Muhammad Polemical Rebuttals

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

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

Magic Effect On The Prophet

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus Was Demon-Possessed

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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Will the Real “Demon-Possessed” Prophet Please Stand Up?," in Bismika Allahuma, September 20, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022,

Response to Sam Shamoun’s “Ishmael Is Not The Father of Muhammad”

The missionary Sam Shamoun has claimed that there is a discrepency in the traditions of Ishmael(P) being the ancestor of the Arabs and hence he(P) cannot be the father of Muhammad(P), as per the record of Muslim traditions. We aim to respond to this latest missionary polemic and at the same time we would like to address the abuse of this missionary’s citation from the translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, insha’allah.

Refutation to the Hypothesis

The missionary would like us to believe that the Arabs have no ancestral link to the Prophet Abraham(P) and his son, Ishmael(P). The reality is that scientists today have found a genetic link between the Arabs and the Jews, and hence this verifies the traditions that informs us that the Semitic people share a common ancestor. We read that:

…They found that grouping Jews and Arabs together – both are Semites – is based on genetic and well as historical and linguistic reality.1

This is further confirmed when in the Journal of Babylonian ExilArch, we are told that:

Jews and Arabs are extremely closely related, a new genetic survey has shown.

Wherever in the world they now live, Jewish men carry the same Y chromosome as Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese.

“Jews and Arabs are all really children of Abraham and all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years,” said one of the scientists involved. Harry Ostrer, director of the Human Genetics Programme at New York University School of Medicine. The team analysed regions of the Y chromosome in 1,371 men from 29 populations worldwide. The Y chromosome passes largely unchanged down the male line.

The results, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, show that the difference between Jewish and Arab populations is extremely small, considerably smaller than that between North and South African populations, for example. The study confirms that both Arabs and Jews owe their genes to a common ancestor population that predated the Jewish religion.2

Hence it is clear that modern scientific research conducted today has shown that the Arabs and the Jews are the descendants of Abraham(P) and hence we find it ludicrous to see the missionary denying this scientific evidence.

The missionary had constantly relied on a spurious quote from one W. Aliyyuddin Shareef, whereby it is claimed that the pre-Islamic Arabs do not recognise Ishmael(P) as the Father of the Arabs. On the contrary, a study of pre-Islamic poetry and Arab genealogical records provides one with convincing evidence that Ishmael(P) is indeed recognised as the Father of the Arabs.

For instance a pre-Islamic poet `Umaiya b. Abi as-Salt3 wrote a long ode in which he talks about Abraham(P) and his love for his “first-born”, i.e. Ishmael(P). One of his verses is:

    Bakrahu lam yakun laiyasbar unh aw yurahu fi ma’sher al-aqtaal
    (The sacrifice) of his first-born of whose separation he (Abraham) could not bear neither could he see him surrounded in foes.

Here, this pre-Islamic Arab poet clearly points to Ishmael(P) as the first-born of Abraham(P) and to his sacrifice.

Likewise to further strengthen our point, here is what A. J. Wensinck has to say in this regard:

Ishma’il is also considered the ancestor of the North Arabian tribes. In the Arab genealogies, the Arabs are divided into three groups: al-Ba’ida (those who have disappeared), al-`ariba (the indigenous) and al-musta’riba (the arabicised). Ishma’il is considered the progenitor of the last group, whose ancestor is Adnan.4

Further, we also read the following citation from Gesenius:

The missionary has kindly provided us with the genealogy of the Prophet Muhammad(P) in his article. We reproduce it here to facilitate easier elucidation of the matter.

    Prophet Muhammad- Abdullah- Abd Al Muttalib- Hashim- Abd Manaf- Qusaiy- Kilab (Ancestor of the Holy Prophet’s mother)- Murrah- Ka’b. Lu’ayy- Ghalib- Fihr- Malik- Al Nadr- Kinanah- Khuzaiymah- Mudrikah- Ilyas- Mudar- Nizar- Madd- `Adnan- Adad- Zayd- Yaqdud- Al Muqawwam- Al Yasa’- Nabt- Qaidar (Kedar)- Prophet Ismail (Alaihi Salaam)- Prophet Ibrahim (Alaihi Salaam)

Thus, it is clear that even within the Jewish traditions, Kedar, the son of Ishmael(P) and the father of `Adnan is exclusively linked to the Arabs. Indeed, until this very day, Muslims recite the following prayer in worship, as follows:

O Allah! Send Your Mercy on Muhammad and on his family [wives and his offspring], as You sent Your Mercy on Abraham’s family; and send Your Blessings on Muhammad and his family , as You sent Your Blessings on Abraham’s family, in the world, for You are the Most Praise-worthy, the Most Glorious. 6

Needless to mention, we suspect that it is probably the missionary’s inherent jealousy of how Muslims honour the Prophet Abraham(P) and his family which has probably spurred his perjurious claim in the first place!

Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah: Use and Abuse of Evidence

The missionary, as it is frequent throughout his writings, has again appealed to A. Guilaume’s translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, specifically, the outline of the genealogy7. In the near future, we aim to record the number of the misuse and abuse of this work by the missionary.

In the meantime, however, let us address this specific claim of this missionary regarding the genealogical sources.

His allegation is that:

    There are several problems with these genealogies. The first problem is the time span.

He then proceeds to cite from an atheist source, which is an inherent disease in the missionary agenda. The problem with citing this source is that if this system is effectively applied to the missionary’s own Bible, his Bible will also fall under examination. This is because if his source’s point is valid, it deals a much more heavier blow to Christianity than it does to Islam.

The criticism he quoted from the atheist source fits just as easily on the Biblical account as well, so if he agrees with his source, he would have to agree with the absurdity of his own Bible. The dating system is still very much the same.

In other words, if the source that the missionary Shamoun cites is correct, then the genealogies as they stand now are fabrications, so Muslims would have to throw out a couple of hadith from the 2nd century A.H., in favor of revised genealogies that put more people between Abraham(P) and Muhammad(P) and Abraham(P) and Adam(P).

The Christians, however, would have to throw out passages from their “inspired” Bible that deal with genealogies8. So in effect, if Shamoun’s source is correct, we would need to conclude that:

  • the writings of Ibn Ishaq are not infallible, and;
  • the Bible is not infallible.

This is a position that Muslims have already taken, but it is one that the Christian missionaries, most especially the missionary Sam Shamoun, might want to think twice about!


We have shown that the missionary claim is, at best, speculative. Modern scientific research has shown that Jews and Arabs share the same genes, and therefore hail from the same common ancestor.

Moreover, we have seen how the missionary has distorted the Islamic traditions, and we have seen his attempts to appeal to an atheistic source that badly backfires on him. “Truth is clear from error”, as the Qur’an has said, and we are grateful to the missionary for the demonstration of these very words!

And only God knows best.

The Christian missionary made a feeble attempt to reply to our observations above, which in our opinion has glossed over our major points. A short comment on that missionary attempt can be seen in Further Comments On “Ishmael Is Not The Father Of Muhammad” Revisited.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "Response to Sam Shamoun’s “Ishmael Is Not The Father of Muhammad”," in Bismika Allahuma, September 19, 2005, last accessed September 25, 2022,
  1. ABCNews, Jews, Arabs are brothers,
    genetic study shows
    [Online Document] []
  2. The Times (9 May 2000), Jews and Arabs United by Genes, The Journal of Babylonian ExilArch [Online Document] []
  3. cf. F. Sezgin: “GAS”, Band ii, seite 298-300, Leiden 1975 []
  4. “Isma’il” in Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Leiden 1954 []
  5. H. W. F. Gesenius, Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon, p. 724 []
  6. al-Hafiz Imam Ibnu Hajar al-‘Asqalaniy, Kitab Bulughul Maram, hadith no. 336 []
  7. A. Guilaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah (Oxford University Press, 1978), p. 3-4 []
  8. Various passages in the book of Genesis, Chronicles and Luke that deal with genealogies. []
Islam Muhammad Polemical Rebuttals

Further Comments On “Ishmael Is Not The Father of Muhammad” Revisited

This is a short response to the missionary’s ‘Ishmael Is Not the Father Of Muhammad’ Revisited. The basic premises of this travesty of the missionary claim has already been addressed in our original response. The reader is invited to read that response before delving deeper into the issue.

In this latest hilarity of their attempts to “sever” any genealogical bond between the Prophet Ishmael(P) and his descendant, Muhammad(P), this missionary has depended upon the so-called “contradiction” between the works of Ibn Kathir, Ibn Sa’ad and at-Tabari. Of course, it needs to be informed that a Muslim would never regard the works of these authors as truly infallible. This obsession with the need for “accurate data”, as the missionary is clearly diseased with, is hardly a matter of concern — much less a fundamental doctrine — for Muslims.

The missionary should be much more concerned with the genealogical difficulties that are found within the Bible1, a text which the missionary himself adhere and revere as the “Word of God”.

As we have shown in our previous article, there is no doubt that the Arabs even before Muhammad(P) have always regarded themselves as the descendants of Ishmael(P). This traditional belief is also further reinforced by a genetic study recently conducted, in which it is ascertained that both Jews and Arabs share the same hereditary genes.

