and to refrain from crimes and bloodshed. He prohibited us from committing abominations, speaking lies, devouring the property of orphans, and vilifying chaste women. He commanded us to offer prayers, to render alms, and to observe fasts. We have allowed what he has allowed, and have prohibited what he has prohibited. For this reason, our people attacked us and persecuted us in order to force us to abandon the worship of Allah and return to the worship of idols and to regard as lawful the evil deeds we once committed. When they had tortured and encircled our lives, until finding no safety among them, we have come to your country, and hope you will protect us from oppression while we are with you, O king!”8

This speech summarizes the teachings of Islam and shows that they agree with the teachings of all previous prophets and messengers of God. This is a very important issue, for it is inadequate to merely know that Allah sent prophets and messengers to people, it is more important to know why Allah sent these prophets and messengers. In other words, what did prophets and messengers of Allah preach and teach? It is nonsense to believe that Allah sent messengers without knowing the reason why they were raised among their peoples in the first place, and understanding the purpose of their prophethood. So, belief in prophets and messengers of God requires knowing the purpose of prophethood and Messengership.

We see that all prophets of God commanded their people with all that is good, and forbade all that is evil. When we compare Muhammad(P) with other prophets who preceded him, we notice that he preached the same they preached and forbade the same they forbade.

  • He(P) ordered to glorify God, exalt Him above having partners or rivals, establish His authority and worth of worship, attribute to Him all qualities of perfection and negate all qualities of imperfection from Him.
  • He(P) denounced the notion that angels are daughters of God and explained their real deeds and missions in both earth and heavens.
  • He(P) commanded with belief in all previous divine scriptures revealed on previous prophets and showed that they contained guidance as long as they preach monotheism and purity of faith, but once they got corrupted, they are no longer suitable for guidance.
  • He(P) brought evident and decisive proofs of coming of the Last Day and Resurrection.
  • He(P) commanded with pleasing God with best acts like offering prayers, giving alms, fasting and pilgrimage.
  • He(P) preached good deeds and manners like truthfulness, honesty, fulfillment of trust, kindness to relations, helping the poor and the needy, etc.
  • He(P) warned of association of partners with Allah, idol worship and disbelief.
  • He(P) prohibited blood shedding, adultery, alcohol drinking and usury.

Are these not the teachings of all previous prophets which were decreed by Allah since the Prophet Noah (peace be upon him)?

All this indicates that he(P) walked in the footsteps of previous prophets of Allah. Actually, his Message preserved and guarded previous messages that had been corrupted and altered, Allah says:

Thus have We made of you an Ummah justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves.9

This is due to the fact that all prophets came to preach the same religion.

Sending Muhammad(P) after the corruption of the religion of the previous prophets is a mercy from Allah to mankind, for indeed He says:

We sent thee not, but as a Mercy for all creatures.10

The teachings which the prophets preached commanded all that is good and forbade all that is evil. Muhammad (peace be upon him) came as a preserver, a guardian and a witness to these teachings. The Holy Qur’an says:

Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none but him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them, but address them in terms of honour.

And, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility, and say: my Lord bestow on them thy mercy even as they cherished me in childhood.

Your Lord knoweth best what is in your hearts: if ye do deeds of righteousness, verily he is most forgiving to those who turn to him again and again (in true penitence).

And render to the kindred their due rights, as (also) to those in want, and to the wayfarer: but squander not (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift.

Verily spendthrifts are brothers of the evil ones; and the evil one is to his Lord (himself) ungrateful.

And even if thou hast to turn away from them pursuit of the mercy from thy Lord which thou dost expect, yet speak to them a word of easy kindness.

Make not thy hand tied (like a niggard’s) to thy neck, nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach, so that thou become blameworthy and destitute.

Verily thy Lord doth provide sustenance in abundance for whom he pleaseth, and he provideth in a just measure. For he doth know and regard all his servants.

Kill not your children for fear of want: we shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.

Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful (deed) and an evil, opening the road (to other evils).

Nor take life which Allah has made sacred except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand Visas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).

Come not nigh to the orphan’s property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength; and fulfil (every) engagement, for (every) engagement, will be enquired into (on the day of reckoning).

Give full measure when ye measure and weigh with a balance that is straight: that is the most fitting and the most advantageous in the final determination.
And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the day of reckoning).

Nor walk on the earth with insolence: for thou canasta not rend the earth asunder, nor reach the mountains in height.

Of all such things, the evil is hateful in the sight of thy Lord.

There are among the (precepts of) wisdom, which thy Lord has revealed to thee. Take not with Allah another object of worship. Lest thou shouldst be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.11

And says:

Say: come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from: join not anything as equal with him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want; we provide sustenance for you and for them; come not nigh to shameful deeds, whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.

And come not nigh to the orphan’s property, except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength; give measure and weight with (full) justice; no burden do we place on any soul, but that which it can bear; whenever ye speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned; and fulfill the Covenant of Allah: thus doth He command you, that ye may remember.

Verily, this is my way, leading straight: follow it: follow not (other) paths: they will scatter you about from his (great) path: thus doth He command you, that ye may be righteous.12

And says:

Say: “My Lord hath commanded Justice; and that ye set your whole selves (to Him) at every time and place of prayer, and call upon Him, making your devotion sincere as in His sight: Such as He created you in the beginning, so shall ye return.”

Some He hath guided: others have (by their choice) deserved the loss of their way; in that they took the Evil once, in preference to Allah, for their friends and protectors, and think that they receive guidance.

O Children of Adam Wear your beautiful apparel at every time and place of prayer: eat and drink: but wast not be excess, for Allah loveth not the wasters.

Say: who hath forbidden the beautiful (gifts) of Allah, which He hath produced for his servants, and the things, clean and pure, (which He hath provided) for sustenance? Say they are, in the life of this world, for those who believe, (and) purely for them on the day of judgment thus do we explain the Signs in detail for those who understand.13

These great teachings were preached by all the Prophets, and Muhammad(P) affirmed and displayed them in the best way. It is adequate when hearing these great teachings to believe in Muhammad(P) and know that he came to mankind with guidance and favour, commanding with good and forbidding evil, whether it is in words or deeds.

And Allah knows best.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Another Rational Approach To The Prophethood of Muhammad," in Bismika Allahuma, December 16, 2007, last accessed September 25, 2022, https://bismikaallahuma.org/muhammad/another-rational-approach-prophethood-muhammad/
  1. Sura Al-Hajj, verse 15 []
  2. Sura Al-Haqqah, verses 44-47 []
  3. Rev. George Bush, The Life of Mohammed; Founder of The Religion of Islam, and of The Empire of The Saracens, published by Harper & Brothers, 1844, pp. 156-157 []
  4. Sura Al-Saffat, verses 171-173 []
  5. Sura Ghafir, verse 51 []
  6. Sura Al-Hajj, verse 40 []
  7. Sura Al-Nour, verse 55 []
  8. Sirat Ibn Hisham, Biography of the Prophet, abridged by Abdus-Salam M. Harun. Translated and Published by Al-Falah Foundation, page 58 []
  9. Sura Al-Baqarah, verse 143 []
  10. Sura Al-Anbiyaa, verse 107 []
  11. Sura Al-Israa, verses 23-39 []
  12. Sura Al-An’am, verses 151-153 []
  13. Sura Al-A’raf, verses 29-32 []
Categories
Book Reviews

A Jewel It’s Not: Review of “The Jewel of Medina: A Novel” by Sherry Jones

Journalist Sherry Jones, the Montana and Idaho correspondent for the international news agency the Bureau of National Affairs, maintains that she envisioned The Jewel of Medina, her fictionalized account of A’isha Abi Bakr, the child bride of Muhammad, as a “bridge builder.” But even before it was published, the novel became a casualty of the clash of civilizations.

After Denise Spellberg, associate professor of history and Middle Eastern studies at the University of Texas, assessed the manuscript as “a very ugly, stupid, piece of work” which turned sacred history into soft-core pornography and warned that publication could provoke violence, Ballantine Books, a division of Random House, consulted with security experts and then negotiated an agreement with Jones to terminate their $100,000 two-book contract.

