Thursday, December 10, 2020

Sam Shamoun "More Islamic Fairytales: The Consequences of Not Saying Insha Allah!"


The ahadith report a vow made by Solomon, that he would sleep with several of his wives in one night, with the various reports numbering them as much as 60, 90, 99 or even 100. In hadith science, when multiple versions of a report having the same narrator chain give different numbers everytime, the understanding is that the number was remembered differently by the narrators because of it being insignificant to the purports of the prophetic saying. 

Abu Hurairah is the sole narrator of this hadith and there is no suggestion that he heard it from the Prophet on multiple occasions, meaning the latter cannot be the reason of the contradiction. What might have happened is the prophet spoke on one occasion of Solomon's vow to sleep with an unspecified large number of his wives in one night, as well as the number of wives he had in total. The narrators might have mixed the 2 statements. 
I will go round in the night to my ninety wives, and every one of them will give birth to a child (who will grow up) as a horseman and fight in the cause of Allah His companions said to him: Say" Insha' Allah." but he did not say Inshii' Allah. He went round all of them but none of them became pregnant but one, and she gave birth to a premature child. And by Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, if he had said, Insha' Allah (his wives would have given birth to the children who would all have grown up into horsemen and fought in the way of Allah).
The hadith speaks of Solomon desiring to have many male children so as to serve in war for God's cause. He vowed sleeping with a large number of wives for that purpose in a single night, but forgot the angel's inspiring him with expressing his reliance on Allah (other versions mention the angel). Despite his wish, none of the wives he slept with was able to conceive, except for one who gave birth to a premature child that probably died in infancy. The Arabs referred to them as split/divided/half children because of incomplete growth. 

Not every failed endeavour is a sign of divine disapproval. Neither does the hadith say that his failure was caused by God so as to punish him. God may either allow the natural flow of causality to follow its course, or alter it as He deems fit. In this case, had Solomon initially relied on God, then God could have rewarded him with success in his objective by altering the course of causality. Practically speaking, most healthy men are able to have sex with a very large number of women in a short time if they interrupt the act with one partner then switch to another. This might have been the reason for Solomon's failure to impregnate his wives. 

As to the hadith quoted in some books of tafsir saying that the revelation of sura kahf came much later than the day following the challenge, because the prophet did not utter the phrase "if God wills", presents several internal incoherences, besides it being rejected for having unreliable and unknown narrators in its chain. 

It says for instance that once revelation came 15 days later, it contained a rebuke to the prophet. No such reproach exists in sura kahf. Nor are there any traces in any tradition, authentic or else, of the supposed rumors due to the prophet's incapacity to answer the following day as he had promised. Furthermore no link exists between the verse upon which the tafsir and narration are based (18:23-4) and the question asked later on concerning Dhul Qarnayn 18:83. 

The verse teaching to never plan anything before relying on God 18:23-4 and upon which the narration is based, is a parenthetical statement inserted in the flow of the discourse about the youths of the cave. It is connected to the previous verse which is about refraining to research into things known only to God, so in the same way one should not make plans for the future without acknowledging that certainty in all matters only belongs to God.

Finally, the narration says sura Kahf came in answer to 3 questions by the Jews (the youths of the cave, the "ruh" and the powerful traveller/Dhul Qarnayn) whereas the sura cites only one question related to one topic, Dhul Qarnayn and then proceeds with the answer. 

In contrast there is no link between a question and the story of the youths (a Christian story, irrelevant to the Jews who supposedly asked the question) and neither does the sura respond to the 3rd supposed question about the "ruh". That question was uttered on another occasion and answered in 17:85 which is a much earlier sura than sura kahf.

Sam Shamoun "The Third Caliph’s Abuse of the Quran’s Greatest Compiler"


Zayd ibn Thabit was the main scribe along with several other prominent Qurayshis tasked by Uthman to compile the Quran in book form. 

The same Zaid Ibn Thabit was involved with the collection during Abu Bakr's time as well, collecting the revelation in the form of suhuf or loose pages, from both oral as well as written sources that were in the prophet's house. Zayd remembered how 
"the prophet was taken from this life while the Quran had not yet been gathered into a book". 
The use of "gathered" instead of "written" is significant as it proves its existence in written form, although scattered on different supports. Zaid, after gathering all that was physically available, then demanded two witnesses for each piece, attesting to its oral transmission. Here Zaid was just following the prophet's dual authentication method, oral/textual. It is to be noted, none, not even the prophet himself as attested in the traditions, is able to recite flawlessly from memory each and every time. That is why the Quran was transmitted through massive consensus, with reciters and laymen checking one another for errors, in addition strengthening the transmission process using their physical copies. 