In the end, the only correct conclusion that can be surmised from the evidences shown is that:

“…both Arabs and Jews owe their genes to a common ancestor population that predated the Jewish religion.”2

And only God knows best!

  1. Refer to Footnote 8 of our Response to Sam Shamoun’s “Ishmael Is Not The Father of Muhammad” []
  2. The Times (9 May 2000), Jews and Arabs United by Genes, The Journal of Babylonian ExilArch [Online Document] []
Islam Muhammad

The Psychological Impact of The Fatrah Experience

In their hasty attempt to obfuscate and attack anything that invalidates their claims regarding the Prophet’s(P) experiences during the period known as the Fatrah, the Christian missionary Sam Shamoun had released a verbal barrage of rhetorical nonsense in his (ridiculously-)titled “A Christian Perspective[!] of the Fatrah of Muhammad”.

Needless to mention, it is neither “Christian” nor it is balanced in its “perspective”, as the author simply remains true to the form of the missionary tradition. This is followed by the equally-messy strawman arguments by his cohort, “Silas”, in his comments to our exposition of the Fatrah.

We are not surprised that the missionaries have taken a keen interest in our work, since this shows that our elucidation of the matter must have sown a deep discord amongst these proclaimed enemies of the Prophet Muhammad(P) and Islam. Whoever is the enemy of Muhammad(P) is no doubt an enemy of ours, and we aim to stifle their tongues once and for all by addressing the claims that they have made, insha’allah.

Obfuscation: The Missionary Tradition

After bawling out nonsensical paragraphs of what we consider as having nothing to do with his alleged “Christian Perspective” of the Fatrah, Sam Shamoun claims:

    Does MENJ contest Silas’ claim that Muhammad thought he was demon-possessed? No. Does MENJ contest the fact that Muhammad attempted suicide on several occasions as a result of believing he was demon-possessed and/or because the spirit delayed in coming to him? No.

Perhaps the missionary had developed an acute sense of traumatic paranoia when he first wrote the above statement. We have shown previously that none of the reasons that the missionary had highlighted (namely, that the Prophet(P) “thought” he was demon-possessed) is correct. It is in fact stated that the reason the Prophet(P) had developed the so-called “suicidal tendencies” is because he was anguished that the Archangel Gabriel had not visited him for a period of time. Experiencing human emotions of anguish does not make one “demon-possessed”! To infer that just because we agree that the Prophet(P) had suffered from this anguish and therefore this “automatically” means that we support their allegations of the so-called “demon-possession” of the Prophet(P), is an outright lie and misrepresentation of our purpose in our explanation of the Fatrah experience.

That is not all. The missionary fantasies get even worse as he tries to desperately pit our sources against us, the very same sources that a priori lends support to our article!

    The most interesting part of all this is that MENJ’s own sources confirm Silas’ statements. For instance, MENJ cites authorities regarding the duration of Muhammad’s Intermission, and makes the inference that this period lasted no later than six months even though there is nothing in his sources that suggest this.

Perhaps it has not been clear to the missionary that the problem with their “Christian perspective” of the Fatrah is that they only wish to demean and denigrate any significance of this experience to the Prophet Muhammad(P). Their closet-minded blindness has failed to make them look at the bigger picture of the Fatrah and the mode of Revelation.

This will be further elucidated in the next section where we discuss the psychological impact of the experience, insha’allah.

What Do The Sources Really Say?

Next, the same missionary again bawls out irrelevant material which cites the “opinions” of some people who had thought the Prophet(P) had an encounter with a “demon” or was “demon-possessed”. It is no surprise as to why these people had thought so, as the mode of Revelation was virtually unknown in the consciousness of the pagan Arabs before the coming of Islam. As the pagan Arabs are not used to perceiving the phenomenon of wahy1, the prevailing superstition have connected the supernatural experiences of wahy with demons. Hence the missionary attempt at making a “connection” between two totally unrelated events is simply a desperate attempt at making a strawman and then knocking it down.

Interestingly, while this missionary was busy berating our appeal to Karen Armstrong and quoting a passage from her work which he claims “defeats” our position, his very same citation actually supports our above contention regarding the perception of the pagan Arabs on wahy!