Amid allegations of self-censorship and the suppression of free speech, two publishing houses – Beaufort Books in the US (whose list includes O.J. Simpson’s If I Did It) and Gibson Square in Great Britain – announced they would rush the novel into print. On September 27, the home of Martin Rynja, publisher of Gibson Square, was fire-bombed. Nonetheless, The Jewel of Medina has been – or will be – published in at least 15 countries.

The novel isn’t worth the attention it’s getting. As reliable, historically, as Disney’s Aladdin and the King of Thieves, The Jewel of Medina is a “chick lit” feminist tract, painted in purple prose. Then — and now — Jones’s A’isha claims, centuries after her death, “girls turn away because they don’t know the truth… That none of us is ever alive until we can shape our destinies. Until we can choose.”

Not your typical seventh-century Muslim maiden, A’isha begins her crusade against marital rape before she’s 10. She vows never to be “the poor girl underneath,” enduring “a woman’s life” with “downcast eyes and nary a whimper of complaint.” She’ll fight back — and if her husband doesn’t like it, “he could divorce me and I wouldn’t care. I’d rather be a lone lioness, roaring and free, than a caged bird without even a name to call my own.”

Then Jones goes phallic. Summoned to meet the prophet, A’isha hesitates, closing her eyes and taking a deep breath: “My future awaited on the other side – a fate chosen by others, as though I were a sheep or a goat fatted for this day.” Her mother pulls the curtain away: “What are you waiting for? Ramadan?”

“No more fighting with sticks,” Muhammad tells her, in a bedroom filled with wooden soldiers, dolls, a jump rope and a sword. “I will teach you how to use the real thing.” As the prophet’s eyes changed, “as if catching flame,” the little girl waited for “the scuttling hands, the stinging tail… Soon I would be lying on my bed beneath, squashed like the scarab beetle, flailing and sobbing while he slammed himself against me. He would not want to hurt me, but how could he help it?”

Jones believes that The Jewel of Medina portrays Islam as, at bottom, an “egalitarian religion” and Muhammad as a “gentle, wise and compassionate” leader, who respected women, especially his wives. Thanks to the prophet, A’isha suggests, women could “inherit property, testify in hearings and write provisions for divorce into their wedding contracts.”

But the gender politics of the novel is, at best, confused. And Jones’s Muhammad has feet of clay. A man of physical passion, he is seduced by power, making strategic alliances through marriage. Muhammad changes Allah’s law at will and whim. Intent on marrying the wife of his adopted son, he declares that “we have been in error all these years.” Since Zayd does not carry his blood in his veins, “why should I hesitate?” In another self-indulgent about-face, he annuls the edict limiting a harem to four wives. And by ordering females to cover their faces, A’isha concludes, the prophet transforms himself “from a liberator of women into an oppressor of them.”

The Jewel of Medina is a platform for the propositions of the politically correct, circa 2008. An unmarried woman in Medina in 625 “with no family to support her and no skills,” A’isha claims, had only two prospects: begging and prostitution. As she walks through a tent city with the mother of the poor, the child-bride chides herself for moping while people struggled to survive. She drapes her wrapper around the shoulders and head of a child in tattered clothing to protect her “tender face” from the sun. “From now on,” A’isha concludes, “when I heard others denigrate the tent people as I’d once done, I’d make sure to tell them of their pride and dignity.”

You don’t know whether to laugh or cry. As she confesses in the “afterword” – and demonstrates in the novel with asides about gowns that “plunge down to the navel” and off-shoulder garments “that burst open like springtime” when the wearer dismounts a camel – Sherry Jones doesn’t know what it was like to be alive and a woman in seventh-century Arabia. She may have “huge respect and regard for the Muslim faith,” but she doesn’t display much knowledge about Islam, either. It’s an outrage that publication of this book – or any book – was held hostage to threats of violence. But as a work of historical fiction The Jewel of Medina is a non-precious stone that ought to be allowed to sink without a trace.

The writer is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University.
Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "A Jewel It’s Not: Review of “The Jewel of Medina: A Novel” by Sherry Jones," in Bismika Allahuma, November 30, 2008, last accessed September 25, 2022, https://bismikaallahuma.org/book-reviews/jewel-review-jewel-medina-sherry-jones/
Categories
Op-Ed Polemical Rebuttals

Splitting Hairs, The “Jochen Katz” Way

In continuation of their tradition of belligerency, Answering Islam has posted an early reaction in objection to our publishing of Han Kung on the Prophet Muhammad(P). There are several issues in this reaction by Jochen Katz, the de facto dictator of Answering Islam, that needs to be pointed out and corrected.

We shall briefly respond to each of the allegations, which are:

  • Jochen Katz seems to come to too fast a conclusion in assuming that I (MENJ) have exclusive control of Bismika Allahuma‘s editorial policies. We do not know how he runs things at his website, nor do we care about it. It should be stated right here from the start that Bismika Allahuma is an online collaboration of several Muslim individuals who are concerned about the deen and wish to see a site facilitating their rebuttals to the Christian and anti-Islamic forces on the Internet. Bismika Allahuma does not revolve around one individual by the name of “MENJ”. We run things here in accordance to a shura’, Muslim consultation. This is not my personal site, which can be accessed here. Katz needs to stop imposing his Nazi heritage on us in equating Bismika Allahuma with “MENJ” and “MENJ” with Bismika Allahuma as, save for the fact that I have indeed co-founded this site with a partner, this project is not my own and I assume no control over it, unlike how Katz may be safely assumed to have dictatorial control over his website.
  • Jochen Katz takes issue with a simple sentence: “the Christian opinion on Prophet Muhammad(P)“. We have never said that Kung’s opinion represent all Christians or that Kung’s words is the sole canonical authority that all Christians must follow. Katz must have been reading too much into the text. Again, how things are run at Bismika Allahuma is totally different from how Katz with his dictatorship run things at his website. However, to satisfy Katz’s ego and to make our explanation clearer, we have reworded the text. We hope that Katz will no longer have any complaints about how the sentence was worded.
  • Since Katz have wasted his (and our) time complaining about such a minor issue about whether Kung is speaking on behalf of “THE Christian” community or one of the various diverse Christian opinions, we will not be bothered to address the rest of his polemical diatribe. As usual, Katz loves to split hairs and as a testament to his undying hatred of the Prophet Muhammad(P), tries to cast doubt on the scholarly credentials of Hans Kung. Now, we know who Hans Kung is, and he is a well-known authority who is often invited to speak at universities in the Muslim World. Now who is one obscure (Nazi!) German mathematician by the name of “Jochen Katz” is, compared to the world-renowned Catholic theologian1 by the name of Hans Kung?
  • Lastly, Katz decides to beat a dead horse by preaching about the so-called “falsehood” of the Prophet Muhammad(P). Since Katz was so hung up about Kung’s glowing tribute to the Prophet Muhammad(P) and questioned Kung’s “representation” of the Christian community2, may we be justified in saying that Katz’s opinion is only one opinion and does not represent ALL Christians in their opinion of the Prophet(P)?

With this brief assessment, we end our response here. See also The Küng Controversy: An Analysis of Jochen Katz’s Recent Tirade. And only Allah knows best!

The author is the co-founder and executive editor of Bismika Allahuma.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Splitting Hairs, The “Jochen Katz” Way," in Bismika Allahuma, December 30, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022, https://bismikaallahuma.org/op-ed/splitting-hairs-jochen-katz/
  1. We believe that Katz has been making up stories in his polemic about the “non-Catholicity” of Hans Kung, as to the best our knowledge, Kung is still a Catholic priest and is introduced as such in every lecture he attends. According to his Wikipedia entry: “He [Kung] was not excommunicated and remains a Roman Catholic priest.” []
  2. Although we have never stated that this is so! []
Categories
Muhammad

Why Was the Prophet Polygamous?