To corroborate this great care in performing the task entrusted to him, there are at least 2 recorded incidents where Zayd would not validate a verse despite knowing it by heart from the prophet's mouth, until he found it in written form between the hands of a reliable believer. This was the case concerning the last 2 verses of sura tawba/bara'a, known and cross checked through the memory of several reciters including Zayd, and yet he would not include it in the text unless corroborated by a written copy. Once the unique hard copy of 9:128-129 was found between the hands Abu Khuzaimah al-Ansari it confirmed what the comitee of compilers, including  Umar, Uthman, Zaid and Ubay bin Kaab had already memorized and were looking for in the first place. There has never been any doubt accross the spectrum of Islamic sects as to the authenticity of these 2 verses.

This authentication process was even more stringent than the one the other religious texts (hadith, tafsir, fiqh etc.) would later be put through, which already is in itself a method unsurpassed in the world for any other document, let alone religious. This is how serious, meticulous and careful Zayd was in accomplishing his mission 
"By Allah, if he (Abu Bakr) had ordered me to shift one of the mountains (from its place) it would not have been harder for me than what he had ordered me concerning the collection of the Qur’an". 
Zayd is here speaking retrospectively and implying how the succesfully completed task was a heavy duty obviously hard to accomplish considering the level of care he had imposed upon himself. 

This highly noble assignment, entrusted to the young Zayd, did cause resentment among some of the older companions, the most vocal of whom was Abdullah ibn Masud. That resentment was further fueled by the fact ibn Masud had to give up his own personal mushaf. The early Muslims held their Quran writings in high esteem, and ibn Masud compiled his own in greater part based on the recitation learned from the prophet in person. But he now had to give it up in favor of Zayd's approved standardized rasm/orthography. Zayd's compilation was superior to ibn Masud in that its rasm could absorb many potential qiraat while the scripts of the individual copies held by Muslims could not be read in all qiraat. 

It is only natural that he, out of pride, who hold on to his "superior" mushaf and by the same token try and discredit Zayd 
"'O you Muslim people! I am removed from recording the transcription of the Mushaf and it is overseen by a man, by Allah, when I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man' - meaning Zaid bin Thabit - and it was regarding this that 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said: 'O people of Al-'Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement (3:161). So meet Allah with the Musahif.'" Az-Zuhri said: "It was conveyed to me that some men amongst the most virtuous of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah disliked that view of Ibn Mas'ud". 
In this correct rendition of Az-Zuhri's report in Jami' al Tirmidhi, not the misleading translation often used among Islam critics ("Avoid copying the Mushaf and the recitation of this man") several important things transpire. Firstly, the leading companions disapproved of that selfish, prideful stand from ibn Masud. Second, what ibn Masud really resented was not Zayd's capabilities. Rather it was Uthman's decision not to appoint him instead of Zaid as leader of the 2nd committee for the compilation. Al Asqalani discusses that particular point, saying ibn Masud simply was absent from Medina when Uthman urgently appointed the committee. He was in Kufah. Furthermore, because Uthman did nothing more than reproduce the pages compiled under Abu Bakr into one mushaf, and that Zayd Ibn Thabit had already been among the top scribes charged of that compilation, then it was natural to designate him to lead that 2nd compilation. 

The other issue ibn Masud had was in giving up his precious mushaf, which he was emotionally attached to 
"whenever the prophet and Jibril finished reciting to eachother, i would recite to the prophet as well and he would inform me that my recitation was eloquent". 
As already pointed, Zayd was already entrusted with a similar task under Abu Bakr and ibn Masud didnt voice any objection then, as he was now doing under Uthman. Uthman chose Zayd for his experience under Abu Bakr. Despite his initial opposition, ibn Masud eventually understood Uthman's plan and agreed with his effort, surrendering his personal mushaf. As later attested by ibn Qurazi, the mushaf of ibn Masud which he used for recitation and teaching was no different, including in its sura sequence, than the ones of Ubayy and Zaid ibn Thabit. The names of his most illustrious pupils and their transmission of the entire 114 suras of the Quran is also known, names like Alqama, al Aswad, Masruq and many others. 

The spurious reports by the historians, saying Uthman ordered the beating of ibn Masud are "fabrications" according to ibn al Arabi and some of the "most well known lies" according to al Dhahabi. The reality is that despite temporary tensions, Uthman and ibn Masud had high regard for one another, with Uthman even leading the funeral prayer at ibn Masud's death in Medina (ibn Saad/Tabaqat).

