Saturday, December 5, 2020

Sam Shamoun "THE RELIGION OF ISLAM: THE REEMERGENCE OF BAAL WORSHIP" (2)



Ultimate life belongs to God only. He is the ever-living/al hayy 2:255,40:65. The prophet Daniel states in the Aramaic in which the text was recorded 
Dan6:26"elaha hayya qayyam". 
The words carry several implications, including the pervasive pattern throughout the Quran of God being the sole self-sufficient, uncreated, independant entity. He relies on none other than Himself to subsit and will perdure even when all things perish 55:26-7,28:88. Al hayy/the ever living is also a description meant at distinguishing Allah from false deities, as is done in the HB Joshua3:10,1Sam17:26,1Sam17:36,Jer10:9-10,etc., whether they be inanimate entities or living creatures that made themselves or were made into objects of worship 16:20-1. They are neither alive nor are able to keep others alive, they do not exist of their own accord nor can keep others into existence. Their existence depends at all times on the self-sustaining source of all life, Allah. 

That notion is best captured in sura Ikhlas 
112:2"Allahu ssamad". 
Samad stems from s-m-d which has a wide variety of nuances. All of them, as reported by the companions and the earliest lexicographers, point to the notion of dependancy of others unto the entity on which the word is applied. IT may be applied to God or created entities. But since the created entities always need another samad, and that ultimately every creation depends on Allah in all aspects of existence, only Allah truly posesses that quality in full. 112:2 literally says "Allah IS THE SAMAD" ie Allah is the Self-sufficient source of all needs. In the "talbiya", the invocations the pilgrims in preislamic times, coming from all over Arabia, made during their rituals, Allah is 
"al wahid al qahhar rabb assamad".
This verse, more particularily this word "samad" is key in providing philosophical argument for God's existence, through the negation of infinite regress. If, as atheists suggest, this universe does not depend on a first, uncaused cause, and that it is instead the result of an infinite series of past events then by definition this current universe could not have existed. This is because it would have had to wait for an infinite amount of time past for it come into being. As stated by Al-Ghazali 
"Each number has no end, yet some of them are less than others. This is clearly impossible". 
And 
"In the world there are events with causes. If these events depend upon other events without end, this is impossible and cannot be believed by a rational person". The prophet said "Satan will come to one of you and he will say, ‘Who created this and that?’ until he says to him, ‘Who created your Lord?’ When it comes to this, let him seek refuge in Allah and stop such thoughts". 
We should seek refuge from Allah from asking "who created Allah" not because there is no argument against it, but because the amount of arguments for God's existence as are given both in Quran and ahadith are so manifold and easy to grasp, that the question itself is absurd 
52:35"Were they created by nothing? Or were they the creators of themselves? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain". 
It is a whisper by the devil so as to confuse a simple matter with counterintuitive arguments of infinities and probabilities.
The existence of the contingent, dependent, and temporal universe is itself sufficient proof that a necessary being exists who caused it to be. This higher power must be greater than the universe and not dependent upon anything to sustain itself. These points are stressed over and over again in the Quran, including in sura ikhlas. The Creator is by definition uncreated and thus asking who created the Creator is a logical fallacy of definitions. The Quran gives the basis for which to build upon the most intricate philosophical arguments for God's existence. The independent cause is constantly sustaining the universe in all of its most intricate aspects and needs. It can never be detached from creation for a single instant or else all things fall apart 32:5,65:12,30:25,22:65,35:41. This is particularly pointed out in the verses speaking of Allah's establishing Himself upon the throne. If that is the case then Allah must similarly answer the need of the only creature endowed with the capacity to deduce the existence of the Creator. This is done through revelation and prophecy. As pledged to Adam and his wife when they left the garden 20:123.

Sam Shamoun "THE RELIGION OF ISLAM: THE REEMERGENCE OF BAAL WORSHIP" (1)



The Arabs were traders and they brought back all sorts of gods as time developed, in order to attract foreign tribes to their city, forming alliances with them. It is this introduction of idolatry which is the essential criminal act the Quran accuses them of in regards to the Kaaba.