Muhammad came to himself in terror and revulsion, horrified to think that he might have become a mere disreputable kahin whom people consulted if one of their camels went missing. A kahin was supposedly possessed by a jinni, one of the sprites who were thought to haunt the landscape and who could be capricious and lead people into error. Poets also believed that they were possessed by their personal jinni. Thus, Hasan ibn Thabit, a poet of Yathrib who later became a Muslim, says that when he received his poetic vocation his jinni had appeared to him, thrust him to the ground and forced the inspired words from his mouth. This was the only form of inspiration that was familiar to Muhammad….2

It is also perhaps a good idea to define once and for all the difference between a Prophet and a mere poet/shaman:

…there is also an essential and absolute difference between a Prophet and a poet. A poet is by nature an aff? what he says is sheer ifk, a word which does not necessarily mean a ‘lie’, but something which has no basis of haqq (reality) or ‘truth’, something that is not based on haqq. An aff? is a man who utters quite irresponsibly whatever he likes to say without stopping to reflect whether his own words have some real basis or not, while what a Prophet says is Truth, absolute haqq and nothing else. So that the A [God] -> B [Man] relation of prophetism, although it bears an outward and formal balance to the A [Man] -> B [Man] relation of shamanism, has an essentially different structure from the latter.3

Further, it is also interesting to note that Armstrong had correlated the experience of Muhammad(P) with what the Hebrew prophets called kaddosh, acknowledging at the same time that the reason that Muhammad(P) was brought to “suicide” was not because he was “demon-possessed”, but because he had no prior experience or knowledge of the Semitic tradition of Revelation to support him:

Now, rushing from the cave, he resolved to fling himself from the summit to his death. But on the mountainside he had another vision of a being which, later, he identified with the angel Gabriel:

When I was midway on the mountain, I heard a voice from heaven saying, “O Muhammad! Thou art the apostle of God and I am Gabriel”…

…This was no pretty naturalistic angel, but an overwhelming ubiquitous presence from which escape was impossible. Muhammad had had that overpowering apprehension of numinous reality, which the Hebrew prophets had called kaddosh, holiness, the terrifying otherness of God. They too had felt near to death and at a physical and psychological extremity when they experienced it. But unlike Isaiah or Jeremiah, Muhammad had none of the consolations of an established tradition to support him. The terrifying experience seemed to have fallen upon him out of the blue and left him in a state of profound shock. In his anguish, he turned instinctively to his wife, Khadija.4

This clearly refutes the missionary position on misrepresentation of evidence. The rest of his “explaining away” regarding the experiences of the Biblical Prophets, it should be noted, does not serve to prove his point other than to reaffirm Armstrong’s position above. Refer to our original article which summarises the experiences of the Hebrew Prophets.

The missionary Silas presents an, even more, sillier case, inclusive of the ad hominem.

In totally misrepresenting our article, he only lends credence to the criticism in our conclusion that this missionary only:

…resort[s] to nothing but perjury in order to put forward his claims. At best, the missionary claim is merely a devious attempt at highly-speculative misinterpretations and mendacious assumptions, with the utter disregard to the deeper significance of the Fatrah…

Basically, he parrots the same filthy allegations of Shamoun, albeit in a more voracious manner that can only be described as “vicious” (i.e., finding so-called “contradictory” statements that are actually complementary to one another!), and rewords his statements that generally reflects the same basic assumption that the both of them share, i.e. that the reason for the so-called “suicide attempt” was that the Prophet(P) had thought that he was demon-possessed. We have earlier addressed above why this basic assumption of the missionary is not tenable, especially in light of our exposition on the matter.

As for his appeal to the false (and unhistorical) tradition of ‘Abu Afak, this has been addressed here.

It is clear that these missionaries should seriously consider getting themselves admitted to a psychiatry ward for curing their mental anguish and Islamophobia. For each time the name “Muhammad” is mentioned, the hair bristles on their neck, their teetg start gnashing and they shamelessly assault the Prophet’s(P) good name by appealing to fatuous theories and false accounts of history.

The Psychological Significance of the Fatrah

The missionaries are clearly desperate in their attempt to discredit the mode of the wahy phenomenon. They have even gone so far as to say that so-called “similarities” with shamanism is, therefore, evidence that the Prophet(P) was merely demon-possessed!

This clearly reminds us of the following Qur’anic verse which exonerates him of this charge:

“And (O People!) Your Companion is not one possessed; and without doubt he saw him [Gabriel] in the clear horizon.” (Qur’an lxxxi 22-23)

Hence one cannot help but be gratuitously offended when the filthy missionary makes empty claims such as:

    I believe that this was a time in which Satan continued to strive for domination over Muhammad’s mind and soul. This was a Satanic jihad. Muhammad struggled with what he knew was happening, was confused, and could not cope. His conscience told him something terrible had happened and he tried to address the pain through suicide. But Satan deceived him into thinking that perhaps he truly was a prophet. Slowly Satan took control.