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "The Third Caliph’s Abuse of the Quran’s Greatest Compiler"

Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Need for Human Sacrifice to Appease Hell’s Angelic Ruler"(2)


When Abel pointed to the rejection of Cain's offering, he said it was due to his sinfulness or lack of piety. Cain should thus focus on his inner self, reassessing his spirituality and mend his ways instead of being envious 5:27. The nature of the offering in itself is not important, so long as it is done with sincerity and God-consciousness, hence the Quran's silence on the things both brothers offered
 22:37"There does not reach Allah their flesh nor their blood, but to Him is acceptable the guarding (against evil) on your part; thus has He made them subservient to you, that you may magnify Allah because He has guided you aright; and give good news to those who do good (to others)".
This is a major point driven through by the Quran. In the HB, God disdainfully rejects Cain's offering for no other reason that 
Gen4:3"Cain brought the fruit of the soil" 
while Abel 
"brought the firstborn of his flocks and the fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering"
This sacrificial rite is no more than a symbol of a conscious, selfless offering in God's name of something one cherishes as necessary and valuable. It is not an attempt to "appease" Him who is far above anything that resembles human emotion, nothing of His creation can disturb Him 35:44. Ultimately anything offered to Allah in God consciousness counts as of equal value and merit than a blood offering as stated in 22:37 above. The primary issue is to remain aware of Allah during this universal rite
 22:34"To every people did We appoint rites, that they might celebrate the name of God over the sustenance He gave them" 
The Quran recognizes the universality of this rite, and then restores it to the right, original course; glorifying God alone, first and foremost.
It is when one loses Allah's pleasure from sight in the process, such as by having one's intentions polluted with sinfulness as occurred to Cain, or by having other deities or motives in mind, that the offering is invalidated. The merit does not lie in the intrinsic value or nature of the offering. Even fasting for Allah's sake by the one who cannot afford an offering is a valid substitute 2:196.  

Although the HB echoes that reality when it says 
Ps50:8-14"..Will I eat the flesh of bulls or do I drink the blood of he-goats? Slaughter for God a confession and pay the Most High your vows". 
Yet in other places, YHWH is depicted as physically delecting with the offering 
Lev1:9"Then, the kohen shall cause to [go up in] smoke all [of the animal] on the altar, as a burnt offering, a fire offering, [with] a pleasing fragrance to the Lord". 
This is reminiscent of ancient mythologies, more particularly Babylonian, where the gods would partake in the offering together with the offerer. In the HB numbers18 the priests making the offering are the only ones allowed to eat from the dead animal. Gods do not sit on the same table as the laymen. The Quran in sharp contrast allows to 
22:28-36"eat of them and feed the poor man who is contented and the beggar; thus have We made them subservient to you, that you may be grateful".
Further reading on Abel and Cain

Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Need for Human Sacrifice to Appease Hell’s Angelic Ruler"(1)


In the Quran angels are distinct among one another, created in different grades 35:1 and assigned tasks according to their ranks 2:97,81:19-21. Regardless of their ranks and tasks assigned in the heavens and the earth, angels are in complete awe and submission to their Creator 
21:19-20,37:164-6"There is none of us except that he has a specific station; it is we who are filled in ranks; it is we who glorify Allah".
 They only act according to Allah's commands 19:64, without exceeding or falling short of their task, never deliberatly rebelling or disobeying 
16:48-50,66:6,21:27"They do not exceed Him in speech and they act only according to His command". 
They thus all possess a high, unfliching, unwavering spirituality level. The Quran illustrates that reality through a linguistic subtility. It calls the angels barar 80:16 while the righteous humans are called abrar 82:13etc. Both words stem from b-r-r and implies the same thing, to be firmly grounded, ie in one's dutifulness and love for God. The subtle difference lies in that the intensive plural/jamaa kuthra is used for the angels while the lesser plural/jamaa qilla is used for the humans. This is because humans may rebel and sin, while this potentiality is completely ruled out for the angels. 

Their tasks include the transmission of a message to prophets or regular people, performance of miracles, fierce guardianship of certain places such as the 19 angels above hell 40:49-50,74:30-31. One of those is named Malik, possibly the leader of those angelic wardens of Hell 43:77. In Semitic languages names have a meaning and Malik, which entails mastership, is here used as a proper name. Had the common word "master" been intended it should have been followed by a qualification as in sura Fatiha describing Allah as "malik yawm eddin". Even if one were to argue that the qualification of mastership over hell is implicitly understood from context, then it would mean that the common word "malik" is a title applicable to each of the 19 masters of Hell. Whether it is the title or the proper noun that is meant, none of those angels, including the most prominent among them, have any authority other than what Allah has granted them. Nor do they have a say as to the fate of the dwellers of hell. This is seen from their cry of help, asking Malik to seek authorization from Allah to end their suffering.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Allah’s Need for Human Sacrifice to Appease Hell’s Angelic Ruler"