One such major deity imported was Hubal. It was inserted among countless other deities, mainly playing the role of intercessors with Allah 46:28,39:3. As attested throughout the Quran and the traditions, Allah was the supreme God whom all Arabs recognized as the Almighty Creator, including the Hanif and both Arab Christians and Jews before the advent of Islam. Although the Quran denounces the religion of the polytheists, even names some of their prominent idols, it never does so on the basis of them supplanting Allah, the supreme God they recognized, with other more powerful or authorative deities. Rather the condemnation always is in terms of associating partners to Him in the dominion, as well as ascribing a progeny to Him. 

There is abundant evidence in pre-islamic poetry depicting Allah as the Creator of the heavens, involved in human lives, sustaining them and inflicting retribution. A famous pre-islamic poem attributed to 'Adi ibn Zayd swears by 
"Rabbi makkata wal salibi/The Lord of Mecca and of the cross".
 It is well known that pre-Islamic Arabs, including pagans, Christians or Jews, referred to God with Allah, as well as Rabb/Lord. Several poets call the Kaaba the 
"House of Allah" (ibn Shihab, ibn al Hudadiya, ibn al Khatim). 
Not only that, there are poems associating pilgrimage rites, including sacrifice at the site with veneration to Allah (al Nabigha, al A'sha). Ibn Ishaq reports how in pre-islamic times, the prophet's grandfather made a vow of sacrifice to Allah whom he recognized as the Almighty. The sacrifice was eventually brought at the Kaaba, to Hubal, the interceding deity among many, next to whom the prophet's grandfather stood. But instead of addressing Hubal in prayer Abd al-Muttalib 
"was standing near Hubal praying to Allah". 
As stated earlier, among the gods brought to Mecca, serving the function of partners of Allah was Hubal. Tradition asserts he was brought in from outside the Arabian Peninsula, either from Syria or Iraq by Amr bin Luhayy 
"0 'Amr! you have invented various gods; At Mecca - idols around the House. And there was for the House One Lord from ever; But you have made for it several lords (which are now worshipped) by the people. Surely you should know that Allah is in no hurry; Soon He will choose for (His) House stewards other than you". 
Although the People protested originally to the innovations of Amr bin Luhayy, they were quickly curtailed. One may give these pre-islamic Arabs the benefit of the doubt for their leniency in religious innovations. They cannot be compared in that sense to the Israelites who were sent countless prophets and shown numerous miracles, even during the time of Manasseh where idols had been placed within the Temple, and yet still refused listening. With their Ishmaelites brethren, however, it only took a fraction of what their predecessors were shown from proofs, and it was enough to eradicate the corruption grafted into the religion of Abraham once and for all. This shows how deeply ingrained monotheism and the Abrahamic legacy was, in the hearts and minds of the Arabs, despite the passage of time and the religious innovations. Thus even a minute of straying by the Israelites is equivalent to 1000 years of deviation by the Ishmaelites at their own temple of the one God in Mecca. 

In the course of time, worshiping the transcendent Allah became difficult for the increasingly idolatrous Arabs. By the time of the prophet, although they still majoritarly recognized the superiority of Allah above all their interceding idols, many others had abandoned the worship of Allah altogether. The lack of representation of the supreme Allah among a myriad of statues and images proved too challenging to the shallow spirituality and primitive mindset of some of the ancients. This is seen in Abu Sufyan, the Quraysh chieftain and early enemy of the prophet, taunting the defeated Muslims at the battle of Uhud
 "Superior may be Hubal!" On that the Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They asked, "What may we say?" He said, "Say: Allah is More Elevated and More Majestic!" Abu Sufyan said, "We have (the idol) Al-`Uzza, whereas you have no `Uzza!" The Prophet said (to his companions), "Reply to him." They said, "What may we say?" The Prophet said, "Say: Allah is our Helper and you have no helper." Abu Sufyan said, "(This) day compensates for our loss at Badr and (in) the battle (the victory) is always undecided and shared in turns by the belligerents". 
The hadith is longer but what transpires is that at no point does Abu Sufyan negate the prophet's declaration that Allah is the superior Deity. He knew that Hubal was only an intercessor with Allah. Hence instead of reaffirming Hubal's superiority in answer to the prophet, he boasts that contrary to the Muslims, he has more gods in support. Ibn Abbas, as quoted by the historians including ibn Hisham, relates other parts of the exchanges that occurred on that same occasion. When Abu Sufyan called out the besieged Muslims and that Umar answered, Abu Sufyan asked him 
“By Allah o ‘umar! Did we not kill Muhammad?” 
Umar answered back, 
“By Allah, you did not. He can hear you speaking now". 
Abu Sufyan, on that same occasion where he taunted the Muslims with Hubal's superiority, still swears by Allah. He was an example of Arabs that knew of Allah's position but had abandoned worshiping him in favor of more "trending" and physically tangible deities. That even people like Abu Sufyan never denied Allah's superiority is seen at his time of conversion, stating that 
"By Allah, I thought that had there been any ilah/deity with Allah, he would have continued to help me". 
As he regretfully remembers his time as a pagan, he doesnt blame himself for not believing in Allah, or for doubting His superiority, but for ascribing partners to Him. This was exactly the Quran's reproach towards these Ishmaelites.
 