To reciprocate in the same manner would make us stoop as low as to the level of the missionary mentality, therefore we would not dance to their tune.

Having said that, however, it would be a good idea to discuss excerpts from Malik Ben Nabi’s The Qur’anic Phenomenon5, which actually analyses and refutes criticisms similar to the ones alleged by the missionaries.

Discussing the psychological impact of the Fatrah on the Prophet(P), Ben Nabi rhetorically asks:

…towards his fortieth year one finds Muhammad with a dominant, painful preoccupation: he doubts. He doubts not God – his belief in this respect was never to be shaken, but he doubts himself. We might as why and how this doubt come to his mind. Why, in the course of his contemplation, did he finds the shadow of his person, the specter of his “me” standing out at the far end of his religious meditation, suddenly becoming its central point?6

He then answers that:

Without giving us an entire explanation for Muhammad’s doubt, the verse and biographical detail cited showed, nonetheless that this doubt does not result from a temporary hope, from an egocentric insanity, or from a hyperthrophy of the Muhammad “me”. One is obliged to see it as the consequence of an accidental subjective condition in which the Prophet found himself with the pre-knowledge, the foreboding of something extraordinary concerning his destiny.7

In other words, one can pinpoint that the reason for the mental anguish of the Prophet(P) is due to this serious doubting of self, having not known the reasons of this foreboding. This due to the fact that the phenomenon of Revelation was an entirely unknown concept to the nomad Arabs at the time.

Muhammad had had that overpowering apprehension of numinous reality, which the Hebrew prophets had called kadosh, holiness, the terrifying otherness of God. They too had felt near to death and at a physical and psychological extremity when they experienced it. But unlike Isaiah or Jeremiah, Muhammad had none of the consolations of an established tradition to support him. The terrifying experience seemed to have fallen upon him out of the blue and left him in a state of profound shock. In his anguish, he turned instinctively to his wife, Khadija.8

This should answer the missionary’s boastful challenge, namely that:

    Come MENJ, bring forth your proof! Can MENJ meet the challenge? Of course he can’t. None of the Biblical prophets experienced what Muhammad experienced and none of them reacted the way Muhammad reacted.

So the reason why none of them had “reacted” in a similar manner is partly due to the fact that the Biblical prophets had assurances in their tradition, while the Prophet(P) did not.

Further, it is also clear that:

His shock upon receiving the first revelation and his amazement concerning the sudden commission which he received in the form of an order in the second revelation, mark for us the two psychological states which are especially interesting for the study of the Qur’anic phenomenon with relation to the Muhammadan “me”.

One should note that the condition of this “me” between the two crises and the two outcomes in question was never marked by a messianic hope, but only by a search for a state of grace, seen vaguely at the time of the first revelation. We should also note Muhammad’s desperate effort during this time to recover his mental self-possession.

The above facts indicate the independent nature of the Qur’anic phenomenon with reference to our subject – the “me” of Muhammad. One has to admit that the second revelation occured so long after the first that it could not have been lying merely in the subconscious of a man who had tried neither to contain nor to repress this phenomenon but, on the contrary, had strained to encourage its manifestations with all of his will and being. These psychological details gives us all the reasons necessary for Muhammad’s accepting his mission as a commission coming from God.9

Hence it can be said that such an experience cannot be merely the product of a subconscious mind. For the missionaries to convince us that the Prophet(P) had indeed “suffered” experiences that are not dissimilar to shamans, poets or the “demon-possessed”, they must show that Ibn Khaldun’s Theory of Prophecy cannot be generally applied to the Biblical Prophets, and is hence null and void. See our appendix for further details.

The above exposition is sufficient to repel the rancour of the missionaries, the stench of their rhetorical fantasies and the incessant whining of their claims that Satan was responsible for the experiences of the Prophet(P)!

On the contrary, it is, in fact, clear that:

Muhammad certainly had in this collection of personal facts a subject for reflection – at least at the beginning of his mission. He could not have avoided considering these events as constituting objective facts, unique to his case, though insufficient in themselves as a basis for a firm conviction regarding the nature of his mission. This conviction would come only through the formulation of the Qur’an.10


We believe that we have made a strong case in having exonerated the Prophet(P) from all the charges and defamation by these two known fanatical characters in the “Answering Islam” camp by discussing, in brief, the psychological impact of the Fatrah. Hence