Some critics of Islam have reviled the Prophet(P) as a self-indulgent libertine. They have accused him of character failings that are hardly compatible with being of average virtue, let alone with being a Prophet and God’s last Messenger, as well as the best model for humanity to follow. However, based on the easily available scores of biographies and well-authenticated accounts of his sayings and actions, it is quite clear that he lived the most strictly disciplined life, and that his marriages were part of the numerous burdens he bore as God’s last Messenger.

The reasons for his multiple marriages vary. However, all of them were related to his role as leader of the Muslim community, and his responsibility to guide the new Muslims toward the norms and values of Islam.

When Muhammad(P) was 25, before he was called to his future mission, he married Khadija, his first wife. Given the surrounding cultural environment, not to mention the climate and such other considerations as his youth, it is remarkable that he enjoyed a reputation for perfect chastity, integrity, and trustworthiness. As soon as he was called to Prophethood, he acquired enemies who did not hesitate to raise false calumnies against him?but not once did any of them dare invent something unbelievable about him.

Khadija was 15 years his senior. This marriage was very high and exceptional in the eyes of the Prophet and God. For 23 years, their life was a period of uninterrupted contentment in perfect fidelity. In the eighth year of Prophethood, however, she passed away, leaving the Prophet(P) as the sole parent of their children for 4 or 5 years. Even his enemies are forced to admit that, during these years, they can find no flaw in his moral character. The Prophet(P) took no other wife during Khadija’s lifetime, although public opinion would have allowed him to do so. When he began marrying other women, he was already past 55, when very little real interest and desire for marriage remains.

How could a Prophet be polygamous? This question is often asked by people without any religion, or by Jews and Christians. In respect to the first group, they have no right to reproach people who follow a religious way of life. Their own conduct with the opposite sex follows nothing but their own desire, regardless of what they say. They do not worry about the consequences of such liaisons to themselves, to the resulting children, or how their loose behavior impacts young people in general. Viewing themselves as free, they engage in such condemned practices as homosexuality and, even more extreme (but hopefully limited), incest, pedophilia, and multiple male/female partners (meaning that the child’s true father is unknown). Such people criticize the Prophet(P) only to drag others down to their own level.

Jews and Christians who attack the Prophet(P) for his polygamy do so out of their fear and jealous hatred of Islam. They forget that the great Jewish patriarchs, called Prophets in the Bible and the Qur’an and revered by the followers of all three faiths as exemplars of moral excellence, all practiced polygamy on a far greater scale.

Polygamy did not originate with the Muslims. Furthermore, in the case of the Prophet this practice has far more significance than people generally realize. In a sense, the Prophet(P) had to be polygamous to transmit his Sunna (the statutes and norms of Islamic law). As Islam covers every part of one’s life, private spousal relations cannot remain untouched. Therefore, there must be women who can guide other women in these matters. There is no room for the allusive language of hints and innuendos. The chaste and virtuous women of the Prophet’s household were responsible for explaining the norms and rules of such private spheres to other Muslims.

Some of the Prophet’s marriages were contracted for specific reasons:

  • Since his wives were young, middle-aged, and old, the requirements and norms of Islamic law could be exemplified in relation to their different life stages and experiences. These were learned and applied first within the Prophet’s household, and then passed on to other Muslims by his wives.
  • Each wife was from a different clan or tribe, which allowed the Prophet to establish bonds of kinship and affinity throughout the rapidly expanding Muslim community. This also enabled a profound attachment to him to spread among all Muslims, thereby creating and securing equality and brotherhood in a most practical way and on the basis of religion.
  • Each wife, both during and after the Prophet’s life, proved to be of great benefit and service to the cause of Islam. They conveyed his message and interpreted it to their clans: the outer and inward experience, and the qualities, manners, and faith of the man whose life was the embodiment of the Qur’an?Islam in practice. In this way, all Muslims learned about the Qur’an, hadith, Qur’anic interpretation and commentary, and Islamic jurisprudence, and so became fully aware of Islam’s essence and spirit.
  • Through his marriages, the Prophet(P) established ties of kinship throughout Arabia. This gave him the freedom to move and be accepted as a member in each family. Since they regarded him as one of their own, they felt they could go to him in person and ask him directly about this life and the Hereafter. The tribes also benefited collectively from their proximity to him: they considered themselves fortunate and took pride in that relationship, such as the Umayyads (through Umm Habiba), the Hashimites (through Zaynab bint Jahsh), and the Bani Makhzum (through Umm Salama).

What we have said so far is general and could, in some respects, be true of all Prophets. However, now we will discuss the life sketches of Ummahat al-Mu’minin (the mothers of the believers), not in the order of the marriages but from a different perspective.

    Khadija was the Prophet’s(P) first wife. As mentioned above, she married him before his call to Prophethood. Even though she was 15 years his senior, she bore all of his children, except for Ibrahim, who did not survive infancy. Khadija was also his friend, the sharer of his inclinations and ideals to a remarkable degree. Their marriage was wonderfully blessed, for they lived together in profound harmony for 23 years. Through every trial and persecution launched by the Makkan unbelievers, she was his dearest companion and helper. He loved her very deeply and married no other woman while she was alive.

    This marriage is the ideal of intimacy, friendship, mutual respect, support, and consolation. Though faithful and loyal to all his wives, he never forgot Khadija and mentioned her virtues and merits extensively on many occasions. He married another woman only 4 or 5 years after Khadija’s death. Until that time, he served as both a mother and a father to his children, providing their daily food and provisions as well as bearing their troubles and hardships. To allege that such a man was a sensualist or driven by sexual lust is nonsensical.

    ‘A’isha was the daughter of Abu Bakr(R), his closest friend and devoted follower. One of the earliest converts, Abu Bakr(R) had long hoped to cement the deep attachment between himself and the Prophet(P) through marriage. By marrying ‘A’isha, the Prophet accorded the highest honor and courtesy to a man who had shared all the good and bad times with him. In this way, Abu Bakr and ‘A’isha acquired the distinction of being spiritually and physically close to the Prophet.

    ‘A’isha proved to be a remarkably intelligent and wise woman, for she had both the nature and temperament to carry forward the work of Prophetic mission. Her marriage prepared her to be a spiritual guide and teacher to all women. She became one of the Prophet’s major students and disciples. Through him, like so many Muslims of that blessed time, her skills and talents were matured and perfected so that she could join him in the abode of bliss both as wife and as student.

    Her life and service to Islam prove that such an exceptional person was worthy to be the Prophet’s wife. She was one of the greatest authorities on hadith, an excellent Qur’anic commentator, and a most distinguished and knowledgeable expert on Islamic law. She truly represented the inner and outer qualities and experiences of Prophet Muhammad(P). This is surely why the Prophet(P) was told in a dream that he would marry ‘A’isha. Thus, when she was still innocent and knew nothing of men and worldly affairs, she was prepared and entered the Prophet’s household.

    Umm Salama of the Makhzum clan, was first married to her cousin. The couple had embraced Islam at the very beginning and emigrated to Abyssinia to avoid persecution. After their return, they and their four children migrated to Madina. Her husband participated in many battles and died after being severely wounded at the Battle of Uhud. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar proposed marriage to her, aware of her needs and suffering as a destitute widow with children to support. She refused, believing that no one could be better than her late husband.

    Some time after that, the Prophet(P) proposed marriage. This was quite right and natural, for this great woman had never shied from sacrifice and suffering for Islam. Now that she was alone after having lived many years in the noblest Arabian clan, she could not be neglected and left to beg her way in life. Considering her piety, sincerity, and what she had suffered, she certainly deserved to be helped. By marrying her, the Prophet(P) was doing what he had always done: befriending those lacking in friends, supporting the unsupported, and protecting the unprotected. In her present circumstances, there was no kinder or more gracious way of helping her.

    Umm Salama also was intelligent and quick to understand. She had all the capacities and gifts to become a spiritual guide and teacher. When the Prophet(P) took her under his protection, a new student to whom all women would be grateful was accepted into the school of knowledge and guidance. As the Prophet was now almost 60, marrying a widow with many children and assuming the related expenses and responsibilities can only be understood as an act of compassion that deserves our admiration for his infinite reserves of humanity.