Allah was never an idol within the Kaaba, the Kaaba was dedicated to Him. The accumulation and piling up of idols above idols was due to the complacency and unrestrictedness that the Meccans and the custodians of the Kaaba felt as time went on. It was due to their neglect of the Kaaba's original dedication to Allah alone. The Quraysh would argue, that had their innovations been harmful to the worship of Allah then Allah Himself would have prevented them and their forefathers from doing so 
16:35,6:148"Those who are polytheists will say: 'Had Allah wished we would not have associated (aught with Him) nor our fathers, nor would we have forbidden anything.' So did belie those who were before them until they tasted Our punishment. Say: 'Have you any knowledge with you to adduce for Us? You follow nothing but conjecture, and you are nothing but idle talkers'". 
This shows they did have a tinge of guilt towards their innovations, which they brushed off as divinely approved because Allah did not punish them for it. This type of determinism is rejected in religion, and disregards that God's disapproval has and does manifest itself. They knew it themselves that nations prior to them and mightier were wiped out on account of such sins. Prophets and revelations were sent to these nations clarifying the right and the wrong, just as was happening now with them 
6:149-151"Then to Allah (alone) belongs the conclusive argument. Had He wished, He would have surely guided you all aright...Say: 'Come, I will recite what your Lord has forbidden you from: that you do not associate anything with Him, and show kindness to your parents, and do not kill your children for poverty -We provide for you and for them - and do not approach indecencies, the outward among them and the inward ones, and do not kill the soul that Allah has forbidden save for justice. This He has enjoined you with so that you might understand. And do not approach the property of the orphan except in the best manner until he attains his maturity, and give full measure and weight with justice-- We do not impose on any soul a duty except to the extent of its ability; and when you speak, then be just though it be (against) a relative, and fulfill Allah´s covenant; this He has enjoined you with that you may be mindful; And (know) that this is My path, the right one therefore follow it, and follow not (other) ways, for they will lead you away from His way; this He has enjoined you with that you may guard (against evil)".

As to Hubal, the place from where it was brought from is uncertain, although all Muslim authorities of the past are united in that its origin is foreign. As already discussed, it was fairly common in those ancient times for ideologies and religious beliefs to be exchanged through migrations and travels, as well as economic interests. We see this in our own times with people selling their inherited traditions and beliefs, customs and values for the sake of opening up businesses, political or other interests. The corrupt and materialistic custodians of the Kaaba were no different. They desired to attract as many far away people as they could, from every religious background as possible, to the yearly pilgrimage, even putting portraits of Jesus and Mary on the Kaaba's wall according to tradition. 