…Muhammad’s belief in his sincerity was in fact genuine and not a product of illusions and hallucinations. This is not a simple undertaking, because it amounts to the verification and substantiation of the entire body of doctrines, rites and practices of Islam. However, we can make the following statement in this connection: the strongest proof of the sincerity of Muhammad’s belief in the Divine nature of his mission is the Qur’an itself. Its noble language and teachings, its lofty moral directives, the exciting and revealing accounts which it conveys of former nations, their prophets and anti-prophets, their fates and fortunes, the information which it contains about things to come and the fore-knowledge which it conveys about a diversity of subjects – these are some of the considerations which make it extremely unrealistic to pronounce it a product an an outcome of a hallucinatory and illusory vision.11

We seek the protection of God from the missionaries’ fanaticism and bigotry, from the evils within their hearts and from the fitna’ which they spread with their tongues. We also beseech Him that He may always strengthen our resolve to stiffle the tongues of those who oppose Him and His Apostle.

And only God knows best!

Appendix: Ibn Khaldun Theory of Prophecy

From shamanism to the poet Hassan ibn Thabit, the missionaries had constantly amused us with their constant jumping from one nefarious postulation to another. In his section, “OPEN CHALLENGE TO MENJ”, the missionary has also attempted to resort to devious trickery by asking rhetorical questions which serve no other purpose other than to ridicule, hence showing that their actions all border on insanity.

Below is a reproduction12 of a discussion regarding Ibn Khaldun’s theory of prophecy that defines the experiences of a true Prophet of God, and hence invariably refutes the missionary agenda.

In his Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun gives both diagnosis and criteria for prophecy. The diagnosis consists of an ingenious description of the phenomenon of prophecy. In remarkably elegant style, he discusses the nature of the prophetic experience, giving a metaphysical exposition of its various signs and symptoms. The criteria, on the other hand, consists of traits and properties which are alleged to be useful in distinguishing between genuine and spurious prophets. As the leading Muslim sociologist, Ibn Khaldun believes that prophets are both chosen and prepared for their prophetic role by Providence, the essence of this role being to communicate Divine guidance to their respective peoples. The essence of Divine guidance is to acquaint man with his happiness and bliss in the Hereafter.

But first, let us see how Ibn Khaldun characterizes the prophetic experience.

    The Nature of Prophetic Experience

    (i) For Ibn Khaldun, the prophetic experience is essentially a kind of trance, a sudden leap, from the human level of consciousness to that of the Divine order. In this trance or leap the ordinary human cognitive powers are drastically transformed so that the subject undergoing the experience becomes able to partake of the perception and understanding of the Divine order.

    (ii) This transformation is described by him as a momentary exchange of the human consciousness with pure angelic consciousness, uninhibited by the mediation of the human body. As a result of this exchange or transformation, the subject becomes totally immersed in the spiritual medium of the realm of the angels. The subject becomes, momentarily that is, part and parcel of that higher realm and thus becomes able to partake in its activities, its perceptions and experience.

    (iii) At the termination of the prophetic experience, which normally takes the form of a trance, the subject returns to the ordinary human condition. However, he does not lose or forget the experiences and the perception which he attained whilst in the higher realm. He retains them in an exceptionally vivid manner as if engraved on his heart. This ability to memorize things perceived in visionary trances, is achieved by the subject during the training which he receives in preparation for his imminent prophetic role.

    (iv) By a process rather similar to translation but whose precise nature is unknown, the mystical content of the experience is rendered comprehensible in ordinary human discourse.

    (v) The prophetic role consists in communicating the content of prophetic experience to the people, rationally and completely unchanged. This material provides Divine guidance to the people and the conveying of this guidance is the very essence of the prophetic role.

    (vi) The actual transformation which makes the prophetic subject possible is quite painful and exhausting to the subjectwho shows visible signs of fatigue and hardship.

    Criteria For Recognizing A Genuine Prophetic Experience

    (i) True prophets experience a trance which can be described as follows:

    It is not a state of unconsciousness, nor is it a failure of physical or mental powers. The agent does not exhibit any signs of suffering from mental or physical illness. And quite definitely it is not any form of epileptic unconsciousness. The agent experiencing the trance becomes unaware of his surroundings, like someone asleep.

    Like a sleeping person who is experiencing some kind of unusual dream, the agent exhibits visible signs of fatigue and hardship. These include (i) heavy breathing, (ii) sweating heavily, and (iii) loud snoring. According to Ibn Khaldun, the fatigue and hardship is due to “an immersion in (and) encounter with the spiritual kingdom, the result of perception congenial to them but entirely foreign to the (ordinary) perception of men”.