    Umm Habiba was the daughter of Abu Sufyan, an early and most determined enemy of the Prophet and supporter of Makkah’s polytheistic and idolatrous religion. Yet his daughter was one of the earliest Muslims. She emigrated to Abyssinia with her husband, where he eventually renounced his faith and embraced Christianity. Although separated from her husband, she remained a Muslim. Shortly after that, her husband died and she was left all alone and desperate in exile.

    The Companions, at that time few in number and barely able to support themselves, could not offer much help. So, what were her options? She could convert to Christianity and get help that way (unthinkable). She could return to her father’s home, now a headquarters of the war against Islam (unthinkable). She could wander from house to house as a beggar, but again it was an unthinkable option for a member of one of the richest and noblest Arab families to bring shame upon her family name by doing so.

    God recompensed Umm Habiba for her lonely exile in an insecure environment among people of a different race and religion, and for her despair at her husband’s apostasy and death, by arranging for the Prophet to marry her. Learning of her plight, the Prophet sent an offer of marriage through the king Negus. This noble and generous action was a practical proof of: “We have not sent you save as a mercy for all creatures” (21:107).

    Thus Umm Habiba joined the Prophet’s household as a wife and student, and contributed much to the moral and spiritual life of those who learned from her. This marriage linked Abu Sufyan’s powerful family to the Prophet’s person and household, which caused its members to re-evaluate their attitudes. It also is correct to trace the influence of this marriage, beyond the family of Abu Sufyan and to the Umayyads in general, who ruled the Muslims for almost a century.

    This clan, whose members had been the most fanatical in their hatred of Islam, produced some of Islam’s most renowned early warriors, administrators, and governors. Without doubt, it was this marriage that began this change, for the Prophet’s depth of generosity and magnanimity of soul surely overwhelmed them.

    Zaynab bint Jahsh was a lady of noble birth and a close relative of the Prophet(P). She was, moreover, a woman of great piety, who fasted much, kept long vigils, and gave generously to the poor. When the Prophet arranged for her to marry Zayd, an African exslave whom he had adopted as his son, Zaynab’s family and Zaynab herself were at first unwilling. The family had hoped to marry their daughter to the Prophet. But when they realized that the Prophet had decided otherwise, they consented out of deference to their love for the Prophet and his authority.

    Zayd had been enslaved as a child during a tribal war. Khadija, who had bought him, had given him to Muhammad(P) as a present when she married him. The Prophet had freed immediately him and, shortly afterwards, adopted him as his son. He insisted on this marriage to establish and fortify equality between the Muslims, and to break down the Arab prejudice against a slave or even freedman marrying a free-born woman.

    The marriage was an unhappy one. The noble-born Zaynab was a good Muslim of a most pious and exceptional quality. The freedman Zayd was among the first to embrace Islam, and he also was a good Muslim. Both loved and obeyed the Prophet, but they were not a compatible couple. Zayd asked the Prophet(P) several times to allow them to divorce. However, he was told to persevere with patience and not separate from Zaynab.

    But then one day Gabriel came with a Divine Revelation that the Prophet’s marriage to Zaynab was a bond already contracted: “We have married her to you” (33:37). This command was one of the severest trials the Prophet, had yet had to face, for he was being told to break a social taboo. Yet it had to be done for the sake of God, just as God commanded. ‘A’isha later said: “Had the Messenger been inclined to suppress any part of the Revelation, surely he would have suppressed this verse.”

    Divine wisdom decreed that Zaynab join the Prophet’s(P) household, so that she could be prepared to guide and enlighten the Muslims. As his wife, she proved herself most worthy of her new position by always being aware of her responsibilities and the courtesies proper to her role, all of which she fulfilled to universal admiration.

    Before Islam, an adopted son was considered a natural son. Therefore, an adopted son’s wife was considered as a natural son’s wife would be. According to the Qur’anic verse, former “wives of your sons proceeding from your loins” fall within the prohibited degrees of marriage. But this prohibition does not apply to adopted sons, for there is no real consanguinity. What now seems obvious was not so then. This deeply rooted tribal taboo was broken by this marriage, just as God had intended.

    To have an unassailable authority for future generations of Muslims, the Prophet had to break this taboo himself. It is one more instance of his deep faith that he did as he was told, and freed his people from a legal fiction that obscured a biological, natural reality.

    Juwayriya bint Harith the daughter of Harith, chief of the defeated Bani Mustaliq clan, was captured during a military campaign. She was held with other members of her proud family alongside her clan’s “common” people. She was in great distress when she was taken to the Prophet(P), for her kinsmen had lost everything and she felt profound hate and enmity for the Muslims. The Prophet understood her wounded pride, dignity, and suffering; more important, he understood how to deal with these issues effectively. He agreed to pay her ransom, set her free, and offered to marry her.

    When the Ansar and the Muhajirun realized that the Bani Mustaliq now were related to the Prophet by marriage, they freed about 100 families that had not yet been ransomed. A tribe so honored could not be allowed to remain in slavery. In this way, the hearts of Juwayriya and her people were won. Those 100 families blessed the marriage. Through his compassionate wisdom and generosity, the Prophet(P) turned a defeat for some into a victory for all, and what had been an occasion of enmity and distress became one of friendship and joy.

    Safiyya bint Huyayy was the daughter of the chieftains of the Jewish tribe of Khaybar, who had persuaded the Bani Qurayza to break their treaty with the Prophet(P). From her earliest days, she had seen her family and relatives oppose the Prophet(P). She had lost her father, brother, and husband in battles against the Muslims, and eventually was captured by them.

    The attitudes and actions of her family and relatives might have nurtured in her a deep desire for revenge. However, 3 days before the Prophet(P) reached Khaybar, she dreamed of a brilliant moon coming out from Madina, moving toward Khaybar, and falling into her lap. She later said: “When I was captured, I began to hope that my dream would come true.” When she was brought before the Prophet(P) as a captive, he set her free and offered her the choice of remaining a Jewess and returning to her people, or entering Islam and becoming his wife. “I chose God and his Messenger” she said. Shortly after that, they were married.

    Elevated to the Prophet’s household, she witnessed at first hand the Muslims’ refinement and true courtesy. Her attitude to her past experiences changed, and she came to appreciate the great honor of being the Prophet’s wife. As a result of this marriage, the attitude of many Jews changed as they came to see and know the Prophet(P) closely. It is worth noting that such close relations between Muslims and non-Muslims can help people to understand each other better and to establish mutual respect and tolerance as social norms.

    Sawda bint Zam’ah ibn Qays was the widow of Sakran. Among the first to embrace Islam, they had emigrated to Abyssinia to escape the Makkans’ persecution. Sakran died in exile, and left his wife utterly destitute. As the only means of assisting her, the Prophet, though himself having a hard time making ends meet, married her. This marriage took place some time after Khadija’s death.

    Hafsa was the daughter of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the future second caliph of Islam. This good lady had lost her husband, who emigrated to both Abyssinia and Madina, where he was fatally wounded during a battle in the path of God. She remained without a husband for a while. ‘Umar desired the honor and blessing of being close to the Prophet in this world and in the Hereafter. The Prophet honored this desire by marrying Hafsa to protect and to help the daughter of his faithful disciple.

Given the above facts, it is clear that the Prophet(P) married these women for a variety of reasons: to provide helpless or widowed women with dignified subsistence; to console and honor enraged or estranged tribes; to bring former enemies into some degree of relationship and harmony; to gain certain uniquely gifted men and women for Islam; to establish new norms of relationship between people within the unifying brotherhood of faith in God; and to honor with family bonds the two men who were to be the first leaders of the Muslim community after his death. These marriages had nothing to do with self-indulgence, personal desire, or lust. With the exception of ‘A’isha, all of the Prophet’s wives were widows, and all of his post-Khadija marriages were contracted when he was already an old man. Far from being acts of self-indulgence, these marriages were acts of self-discipline.