The Arabian peninsula was known for gold, copper and silver mines even prior to Islam, which allowed Arab merchants to travel and be well-suited middle-men. Gold is present, the archaelogical evidences for mines is present and these mines are being accessed today. Serious mining began 3000 years ago. More than 1000 ancient mines were uncovered, besides those that were lost to bigger mining projects upon the same grounds. Vast reserves are still awaiting extraction. Biblical scholars even argue that the Cradle of Gold in the creation account might be located in the Mahd adh-Dhahab area of the Hijaz, between Mecca and Medina. Scholars argue this might also be the true location of the legendary mines of king Solomon, given the huge quantities of waste rock, an estimated million tons, left by the ancient miners, still containing traces of gold today. No other ancient region could have supplied Solomon as described in the Bible. The mine is even still in activity today. Scholars today argue, following the same principle of religious exchanges, and with archaelogical evidence in support, that the Egyptian deity Hathor although a central worship figure was not originally Egyptian, but a Semitic goddess who was Egyptianized. She is believed to have been imported by Semitic turquoise miners in the Sinai, who came from Canaan.

Hubal's "foreign" origin is partly the reason why he was not integrated into the "divine family" of Allah unlike the three "daughters of Allah", Allat, Manat and al-Uzza mentioned in the Quran. Thats also why Hubal never supplants Allah as the lord of the Kaaba. The cult associated with him involved divination and future forecasts. The custodian of the idol acted as the oracle. He requested blood sacrifice followed by a consultation of the divination arrows lying in front of him. 

The Quran does not speak of Hubal, just as it doesnt mention the other deities of the Arab pantheon, except for al-lat, Manat and al-Uzza. These were specifically pointed because of their feminine gender, serving as an argument against the misogynistic pagans who, paradoxically, were not only worshiping females, but also gave them a status of influence alongside Allah, the supreme deity 53:19-23. Their paradoxical misogyny lied in the fact that they worshipped goddesses and yet murdered their infants if they were females.

Some polemicists have tried levelling a strange claim, that Hubal is the Arabic for the Hebrew HaBaal "the Baal", the moabite deity and was the original name of Allah. This, as is always the case with these kinds of grandiose speculations, does not agree with the evidence at hand. The idea of Ha-Baal becoming Hubal is first and foremost bellied by the Quran which is very well aware of who that Baal deity was. It has preserved its original name, written and pronounced in an utterly different manner than Hubal. It has a different root, and is mentioned in the context of the prophet Elias' confrontation with his people, urging them to forsake Baal and return to worshiping Allah the true and unique God 37:123-132. So was it speaking of leaving Ha-Baal for Hubal/Allah? In addition to preserving the name of Baal, the Quran also separates between it and Allah. 

The linguistic acrobatics used in order to demonstrate the transformation of Ha-Baal (with ayn/3) into Hubal is equally untenable in light of archeological evidence. For the name b3l to become bl with the loss of ayn, it would have to have been transmitted through a language such as Akkadian or Punic in which the ayn had disappeared. These languages however do not use the Ancient North Arabian definite article h-. On the other hand, the Ancient North Arabian dialects using the definite article h- or hn- never dropped the ayn/3. The polemic here therefore consists in criss crossing between different languages and create an inexistant one where all the convenient rules are united.

Even the pre-Islamic beliefs surrounding Allah, and the mythology around Baal have virtually nothing in common. For example the depiction of Allah's family by the Arabs obviously doesnt agree with the beliefs on Baal's family. Baal had a father, mother, brothers, sisters and son, as well as various helpers and messengers. He in addition was, just as trinitarians believe concerning the divine son/father relation, under the authority of the deity "'Il". The lesser deities were in competition among one another to attract the favors of 'IL, as only he could appoint kings, such as Baal, among the lesser deities. Further, the epithets of Baal discovered at Ras Shamra (modern day northern Syria) describing the beliefs concerning the Ugaritic deities, do not even remotely resemble those of the pre-Islamic Arabs regarding Allah. 

We have historical sources like those quoted earlier, distinguishing between Hubal and Allah, with some pagans depicted in battle as calling upon Hubal and Allah's daughters (the ones believed to influence the decisions of Allah, the supreme God), while the Muslims replied by invoking Allah's name alone, as the Almighty and sole Helper. Abu Sufyan, who is talked about as calling upon Hubal, would later come to the fact that
 "By Allah, I thought that had there been any god with Allah, he would have continued to help me". 
He accepted Allah as the one, supreme God beside whom there exists no other god. Why didnt Hubal survive as an epithet of Allah, if Hubal and Allah had been one and the same deity?