    (ii) Even before receiving Divine Revelation the would-be prophets are recognizable as good and innocent persons, naturally averse to any reprehensible or sinful actions. This is to say that they are immune from sin and vice. This is the well-known doctrine of ‘Ismah (or infallibility) with which all true prophets are endowed. Prophets, that is truly inspired prophets, are by nature disposed to avoid and shun blameworthy actions as if such actions are the negation of their very nature.

    (iii) True prophets are also recognizable by the honest and sincere means which they employ to spread their messages. They use Divine worship and prayer, observe chastity and practise alms-giving. They are kind and sympathetic to the depressed and the underprivileged and dispense justice and equity to all people and under all circumstances. They are neither wealthy nor status seekers. Nor are they possessed by any craving for power or influence. Above all they desire and seek to impart Divine guidance at any cost to all members of their respective peoples.

    (iv) They must enjoy the support of some powerful group. This support is necessary because it serves as a buffer that protects them against their antagonists and gives them a measure of security which enables them to carry out their Divine mission.

    (v) All true prophets produce miracles, accompanied by some advance challenge of some sort. The challenge is in many cases made by their antagonists who seek to deny, belie and upset their prophetic claims. The prophets then produce the miracles both as answers to these challenges, and furthermore, as attestations to the truth and sincerity of their claims.

Our Challenge To The “Dumb and Dumber” Christian Missionaries

Based on the above we now throw back the “challenge” into the missionaries’ faces and ask them to prove that

    (a) Ibn Khaldun’s Theory of Prophecy cannot be applied to the Biblical prophets;
    (b) Can be applied to the experiences of shamans, poets and “demon-possessed” (including the “suicidal individuals”) that the missionaries have listed.

Of course, it is obvious that they cannot. The Theory of Prophecy highlighted above can only be generally applied to the Biblical prophets’ experience, and it is exactly what Muhammad himself had experienced. To discredit the Theory of Prophecy is to discredit the nature of Revelation as experienced by their own Biblical Prophets. Hence, the missionaries are handed back their own challenge.

  1. Toshihiku Izutsu, God And Man In The Qur’an (Islamic Book Trust, Kuala Lumpur, 2002), pp. 169-175. For a discussion of the Qur”ac concept of wahy (Revelation) and its linguistics, see Toshihiku Izutsu, ibid., p. 178ff. []
  2. Karen Armstrong, A History of God, (Ballantine Books, NY, 1994) p. 137 []
  3. Toshihiku Izutsu, op. cit., p. 186 []
  4. ibid., pp. 137-138 []
  5. Malik Ben Nabi (translated by Abu Bilal Kirkary), The Qur’anic Phenomenon (Islamic Book Trust, 1991) []
  6. ibid., p. 54 []
  7. ibid. []
  8. Karen Armstrong, op. cit., pp. 137-138 []
  9. ibid., p. 58 []
  10. Malik Ben Nabi, op. cit., pp. 77-78 []
  11. Zakaria A. Bashier, The Meccan Crucible (FOSIS, 1978), p. 97 []
  12. Adapted from Zakaria A. Bashier, ibid., pp. 82-85 []
Bible Contradictions Internal Contradictions Of The Bible The Bible

An Eye-Opening Biblical Narration

The following is one of the most interesting Biblical stories I have come across. I thought I’d share it with the readers. Many Christians such as in the likes of Sam Shamoun, Craig Winn and others simply love going around bad-mouthing the Qur’an, saying that it contains “perverted, nonsensical teachings”.

Let us have a glimpse of their “sensical” Bible.

“And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham [is] the father of Canaan. These [are] the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread. And Noah began [to be] a husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine and was drunken, and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid [it] upon both their shoulders, and went backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces [were] backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.1

Before I proceed further I would like to state for the record that Muslims are utterly shocked and offended that the Bible portrays great messengers of God as low-live drunkards.

Coming back to the story, notice how the story says Ham, THE FATHER of Canaan. This is rather interesting. Seems like it’s trying to prove or lead to something.

In summary, Noah became drunk and dropped naked in his tent. Ham, Noah’s second son found him in that state and told his brothers about it. According to many Biblical experts, Ham didn’t just tell his brothers about it, he also laughed at his father’s state. This is considered as an offence to Noah and is the reason why Noah made the curse. The two other sons Shem and Japheth were ashamed of their father’s nakedness and covered him without looking. When Noah gained consciousness, he knew what Ham did and started cursing, “And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

Did you catch the joke?

Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.

Ham had four sons2: Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan.