Part of that discipline was providing each wife with the most meticulously observed justice, dividing equally whatever slender resources he allowed for their subsistence, accommodation, and allowance. He also divided his time with them equally, and regarded and treated them with equal friendship and respect. The fact that all of his wives got on well with each other is no small tribute to his genius for creating peace and harmony. With each of them, he was not only a provider but also a friend and companion.

The number of the Prophet’s wives was a dispensation unique to him. Some of the merits and wisdom of this dispensation, as we understand them, have been explained. All other Muslims are allowed a maximum of four wives at one time. When that Revelation restricting polygamy came, the Prophet’s marriages had already been contracted. Thereafter, he married no other women.

This article was originally published at Fethullah Gulen’s website.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Why Was the Prophet Polygamous?," in Bismika Allahuma, October 13, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022, https://bismikaallahuma.org/muhammad/why-was-the-prophet-polygamous/
Categories
Islam Muhammad Polemical Rebuttals

Response To “Muhammad as Al-Amin (the Trustworthy): How His Enemies Really Viewed Him” And The Christian Missionaries

It has become a habit for some to publish responses to any paper dealing with the issue of Islam, its truthfulness and the falsehood of other religions. This is particularly true of the Christian missionaries as such people do not care whether they provide an efficient responses or not; all they care about is to respond, regardless of the outcome. Is this reaction an idiotic one? Well, we cannot claim that it is a stupid strategy; because it is always useful to show your followers that you are able to respond and speak loudly, drowning other voices. The psychological factor is after all always important here. But what is glaring indeed are the content of such “responses” because the writer tries to show that he is competent in the field when in actual fact he is totally unqualified.

This lack of qualification was especially glaring when it appeared in a recent Christian missionary article, allegedly “responding” to the article titled A Rational Approach To The Prophethood of Muhammad, the writer of this “response” made grave errors that does not suit a writer who respects himself and his readers. So since he has made such errors, he should know that he is not just a stupid person, he is a disrespected individual as well.

The first of these errors is the failure to comprehend the argument of his opponent. Any answer to a paper is based upon the arguments of the former. If you answer arguments which are not present in a paper, you have not “answered” the paper.

Are the above words easy to understand?

I want to make my words as simple as I can in order not to make my opponent misunderstand me again. We are commanded to convey the Message of Allah to all people in a clear and concise manner without any confusion or misunderstanding whatsoever.

The writer quoted some Qur’anic verses showing that the disbelievers belied the Prophet(P) and denied his Message, and used them to prove that the disbelievers viewed him as a liar. Then he advances in his response to say that “if their testimony is reliable enough to support Muhammad’s integrity then the unbelievers are also a good enough source to call his character into question”, and “the issue here is not whether what the unbelievers said was correct, but whether the Muslim assertion that even the disbelievers praised Muhammad’s honesty is true”, and “After all, they are the ones appealing to the statements of the disbelievers to prove that Muhammad was a trustworthy person.”

This clearly indicates that he has failed to comprehend my argument, for I argued that the disbelievers regarded Muhammad(P) as a truthful person who does not lie and from whom they never experienced any lie from. However, they belied him in the matter of Prophethood and revelation.

“This contradictory attitude of the disbelievers was the reason why they deserved God’s punishment in the end; they knew that Muhammad(P) was a truthful person and that he never told a lie. However, they disbelieved in him and vigorously rejected his Message”, I said.

The position of the disbelievers was inconsistent; that was what was mentioned. You cannot belie any person without proof, let alone of someone who never told a lie in his life.

This is the argument that the writer failed to understand, and our scholars say:

Do not answer anyone till you understand his words; for this distracts you from answering him to answering others and confirm your ignorance, but understand him. If you understand him, answer him, and do not rush to answer before you ask (for clarification) and do not be ashamed of asking before you answer; for answering before understanding is idiocy.1

Also, the writer of the response in question fell in a major logical fallacy which is generalization; he isolated the texts showing that the disbelievers belied the Prophet(P) in the matter of Message, as if I denied them and their significance, and generalized them to claim that the disbelievers viewed him(P) as a liar in addition to rejection of texts showing that his truthfulness and honesty were something agreed upon among his(P) contemporaries.

Anyway it was not expected from Christians to evade logical fallacies, for they are known for their incoherent faith and illogical beliefs. But it is ironic indeed that the people who do not even know how to transmit a report attack the authentic reports transmitted by Muslim scholars from generation to generation with utmost care and accuracy.

The Scriptures of People of the Book were transmitted by unknown individuals on the authority of unknown people on authority of unknown people, etc., until we are told that these are God’s Words! They do not know how to transmit a report, let alone how to evaluate it. However, they still have the audacity to criticize authentic Muslim reports.

Truthful indeed is the saying of Ahmad ibn Salam al-Faqeeh:

“Nothing is heavier and more hated to people of disbelief than hearing the Hadith and its narration with isnad i.e., chain of transmission.”2

Again, ponder upon the following report which was quoted in the previous article:

It is reported on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that when this verse was revealed:” And warn thy nearest kindred” (and thy group of selected people among them) the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) set off till he climbed Safa’ and called loudly: Be on your guard! They said: Who is it calling aloud? They said: Muhammad. They gathered round him, and he said: O sons of so and so, O sons of so and so, O sons of ‘Abd Manaf, O sons of ‘Abd al-Muttalib, and they gathered around him. He (the Apostle) said: If I were to inform you that there were horsemen emerging out of the foot of this mountain, would you believe me? They said: We have not experienced any lie from you. He said: Well, I am a warner to you before a severe torment. He (the narrator) said that Abu Lahab then said: Destruction to you! Is it for this you have gathered us? He (the Holy Prophet) then stood up, and this verse was revealed:” Perish the hands of Abu Lahab, and he indeed perished” (cxi. 1). A’mash recited this to the end of the Sura.3

In the above report, it is noted that the Prophet Muhammad(P) had gathered all people of Mecca before him, then he asked them about his credibility before them; he said: “If I were to inform you that there were horsemen emerging out of the foot of this mountain, would you believe me?” This question is a test of his credibility and reliability in the eyes of his people, he asked them about a very illogical event, if he told them that it is true, would they believe him in such an illogical claim, that “there were horsemen emerging out of the foot of this mountain”?

The answer was: “We have not experienced any lie from you” indicating that his truthfulness and credibility among his people were at the highest levels.

However, when he informed them about his Message, they did not retract their testimony, instead they abused him saying:

“Destruction to you! Is it for this you have gathered us?”

This shows that his truthfulness was something agreed upon among his people and contemporaries.

Yes, they belied him in the Message and disbelieved in him, but this shows none but their incoherence. This is the reason why they were humiliated and defeated by Allah’s Aid in their lives and in the Hereafter.

Even after many years of his Mission, they did not retract their testimony to him with truthfulness as the conversation between Heraclius and Abu Sufyan shows.

Presence of those who disbelieve in Prophets does not discredit them; in fact it indicates that worldly desires, bias and greed can make some people reject presence of shining sun in the sky!

In a report related by Ibn Ishaq in his Sira, al-Akhnas ibn Shurayq asked Abu Jahl:

“O Abu Al-Hakam! What is your opinion about what you heard from Muhammad”. Abu Jahl said: “We competed with Bani `Abd Manaf (the Prophet’s subtribe) and so we fed as they fed and gave away as they gave away. So, when we were neck and neck with them, just as two horses in a race, they said: There is a Prophet from among us, to whom revelation from the heaven comes.’ So how can we ever beat them at that? By Allah we will never believe in him or accept what he says.4

This indicates that worldly desires and tribal bias were the reasons as to why the disbelievers rejected the Message of Muhammad(P). This is indicated in another report related by Al-Hakim, that Abu Jahl met the Prophet(P) and said:

“We do not belie you, but we disbelieve in what you came with”. Then, Allah revealed: {It is not you that they belie, but it is the verses of Allah that the wrongdoers deny} Sura Al-An’am, verse 33.5

Ibn Kathir says:

{It is not you that they belie, but it is the verses of Allah that the wrongdoers deny} means, they do not accuse you of being a liar,{but it is the Verses of Allah that the wrongdoers deny} It is only the truth that they reject and refuse.6

Many people know the truthfulness of any person with no need to miracles, this is due to the fact that they know this person’s habits and manners, so they can recognize his truthfulness or falsehood. For example, when Moses came to Egypt and said to Aaron and others that God sent him, they knew he was truthful before he did any miracles, and when he asked Aaron to support him, Aaron believed him because he knew him and his manners very well.