Friday, December 4, 2020

Sam Shamoun "How Muhammad Ended Up Proving That Jesus Is God… Again!"



This article answers Sam Shamoun "How Muhammad Ended Up Proving That Jesus Is God… Again!"

Sam Shamoun "The Hadith of the Goat and Adult Suckling"


As regards the stoning verse, Umar doesnt argue it was part, or should have been part of the Quran. He simply laments that people might forget or neglect the command, precisely because of it not being in the Quran. The mere statement that "I read it" does not indicate he read it as part of the Quran left by the prophet. Some prophetic rulings and prayers were meant to be of temporary application, but they were never meant to be in the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the complete and final version left by the prophet. But anyone could have written those rulings down, just as people recorded non-Quranic utterances of the prophet in his own lifetime. 

The fact that Umar remembered the "stoning verse", as well as other companions the likes of Ubay and Zaid bin Thabit, means that it was never lost. It was memorized and preserved, regardless of whether the written copies of it were all destroyed somehow, including the discarded report stating one written copy in Aisha's house was "eaten by a sheep". Umar and other companions could have simply re-introduced it in their own manuscript at least, had it been meant to be in the Quran. But this never occurred, because nobody thought the prophet recited it as part of the Quran. Al Ghamari has rightly observed that what some call the ayat al rajm is not a verse at all, but at most a hadith. When the prophet uttered it, Umar recalls 
"I went to the Prophet and I said: Let me write it.” Shu’bah said: It was as if the Prophet disliked that".
 In another narration, the Prophet said in response 
"I cannot have it written". 
This desire of Umar to have it written, does not imply "as part of the Quran". Umar wanted it recorded so it can never be forgotten, which the prophet disliked. The only reason is that it could've gotten confused as a Quran verse. And this is exactly what later occurred with the proponents of abrogation. Some believed that certain statements were temporary Quran verses, that got abrogated once they saw and heard the final and completed Quran left by the prophet. This notion however isnt established by any prophetic saying. Nowhere does the prophet support the theory of abrogation of a Quran verse by another, nor does he hint to it. Other misunderstandings might be due to words of prayers which the prophet recited and that were thought to be Quran verses, until they saw that the prophet did not instruct them to be part of the final version. Even today, in the daily prayers and many other rituals, Muslims recite words that arent from the Quran. 

Again, none ever argued that these verses were missing from the Quran which the prophet left, just that they were abrogated. In addition, the prophet did sometimes speak revelation, which he paraphrased and that were never meant to be in the Quran, known later as hadith qudsi. Some early believers might have included them in their personal recitations, just as others would include personal notes in relation to certain passages, and even words of prayers and supplications. 

A typical such example is that of Ubayy' ibn Kaab's supposed 2 missing chapters, al-Hafd and al-Khalaa, which were in fact supplications the prophet used to recite and never ordered them written as part of the Quran, neither did Ubayy claim anything of the sort. That later people believed them to be so is no proof of anything. Ubayy was part of the standardization committee under Uthman. Uthman himself is reported to have recited these supposed "lost surahs" as a supplication in his prayers (Musannaf ibn Abi Shayba, n°7032). The prophet allowed, under his watch, for the companions to freely paraphrase, add or substract to certain Quran passages during their supplications. The prophet himself did so, sometimes merging different suras together for supplication 
"When Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) went to his mattress each night, he joined the palms of his hands, then breathed into them and recited into them: “Say: ‘He is Allah, One [qul Huwa'llahu Ahad]!' (Al-Qur'an;112:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of the Daybreak [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbil-falaq]!' (Al-Qur'an;113:1), and: “Say: ‘I take refuge with the Lord of humankind [qul a'udhu bi-Rabbi’n-nas]!' (Al-Qur'an;114:1)". 
Neither the prophet nor the companions said that these recitals were to be passed on as Quran readings. 