When the narration is analysed, a question arises “who was responsible for looking at Noah’s nakedness?” The answer is Ham. Christians argue that the action of Ham was a sin, hence the curse. For the sake of argument, we agree. Yet, who was responsible and thereafter cursed? Ham was responsible, but, who was made to pay? Was it Ham? No. Canaan, an innocent little child, was made to pay for the error of Ham. The father who is responsible was reprieved and the son who’s innocent was punished. Furthermore, why was Canaan out of four siblings singled out? Is this justice or madness?

Can you imagine something like that happening today? I love analogies, so let us have one :

James has four children. He committed murder. He is apprehended, brought to court and is found guilty. The judge decided that the punishment is the “injection”, i.e. death. However, the injection is given to his youngest son and he, in turn, is released without cost.

Once again, is this justice or madness? I leave the verdict to the readers.3

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "An Eye-Opening Biblical Narration," in Bismika Allahuma, December 14, 2007, last accessed September 25, 2022,
  1. Genesis 9:18-25, KJV []
  2. Genesis 10:6 []
  3. In addition, how is this strange tale reconciled in light of the following:

    “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” (Deuteronomy 24:16) []

Christianity Jesus Polemical Rebuttals

A Counter-Challenge to Sam Shamoun and the Christian Missionaries

Recently Sam Shamoun, a well-known belligerent and provocative Christian missionary at Answering Islam, issued a “challenge” to Muslims to prove that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not claim to be God, as per the Qur’anic statement. His challenge is two-fold:

    (1) Challenging Muslims to show where in the Qur’an Jesus says he is not God or not the Son of God.


    (2) to bring the Aramaic phrase where Jesus disavows his claim to divinity.

It is obvious, however, that his demands are as preposterous as they are stupid. The Qur’an certainly quotes or paraphrases Jesus as saying that he is not God.1 and the Qur’an denies that he is a Son of God2, but in Arabic. This is because the Qur’an has affirmed itself to be revealed in Arabic text3, sent down to an Arab prophet, lest its audience uses the excuse that they will not be able to understand the Qur’an if were brought down in a foreign tongue.

Furthermore, unlike the Bible, the Qur’an is not a historical document written over the centuries by numerous scribes who were “inspired” and was later compiled into a book. The Qur’an is an Arabic text in nature and has always been in Arabic, therefore there is no need to bring an actual statement. To demand that the words of Jesus(P) be quoted in its original language would be akin to asking an English philosopher to quote the words of Confucius in his original Chinese language to a totally American audience who does not understand Chinese!

However, since Sam Shamoun has brought this needless issue up, we would like to issue a counter-challenge to the veracity of his claims. Perhaps we might be inclined to accept his premise, and even acknowledge that Jesus is indeed “God in the flesh”, as per the Christian belief, if he and his missionary brethren are able to answer the following question:

    Show us where precisely, in Aramaic, does Jesus say that he is God or the Son of God as in “more than a man”?

We are not interested in quotations found in Greek, as it is generally accepted that the language Jesus, peace be upon him, spoke was Aramaic. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to demand the exact Aramaic statements from Jesus, peace be upon him, and word-for-word, in inverted commas.

Furthermore, we demand that this Aramaic quote, assuming if one exists, is one which all New Testament scholars deem authentic and agree upon without question, including all the critical scholars. Moreover, there should be absolutely no controversy whatsover over the interpretation and, of course, the authenticity of this verbatim Aramaic statement.

If the missionary decides to quote something in Greek, or anything the interpretation of which is disputed or the authenticity of which is disputed, he would fail to meet our challenge. We want, we repeat, a verbatim Aramaic quote, the authenticity and interpretation of which is not at all disputed, where Jesus says categorically “I am God” and where he claims to be the “the Son of God”, as in “more than a man”.

And only God knows best.

Cite this article as: Bismika Allahuma Team, "A Counter-Challenge to Sam Shamoun and the Christian Missionaries," in Bismika Allahuma, May 27, 2006, last accessed September 25, 2022,
  1. See Qur’an, 5:116-117 where Jesus is explicitly quoted as follows: “And behold! Allah will say “O Jesus the son of Mary! didst thou say unto men worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah"? <u>He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say to witWorship Allah my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up thou wast the Watcher over them and Thou art a Witness to all things.“. So basically the missionary has no case since we have here the statement of Jesus(P) who denies being God. Whether the missionary wants to believe that this is a “fictitious account”, that is not our problem. Our belief is that the portrayal of Jesus(P) in the New Testament is mostly fictitious, but it is not us making silly challenges as the Christian missionary is fond of making! []
  2. “Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it “Be” and it is.” (Qur’an, 19: 34-35) []
  3. “A Book, whereof the verses are explained in detail; a Qur’an in Arabic for people who understand.” (Qur’an 41:3) []