Also, when the Prophet(P) told his wife Khadijah about the revelation, she knew that he is truthful and believed in him. The same took place with Abu Bakr, Zaid ibn Harithah and others, for they knew his truthfulness in revelation due to what they knew about his truthfulness and honesty.

This is a case of a truthful honest person who said something peculiar to either a highly truthful man or a wicked liar, and he is known to be the first, not the second.

Those who disbelieved in the Prophet(P) are either ignorant people who did not know his truthfulness and honesty or arrogant people who followed their worldly desires. The elite of Quraish disbelieved the Prophet (peace be upon him) to keep their leadership and their followers disbelieved him in obedience of their leaders as God tells us in many verses of the Qur’an.

Their disbelief was not due to a proof of falsehood, for such a proof never existed. Actually, there are evidences that they knew his truthfulness and disbelieved in him out of worldly desires as we mentioned before in the conversation of Abu Jahl and Al-Akhnas ibn Shurayq.

In brief, it is well known that someone who is famous for truthfulness and honesty and known for not lying at all, is not expected to change his personality suddenly and become a liar against God without any cause.

Even if he did, this would appear in his habits and personality.

The writer of the response had no answer to this argument but[!], but I realized that the Christian missionaries and their ilkare not accustomed to see or meet truthful or honest people, they are surrounded by lying, cheating and dishonesty; ‘Abdullah Sa’d, a former Arab Christian tells us in his book Kont Nasranyan, i.e., “I Was Christian”, how Christian missionaries will lie, cheat and deceive others in order to convince them to accept Christianity and how they employ the most belligerent methods in order to do so.7

Therefore it is too much to ask such people to imagine presence of a truthful honest religious person, the same way it is too much to ask a layman of the 13th century to believe that we can save entire books on CDs.

For such people, truthfulness, honesty and high moral standards are not qualifications for Prophethood and Messengership; it is acceptable for them that the messenger of God is an enemy to God and his followers and an outward disbeliever, then he becomes messenger or apostle all of a sudden!

The other argument is that “how could a person who never told a lie about others ever tell a lie about Allah?”

As Allah says:

“Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah, or saith, I have received inspiration, when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, I can reveal the like of what Allah hath revealed?”8

And says:

And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand, And We should certainly then cut off the artery of his heart.9

And says:

What! Do they say, He has forged a falsehood against Allah? But if Allah willed, He could seal up thy heart, and Allah blots out Vanity, and proves the Truth by His Words. For He knows well the secrets of all hearts.10

Predictably, no answer to this argument was available.

In fact, the writer of the response failed to show us any sound responses to these arguments. Instead, he denied the undeniable fact of truthfulness of the Prophet(P) and showed me the incoherence of enemies of Islam when they are confronted with what they call “typical argument often made by Muslim polemicists”.

Subhanallah!

Another error made by the writer of the response was his claim that “God provided supernatural verification that these prophets and messengers were speaking on his behalf, showing that the claims of the disbelievers were false. Muhammad, on the other hand, failed to provide any supernatural confirmation that he was speaking on behalf of God.”

These are two errors here, in fact: the first is his claim that the Prophet(P) had no miracles, and the second is his claim that the proof of Prophethood are miracles only.

As to the miracles of the Prophet(P) they are so many like splitting of the moon, multiplication of food and water, crying of the tree stump, etc. They are as undeniable as shining sun.

But if the writer runs to the same argument of “All the records that we do have were written by Muslims, and even these were produced long after Muhammad’s death” and “these Islamic reports are suspect since Muslims have/had the tendency of fabricating stories and statements in order to make Islam’s prophet look much better”, then we will ask him to produce his proof of prophethood of Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist or any prophet he believes in, and it will be shown to him that whatever the method he proves their prophethood with, I’ll prove the prophethood of Muhammad(P) by the same method, but in a stronger and clearer way.

This is our open challenge to the writer of this response who wanted to answer me on this specific topic.

The other error is that supernatural events are a definite proof of truthfulness; for we see that devils, sorcerers and pagan priests do miracles. How can you distinguish them from miracles done in name of God?

This is actually a fatal question to Christians because they have no distinction. They pay no attention to the Message carried by the Messenger or his teachings whether they are identical to teachings of other Prophets of God or not. Suppose that a man claimed he is a prophet and preached polytheism, worship of idols, lewdness, lying, injustice, etc. Would such a person be asked for a miracle or doubted to be a liar? Even if he produced supernatural events, they would be considered works of the devil.

Teachings of the Prophets and Messengers are very well-known, so when Muhammad(P) came with preaching God’s worship, destruction of idols, belief in the Hereafter, chastity, ruthfulness, honesty and kindness to relations, it was accepted that he was preached what all the Prophets and Messengers before him preached.

But Christians have a different story, it is acceptable for them that a disbeliever suddenly claims revelation and preaches association of partners to God, abolishment of all God’s Laws and faith-only doctrine. Then, they follow this disbeliever in violation of all teachings of Prophets. This proves that Christians are stupid, ignorant people who knew neither the Prophets nor their teachings.

Moving on to other allegations, we find that the writer of the response quoted reports mentioning the permission of the Prophet(P) to some Sahaba (i.e., Companions of the Prophet) to tell a lie in certain circumstances as a proof that truthfulness was not a character of his. This indicates to me that the writer is a biased and dishonest person (in addition to him being an obtuse and stupid individual!), for he ignored the overwhelming evidences that show that Islam preaches truthfulness and honesty and forbids lying and dishonesty, and quoted reports without explanation of their meanings or asking Muslims to explain them for him.

When he failed to capture a single proof that the Prophet(P) ever told a lie, he tried to run away by quoting these reports about Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf and Al-Hajjaj ibn ‘Ilat which we will discuss shortly, insha’Allah.

It is well known about the religion of Islam that it preaches truthfulness and prohibits lying as all Prophets of God did before him, as God says in the Holy Qur’an:

“O ye who believe! Fear Allah and be with those who are true (in word and deed)”11

The Prophet(P) said:

“Truthfulness leads to righteousness, and righteousness leads to Paradise. And a man keeps on telling the truth until he becomes a truthful person. Falsehood leads to Al-Fujur (i.e. wickedness, evil-doing), and Al-Fujur (wickedness) leads to the (Hell) Fire, and a man may keep on telling lies till he is written before Allah, a liar.”12

The Prophet(P) said:

“The signs of a hypocrite are three:

1. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.
2. Whenever he promises, he always breaks it (his promise ).
3. If you trust him, he proves to be dishonest. (If you keep something as a trust with him, he will not return it.)”13

The Prophet(P) said:

“Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up.

1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays.
2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.
3. Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous.
4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner.”14

Moreover, Arabs considered lying as an ugly character even before Islam, despite their practice of idol worship, adultery and alcohol drinking, they refrained from lying. The proof is the report of Abu Sufyan and Heraclius and the saying of Abu Sufyan:

“By Allah! Had I not been afraid of my companions labelling me a liar, I would not have spoken the truth about the Prophet.”15

Ibn Hajar commented:

“This is a proof that lying was ugly before them. His saying (labelling) instead of (belying) indicates that he was sure they would never belie him if he lied because of their animosity of the Prophet, but he refrained from this because he was ashamed that they would report his words when they returned back, so those who would hear this would label him as a liar. This is even clear in the report of Ibn Ishaq, its wording is “By Allah! If I lied, they would never belie me, but I was a notable man refraining from lying, I knew that the least of it – if I lied – is that it would be reported about me and transmitted to all people, so I did not tell a lie”.