Here is another example with sura ikhlas 
"Mihjan bin Al-Adra' narrated to him that the Messenger of Allah entered the masjid and there was a man who had finished his prayer and he was reciting the tashahhud. He said: "Allahumma inni as'aluka ya Allah! Bi-annakal-Wahidul-Ahad us-Samad, alladhi lam yalid wa lam yowled, wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan ahad, an taghfirali dhunubi, innaka antal-Ghafurur-Rahim".
The prophet forbade his contemporaries from recording from him anything other than the Quran, precisely to limit or stop this phenomenon 
"Do not write down anything of me...whoever writes other thn the Quran should delete it".
 This shows that the prophet was reacting to an already existing trend among certain believers. But the consensus of the community, given the mass transmission of the Quran, always prevailed over these marginal opinions. 

Another such issue is that of the verse on the 10 sucklings, later reduced to 5 sucklings and finally abrogated shortly before the prophet's death. The abrogation and death of the prophet happened so close to oneanother that some people still were unaware of the final version of the Quran, and were still reciting the abrogated verse. One cannot but wonder how close to his death did this occur considering that the same hadith books say that Gabriel reviewed the entire recitation of the Quran with the prophet twice the year he passed away, without any reported change between the recitations. This contradicts the notion that a Quran containing the abrogated verse was in circulation until very close to his death to the point that some were still reciting the abrogated verse after his death. The simple explanation for such a report would be that, again some people among the vast cluster of tribes spread throughout the peninsula that adopted Islam by the time of the prophet's death, may have confused a ruling never meant to be part of the Quran, neither temporarily nor in the final version, before they were corrected. These individual errors and confusions have nothing to do with the issue of Quran authenticity. The hadith itself says they were corrected in their recital, meaning the true and final Quran left by the prophet was present among the people 
"Then, when Allah’s Messenger died these words were among what was recited in the Qur’an" 
Another important thing to note is that the compilers of the Quran after the prophet's death, included even verses they deemed abrogated based on the fact that they were part of the final recital they heard from the prophet 
"Narrated Ibn Az-Zubair: I said to `Uthman bin `Affan (while he was collecting the Qur'an) regarding the Verse:-- "Those of you who die and leave wives ..." (2.240) "This Verse was abrogated by an other Verse. So why should you write it? (Or leave it in the Qur'an)?" `Uthman said. "O son of my brother! I will not shift anything of it from its place". 
Abrogation was thus not a criteria for the compilers, rather the last prophetic recital was. Had the prophet recited what is stated about the 5 sucklings, it would have been integrated in its precisely defined place.

We do not have competing texts that sprung up after the prophet, as was the case with the Judeo-christian scriptures until very late in their finalization process. What is also important to note is that Aisha in that hadith doesnt quote the prophet. She might have been quoting someone else or reporting what some people thought.

Sam Shamoun "Muhammad Did it Again! More Proof that Jesus is God Incarnate Pt. 1"


The Quran is the speech of Allah, and that speech is with Allah, uncreated, eternal, unchanged like any other attribute of His. The analogy of God's speech to the Quran we touch with our hands or recite from our minds, is as God's mercy which manifests in tangible and abstract things. Both types of manifestations are created means through which God's uncreated attributes of speech and mercy are made known to humans. These attributes arent limited to those particular manifestations 
31:27"and If all the trees on the earth were pens, and the sea replenished with seven more seas [were ink], the words of Allah would not be spent". 
God's speech is therefore unexhaustive. It can potentially bring into existence a limitless number of words of revelation, among them the Hebrew Torah of Moses or the Arabic Quran of Muhammad 
14:4"And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly". 
Allah further states about the revelation to Muhammad, that He 
43:3"made it an Arabic Quran". 
The eternal speech of Allah takes on in this world the form that is relevant to the divine purpose. The Arabic Quran was thus not continuously spoken since eternity. It is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of speech. Just like we may say a healthy newborn is the manifestation in time of God's eternal attribute of mercy.
Assuming for argument's sake that all things in the heavens and the earth are destroyed, including all Torahs and Qurans, the mother of the book that contains all revelations, and even the preserved tablet/lawh mahfuz. So long as the potential to generate a true Quran and Torah exists, then Allah's words that were revealed to Moses and Muhammad remain unaffected. As stated earlier, the physical and abstract things in which God's attributes manifest in this world do not exhaust the attributes themselves, neither do these manifestations share the uncreated essence of the attributes they are representing. This is the problem of Trinitarians. Jesus, a created being, is not merely a manifestation of God's word, rather he incarnates it fully, becoming this divine "person" with contradictory attributes Trinitarian thinkers have been struggling to explain for over 2000 years. Christians are quick to try and parallel the notion of uncreatedness of God's speech as manifested in the Quran, with their idea derived from the Gospel of John where God's uncreated word manifested in Jesus. The two concepts, arent comparable.  Further, why would trinitarians even need the Quran to explain the logical and philosophical problems of their theology.

Not a single group within Islam says the Quran was a separate entity floating around next to God since eternity past. This is how some Christians, with their trinitarian worldview, misrepresent the statement that the word of Allah is uncreated. In Christianity, the word is not an attribute but a divine person among others like the father and holy spirit, each with distinct attributes. One man with multiple attributes isnt many men just as One God with multiple attributes isnt many gods. This is tawhid. Yet Trinity says each person is divine but with different attributes, resulting in 3 different gods. The analogy Christians attempt between tawhid and trinity stops at the word of God being eternal. Christians made that word a person with attributes among other distinct persons, while Muslims kept the word as an attribute among others within the essence of the One God. As an aside, since the word or speech of God is not an attribute within the divine essence but a separate divine entity along with 2 others, does it mean that only this divine entity called "word or speech" has the ability to speak and that the other 2 divine entities are mute?

 If God's word is a separate divine entity that became flesh in Jesus, what about the words uttered by Jesus who is now divine? Are his words separate divine entities? Further, if the Torah is God's word, as Jews and Christians believe, does that make it divine as Jesus is? These are the kinds of problems Trinitarians are entangled with due to their conjectures on ambiguous matters, instead of relying on firm statements on God's oneness and unity. Muslims on the other hand, despite the early disputes as to whether the Quran was created or not, never went out of the way to declare the attributes of God, like His word, separate divine entities. No Muslim ever believed God's speech to be a separate conscious part. The reason why this issue is often brought up by Trinitarians is that the Quran is the only book that claims to be Allah's direct speech. The Bible doesnt make that claim. The closest one finds is an anonymous claim made about Jesus being God's word. Muslims on the other hand stick to clear and firm statements of scriptures to define their cardinal beliefs, including that "nothing is like a likeness of Him".


These articles answer Sam Shamoun "Muhammad Did it Again! More Proof that Jesus is God Incarnate Pt. 1"
Jesus is the word/kalima of Allah
CIRA International find the perfect baby; Jesus born sinless?

Sam Shamoun "Muhammad Did it Again! More Proof that Jesus is God Incarnate Pt. 2"



Sam Shamoun "Commanding Jihad Against Those Who Believe Differently"



Thursday, December 3, 2020

Sam Shamoun "Muhammad Bears Witness: Allah is an Imperfect and Mutable Deity!"