Imam An-Nawawi commented:

“It means that if I had not been afraid of my companions reporting my lies to my people and talking about it in my homeland, I would have lied to him due to my hatred and animosity (against the Prophet). This indicated that lying is as ugly in Jahillyyah as in Islam”.16

As for the report of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf in which Muhammad ibn Maslama took permission of the Prophet (peace be upon him) to tell a lie, this is specific to this occasion because it is related to the state of war and deceiving the enemy during war. This is the reason why Imam Al-Bukhari titled this hadith with (Chapter of Deceit in War), as the Prophet(P) said: “War is deceit”.17

It is agreed that no sane person would want to be truthful to his enemy who works to destroy him and plots to eliminate him. Deceit of the enemy is not only permissible, but also favourable. This ruling is confined only to war state. Objection to such principle is not just unwise but is plain stupidity as well!

Imam An-Nawawi said:

“Scholars agree on permissibility of deceiving the disbelievers in war in any possible way, unless this leads to break of a treaty. In this case it is unlawful.”18

The same applies to Al-Hajjaj ibn ‘Ilat, in addition to the fact that he feared the disbelievers would kill him while he was going to collect his money from them. This is because human life is very precious in our religion and Islam preaches its preservation and protection. So, whenever one encounters a life-threatening condition, it is permissible for him to save his life in any possible way unless he threatens others’ lives. This is a huge topic discussed in textbooks of Islamic Law and we may briefly talk about it in another occasion.

In addition, it must be noted that each of Muhammad ibn Maslama and Al-Hajjaj ibn ‘Ilat was keen to take permission of the Prophet(P) before they told a a lie to the disbelievers. This act has great significance; for if lying was permissible and the usual case in the Prophet’s(P) teachings, they would not have asked for his permission in the first place and they would go and commit lies directly. Asking the Prophet(P) before lying against the enemy indicates that lying and deception is primarily prohibited in Islam.

May Allah (T) save us from those who practice guile and deception!

Before we go on to deal with the obtuse Christian missionary who wrote a “response” to our article on the truthfulness of the Holy Prophet(P) including all sorts of incoherent arguments and dim reasoning in addition to his scandalous lack of understanding of his opponent’s argument, thinking that I was appealing to the disbelievers’ opinion in Muhammad’s prophethood, we are going to show how perfidy and breach of faith are utterly prohibited in Islam and how the Prophet(P) was a living example of this prohibition.

Sahih Muslim, Book 19: Jihad and Expedition, Chapter 4: Prohibition (Denunciation) of Breach of Faith

Number 4301:

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When Allah will gather together, on the Day of Judgment, all the earlier and later generations of mankind, a flag will be raised (to mark off) every person guilty of breach of faith, and it will be announced that this is the perfidy of so and so, son of so and so (to attract the attention of people to his guilt).

Number 4302:
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ibn Umar through some other Chains of transmitters.

Number 4303:
This hadith has been narrated by another chain of transmitters on the authority of the same narrator, with the wording: Allah will set up a flag for every person guilty of breach of faith on the Day of Judgment, and it will be announced: Look, this is the perfidy of so and so.

Number 4304:
Ibn Umar reported that he heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) saying: There will be a flag for every perfidious person on the Day of Judgment.

Number 4305:
‘Abdullah reported Allah’s Prophet (may peace be upon him) as saying: There will be a flag for every perfidious person on the Day of Judgment, and it would be said: Here is the perfidy of so and so.

Number 4306:
This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Shu’ba with a slight variation of wording.

Number 4307:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: There will be for every perfidious person on the Day of Judgment a flag by which he will be recognised. It will be announced: Here is the breach of faith of so and so.

Number 4308:
Anas reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said this: There would be a flag for every perfidious person on the Day of Judgment by which he will be recognised.

Number 4309:
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Sa’id that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: On the Day of Judgment there will be a flag fixed behind the buttocks of every person guilty of the breach of faith.

Number 4310:
It is narrated on the authority of Abu Sa’id that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: On the Day of Judgment there will be a flag for every person guilty of the breach of faith. It will be raised in proportion to the extent of his guilt; and there is no guilt of treachery more serious than the one committed by the ruler of men.

Imam An-Nawawi comments: “These Hadiths display the severity of prohibition of perfidy”19

Under the topic of Keeping the Covenant, Imam Muslim relates the following tradition:

It has been reported on the authority of Hudbaifa b. al-Yaman who said: Nothing prevented me from being present at! he Battle of Badr except this incident. I came out with my father Husail (to participate in the Battle), but we were caught by the disbelievers of Quraish. They said: (Do) you intend to go to Muhammad? We said: We do not intend to go to him, but we wish to go (back) to Medina. So they took from us a covenant in the name of God that we would turn back to Medina and would not fight on the side of Muhammad (peace be upon him). So, we came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and related the incident to him. He said: Both, of you proceed (to Medina) ; we will fulfil the covenant made with them and seek God’s help against them.20

This hadith shows how the Prophet(P) was keen to keep the covenant of the disbelievers although he was going to war and needed every soldier. We have previously quoted Imam An-Nawawi saying: “Scholars agree on permissibility of deceiving the disbelievers in war in any possible way, unless this leads to break of a treaty. In this case it is unlawful”.21 This means that keeping the covenant is prior to any other ruling even during war.

Another glaring example of keeping the covenant is the story of Abu Jandal during stipulation of treaty of Hudaibyyah with Suhail ibn ‘Amru:

…Suhail said, “We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever comes to you from us, even if he embraced your religion.” The Muslims said, “Glorified be Allah! How will such a person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim? While they were in this state Abu- Jandal bin Suhail bin `Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, “O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me.” The Prophet said, “The peace treaty has not been written yet.” Suhail said, “I will never allow you to keep him.” The Prophet said, “Yes, do.” He said, “I won’t do.: Mikraz said, “We allow you (to keep him).” Abu Jandal said, “O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don’t you see how much I have suffered?”

Abu Jandal had been tortured severely for the Cause of Allah. `Umar bin Al-Khattab said, “I went to the Prophet and said, ‘Aren’t you truly the Apostle of Allah?’ The Prophet said, ‘Yes, indeed.’ I said, ‘Isn’t our Cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?’ He said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘Then why should we be humble in our religion?’ He said, ‘I am Allah’s Apostle and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious.’22

Here we see that the Prophet(P) made a peace treaty with Quraish in which it was stipulated that if anyone came to him from them as a Muslim, he would return him, but if anyone came to them from him, they would not return him. This is the reason why he returned Abu Jandal to his people although he embraced Islam.

The same situation took place with Abu Rafi’ who was an emissary from Quraish to the Prophet(P) and embraced Islam. Abu Rafi’ said: “Quraish sent me to him and Islam entered my heart and I said: “Oh, Messenger of Allah! I will not return.” But he(P) said: “I will not break an agreement and I will not detain an emissary; go back to them, then if there is still in your heart that which is there now, you may return.”23

This is the attitude and guidance of the Prophet(P) regarding treaties and covenants with others, it is authentically reported that he said: “When one has a covenant with people he must not loosen or strengthen it till its terms comes to an end or he brings it to an end in agreement with them.”24

And said: “Whoever guaranteed the safety of a man and then killed him, I disavow the killer.” And it is reported that he said: “Whenever a people violate an agreement, the enemy will triumph over them.”25

We have the entire biography of the Prophet(P), where is it mentioned that he ever broke an agreement or violated a treaty?

However, the inane Christian writer of the response brings the issue of expiation of oath as a proof that the Prophet(P) broke his word!