The light of Allah is permanently guiding all of creation 
24:35"God is the Light of the heavens and the earth". 
The light spoken of is not the physical, created sensory light 6:1. Like the Sun, Allah's light shines continuously but can only benefit those that expose themselves to it 
6:122"He who was lifeless, then We gave him life and provided him with a light by which he walks among the people". 
Just as shutting the windows of a room one after another, gradually darkens the light of the sun inside of it, the disbelievers try dimming the light of Allah present within the believers' hearts. They do so with their mouth, corrupting the truth so that people's spirituality is progressively shut and the light of Allah within the hearts is slowly overtaken by darkness. But Allah instead perfects His light which is shining in the hearts, by sending more sources of light in the form of revelations 14:1,5,31:20,33:46 that clarify the matters which the disbelievers attempt to confuse 9:32-3,61:8-9. The believers' spirituality open up wide despite the efforts to shut them down, allowing the light of God to intensify within, and fully brighten their hearts. The light of Allah is thus something perceived with the senses of the spirit 
"Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Yes; do you have any difficulty in seeing the sun at midday when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." He said, "Do you have any difficulty in seeing the moon on a full moon night when it is bright and there is no cloud in the sky?" They replied, "No." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "(Similarly) you will have no difficulty in seeing Allah on the Day of Resurrection as you have no difficulty in seeing either of them". 
Seeing the Sun and the Moon does not entail grasping them wholly. The naked eye only gives a fraction of information about them. All we can perceive is their light. Seeing Allah in Islamic texts is not equal to physical perception. His presence is only accessible spiritually. The Quran describes Allah as simultaneously closer to one's jugular vein, anywhere one looks, and everywhere one goes in this very world 2:115,50:16,57:4,58:7 and yet cannot be perceived physically. The parallelism in the hadith seems to be in reference to the light of Allah, and the prophet explains elsewhere what does seeing Allah entails. When asked about his ascension to the heavens and into the presence of Allah 
"Did you see your Lord? He said: He is light. How could I see Him?". 
The inquirer wanted to know if the prophet could see Allah physically. Eyes can perceive sensory light, yet the prophet denied the ability to physically see Allah's light. This means Allah's light is of a different nature and is not something visible to the eyes. He saw instead the veil of light which came in between him and Allah, as the prophet says elsewhere 
"His Veil is Light". 
That is the meaning of his reply to the same inquirer whether he had seen Allah physically. The prophet did not answer with the affirmative, but rather stated 
"I saw light". 
The prophet could only physically see the light of the veil, not the light of Allah. This gives us also an explanation of the light of Allah that shall flood the earth on the Day of Judgement. At that time, all natural light will be destroyed 81:1-2,75:8,77:8. Only light from Allah will provide brightness, available to all, for the purpose of judgement 
39:69"And the earth will shine with the light of its Lord, and the record [of deeds] will be placed, and the prophets and the witnesses will be brought, and it will be judged between them in truth, and they will not be wronged". 
At some point during the resurrection, the world will be plunged in darkness. Only the righteous believers will be provided with a guiding light shining in front of them and to their right 57:12-14,66:8. 

Early Muslims tried sometimes to overexalt the prophet in a way by claiming he had been favored with seeing Allah. When such people came to Aisha to inquire of the matter asking 
"did Muhammad see his Lord? She replied: “My hair is standing on end at what you have asked” and she repeated it three times “Whosoever told you that has lied. Whoever told you that Muhammad saw his Lord has lied. Then she recited: “The eyes do not comprehend Him but He comprehends (all) vision. He is the Subtle, the Aware (6:103)".
 Ibn Masud is known to have held the same opinion.

Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Sam Shamoun "Does Allah Prefer Or Does He Not?"



There are many places where the prophet is to relate the revelation on God's behalf without starting with the "qul" formula. Only the style indicates that the speaker at a place is not Allah but indirectly His messenger or some other character who are either directly quoted, paraphrased, or instructed on what to say in a given situation, context or ritual. Among the examples concerning the believers specifically, the Quran instructs them how to start certain endeavors or suras of the book with the "bismilla", or teaches them either within a larger sura or in a complete sura, like sura fatiha, how to verbally seek Allah's guidance. 

In the HB God says to Moses Ex33:19"I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you", ie I will teach you how to worship Me. In the book of Jeremiah, after a long admonishment, the prophet begins quoting, without any transition, a prayer of repentance to be uttered by the believers Jer3:22-5.

Despite the different aspects by which Allah has exalted some prophets above others, Muslims must regard all prophets and messengers as equals 
2:136,3:84"we do not make distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit". 
The Quran repeatedly commands the sincere, unprejudiced believers in God to utter this statement. The Quran here is not quoting the believers directly, rather teaching them how to express their faith. In 2:285 however, it quotes them directly 
"we make no difference between any of His apostles, AND they say; we hear and obey". 
The wa/and connecting the 2 statements shows that it is uttered by the same group. As they are elsewhere commanded, they first declare their equal belief in all prophets and they further declare their full obedience to Allah's will.

Sam Shamoun "Muhammad – The Great Satanic Usurper!"



The following article answers Sam Shamoun "Muhammad – The Great Satanic Usurper!"