For me, the foolishness of this writer is a well-established fact. But we want to show this to the readers; he brought some reports from Sahih Bukhari talking about expiation of oath thinking that they mean that the Prophet(P) broke his words, ignoring the fact that the expiation of oath was actually revealed in the Holy Qur’an, as Allah says:

“Allah has already ordained for you, the dissolution of your oaths (in some cases)”26

Al-Karmani said: “His saying {the dissolution of your oaths} means dissolving them by expiation.”27

And says:

“Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but he will call you to account for you deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths ye have sworn. But keep to your oaths. Thus doth Allah make clear to you his sign, that ye may be grateful.”28

So, if one makes an oath and then he regrets for it and wants to dissolve it, he expiates it. One example of cases in which one may regret for his oath is displayed by the Prophet(P) in the report of Al-Ash’aryyin quoted by the Christian writer in which the Prophet (peace be upon him) made an oath not to provide them with camels to mount on because he had none, then when he got camels, he gave them to the Ash’aryyin dissolving his previous oath and saying, “By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.”29

Another example is told in the report narrated by Abu Huraira that the Prophet(P) said: “By Allah, if anyone of you insists on fulfilling an oath by which he may harm his family, he commits a greater sin in Allah’s sight than that of dissolving his oath and making expiation for it.”30

And said: “”Anyone who takes an oath through which his family may be harmed, and insists on keeping it, he surely commits a sin greater (than that of dissolving his oath). He should rather compensate for that oath by making expiation.”31

Imam An-Nawawi, when commenting on the above reports, said as follows:

“These reports indicate that if someone makes an oath to do something or not to do it, and dissolving is better than fulfilling this oath, then dissolving is preferred and expiation is obligatory upon him. This is agreed upon.”32

Do we need to explain more that expiation of oath is quite far from lying or a breach of faith?

Anyway, if we excuse this writer for his slow understanding when bringing up the issue of expiation of oath, how can we do this in a totally irrelevant issue like taqiyyah? Have you ever seen such stupidity in involving anything relevant and irrelevant in the response?

He answers my basic fundamental argument by dragging in whatever comes to his mind and limited understanding — regardless whether relevant or irrelevant — in the response.

This is really pathetic!

As for taqiyyah, it is avoidance of harm of disbelievers by showing friendship to them. Imam Al-Baghawi says: “Taqiyyah is permissible only if one fears getting killed with his good intention, Allah says: {except under compulsion while his heart remains firm in Faith}. Moreover, it is merely permissible, if one stays firm till he is killed, he gains great reward (from Allah).”33

So, it is confined only for life-threatening conditions, contrary to others who teach it as a regular policy for preaching.

“And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law. To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake.”34

This is the reason why Christian missionaries deceive and cheat people during the process of preaching in order to bring them to Christianity, using very belligerent method as ‘Abdullah Sa’d, the former Christian, says.35

In the end, the Christian writer does not forget to praise his god, “the spotless Lamb of the Father”! It is amazing indeed to have a lamb as a god; so instead of eating it, they can worship it!

“These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings.”36

“… stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes”37

Seven horns and seven eyes! Is this the god they want us to worship?

No, it is not THE god, it is only one of gods they want us to worship; for their Scripture says:

“Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb”38

The poor writer wants us to disbelieve in Prophet Muhammad(P) and worship three gods: the Father, the Lamb and the Holy Spirit. It is something very different from Monotheism preached by all true Prophets and Messengers of God; for there is only One God with no lamb, no son and no partner.

‘Abdullah Sa’d, the former Christian writer, says:

“After long resistance and conflicts between my emotions and thoughts ,I decided to respect my mind and accept its convictions, so I said: God Whom I am looking for in the Scriptures is not present in the Gospel. Consequently, I quit or stopped searching for God in Christianity believing it is not a heavenly religion, and it is unimaginable to come from Great God due to much disorder and confusion in its creed and unacceptable parables which indicate limited thinking of its inventors.”39

Thus it is clear that:

“Say: O People of the Book do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in Allah, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?”40

In the end, we — the Muslims — bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God whom Allah sent to us to convey the Message before the Day of Judgement. We bear witness to this because he was a truthful person who had never told a lie neither during the period of Jahillyyah nor during the time of Islam. This leads us to primarily believe in him, especially since he preached the same which all true prophets and messengers of God had preached; God significantly made him victorious over his enemies.

We require whoever disbelieves in the Prophet(P) to bring a proof that he ever told a lie; for it is known that any claim must be founded upon proof.

The mere claim that Muhammad is not a prophet cannot stand on its own; you are required to bring evidence that he was not a prophet against what he said about himself.

If you ask us about proof, we will tell you that he was truthful and never told a lie either before or after revelation.

If you ask us about proof that he never told a lie, we answer that no person related that he ever told a lie despite the fact that his opponents had the motive to relate any lie from him. However, they did not.

If you argue that those who believed in him would never relate a lie from him out of religious bias and those who sympathized with him without belief would not do this out of sympathy, then how come those who opposed and fought him never related a single lie from him? On the contrary, they did directly bear witness that he does not lie and that they never experienced any lie from him.

Why did not they relate even a single lie from the Prophet(P)? The answer is obvious! This is because he actually never lied. If this is the case, why do not we believe in him and follow his Message especially he preached the same that all other prophets and messengers had preached. This is another proof of his Prophethood; for we know the Prophets and their teachings. So, if a person known for truthfulness and honesty claims Prophethood and preaches the same teachings of prophets, we know that he is one of them, i.e., the Prophets.

A third proof is the way God made him and his followers victorious over the disbelievers despite their small number the same way He (i.e., God) made other prophets victorious over their enemies like drowning of Pharaoh and his army when he followed Moses(P) and his people in the sea.

We will discuss these in a separate paper, insha’Allah. However, if you have any proof that Muhammad(P) is not a true prophet, bring forth your evidence if you are truthful. Otherwise, accept Islam to be saved from God’s punishment and the Hellfire.

We bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but Allah, and we bear witness that Muhammad is His Messenger.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Response To “Muhammad as Al-Amin (the Trustworthy): How His Enemies Really Viewed Him” And The Christian Missionaries," in Bismika Allahuma, November 21, 2007, last accessed September 25, 2022, https://bismikaallahuma.org/islam/response-to-muhammad-as-the-trustworthy/
  1. Ibn ‘Abdul-Barr, Jami’ Bayan Al-‘Ilm wa Fadluh, 1\148 []
  2. Ma’refah ‘Uloum al-Hadith, p. 4 []
  3. Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Chapter 87, Number 406 []
  4. Sira of Ibn Ishaq,1/389 []
  5. Al-Hakim, Al-Mustadrak, 2\315 []
  6. Tafsir Ibn Kathir, 3/155 []
  7. Confer ‘Abdullah Sa’d, Kont Nasranyan (I Was Christian), published by Dar al-Yaqin, p. 53 []
  8. Sura Al-An’am, verse 93 []
  9. Sura Al-Haqqah, verses 44-46 []
  10. Sura Al-Shura, verse 24 []
  11. Sura Al-Tawbah, verse 119 []
  12. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 73, Number 116 []
  13. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 32 []
  14. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 33 []
  15. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 6 []
  16. Sharh An-Nawawi of Sahih Muslim, 12/104 []
  17. Sahih Bukhari, Book 52, Number 68 on authority of Abu Hurairah and Number 69 on authority of Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah. []
  18. Sharh An-Nawawi of Sahih Muslim, 12/45 []
  19. Sharh An-Nawawi of Sahih Muslim, 12\44 []
  20. Sahih Muslim, Volume 6, Book 19, Chapter 34, Number 4411 []
  21. Sharh An-Nawawi of Sahih Muslim, 12/45 []
  22. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891 []
  23. Narrated by Abu Dawud and Ahmad, Abu Dawud said: “This took place during the time when it was a condition (of the treaty between the Muslims and the polytheists that if any of them came to him, he would return him to them”. []
  24. Narrated by Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and Ahmad. []
  25. Narrated by Al-Hakim. []
  26. Sura Al-Tahrim, verse 2 []
  27. Ibn Hajar Al-‘Asqalani, Fath Al-Bari, 19/85 []
  28. Sura Al-Ma’ida, verse 89 []
  29. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 620 []
  30. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 621 []
  31. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 621 []
  32. Sharh An-Nawawi of Sahih Muslim, 6\39 []
  33. Tafsir Al-Baghawi, 1/336 []
  34. 1 Corinthians 9:20-23 []
  35. ‘Abdullah Sa’d, ibid., p. 53 []
  36. Revelation 17:14 []
  37. Revelation 5:6 []
  38. Revelation 7:10 []
  39. ‘Abdullah Sa’d, ibid. []
  40. Sura Al-Ma’ida, verse 59 []