Sam Shamoun "REFUTING ADNAN RASHID PT. 3" (1)

Sam Shamoun "REFUTING ADNAN RASHID PT. 3" (1)

By the time of the prophet Muhammad, the assimilation of the Abrahamic legacy into the regional polytheistic systems was such that only a distant echo had remained in their minds from their spiritual connection to Abraham. Just as happenned to the Temple of Jerusalem that slowly became transformed into a pagan shrine and idols were introduced in it 2kings21 the prime symbol of monotheism in Mecca became thus radically transformed through pagan influence.

As the Ishmaelites, like the Israelites throughout their history, drifted from the original path of monotheism, the Hajj pilgrimage became a celebratory occasion, and the Kaaba was stocked with idols and false deities supposed to bring the worshipers closer to the One God, Allah, whom they believed in. Men and women would run naked throughout the holy precinct. Merchants from all over would travel to the Kaaba and set up shop during the pilgrimage.

People and tribes from all over Arabia would make the journey to Mecca to take part in the festivities. But this annual pilgrimage was in greater parts disconnected from the Abrahamic practice 22:26-7. It was simply a time to make money instead of being charitable, drink alcohol, and commit immoral acts. The importance of the annual event perdured despite the corruption. It was maintained by those that settled in Mecca, and the Arabs of the entire peninsula that got attracted to it with time. These are the points brought to attention in 2:196-7. And then until v203 great stress is laid on the spiritual dimension, forgotten and neglected, of that occasion.

No other nation can be compared to the Ishmaelites' handling of their spiritual legacy and sacred shrine, than their own Israelite brothers. They could not maintain the way of their forefathers despite the constant sending of prophets to them to bring them back to the right path. When the Arabs were admonished and urged to reform, they qualified the warnings as

16:24,27:68"stories of the ancients".

These Ishmaelites vaguely recalled the Abrahamic ways, but found no other constructive argument in their opposition but by denigrating it as old and useless stories, based on its ancienty and supposed obsolescence, inaplicability to the current circumstances. They never qualify these stories as "false". It was in fact one of the Quran's oft repeated functions, to "remind" the people of the truth they were still somewhat aware of but that had been supressed by falsehood. The Quran openly states that

26:196"most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".

It repeats, time and again, its role as the guardian and preserver of the truth present in the past scriptures. Along with Abrahamic and monotheistic practices known in pre-islamic days, going back to previous prophets, was the Zakat which the people knew they had to give away to the poor but rarely practiced or misused 19:30-31,54-55,70:24,Deut14:28-29,26:12-14, fasting 2:51,183-187,7:142,Deut9:9,Ex24:18,34:28,Matt4:2,Lk5:33-6 prayer that continued after Ibrahim established it in the settlement of the Kaaba 14:37,19:55,Dan6:10,Ps55:18,1Chr23:30 until it was disfigured 8:35, animal sacrifice, circumcision. Other concepts propounded by previous prophets and which the Quran was reminding its addressees of, include the Resurrection, day of Judgement and accountability Matt13:24-43,1Kings17:17-24,2Kings4:17-37,13:20-1,1Sam2:6,Isa2:17,26:19,66:14,Ezek37:1-28,Ps71:20,Prov6:22,Prov31(see Rashi),Dan12:1-2,Quran29:36,54:36-9.

There are pre-islamic poems with clear eschatological connotation, some of them speaking of the resurrection of the soul, and Allah being the judge of mankind. One such poems is that of Zuhayr who wrote in his muallaqat

"Do not conceal from Allah what is in your souls, trying to hide it. Whatever is concealed from Allah, He knows. It is delayed and entered in a register and stored up for the day of reckoning, or it is brought forward and avenged".

Labid wrote

"every human will one day come to know his striving when it will be disclosed before the God what has been extracted".

See also the lines of al-A'sha evoking fear of the final accounting

"when the resurrected souls will shake of the dust".

The Quran and the traditions speak of the hanif remnants that tried preserving the monotheism of Ibrahim, and these lines of poetry might echo these marginal beliefs. The majority of the pre-islamic Arabs however rejected bodily resurrection and otherworldy accountability, the Quran repeatedly condemns this attitude. This phenomenon is clearly seen with the "talbiya", the invocations the pilgrims coming from all over Arabia made during their rituals.

Some of these have come down to us, referring to Allah as

"al wahid al qahhar rabb assamad",

while others clearly referred to the idols as subservient to him

"laa nabudul asnama hatta tajtahida li rabbiha wa tutabad"

or

"rabb al thalitha ukhra/Lord of the third goddess",

and others spoke of the One Lord of the last hour

"rabba assa'a".

All of this shows the multifaceted shades of idolatry among the pilgrims, some of them praising Allah alone, others associating with Him while maintaining Him above the intercessors, and others still referring to the day of judgement. This confirms the Quranic statement that the original religion established at the sanctuary was Abrahamic monotheism. It got disfigured with time, polluted with foreign concepts, although it maintained a recognizable foundation of truth, which the last prophet came to revive. Sura 87, after summing up the pillars of divine truth, such as monotheism, intelligent design, resurrection, God's all-encompassing, intricate knowledge and sway over His creatures' affairs, spiritual purification through prayer and constant remembrence of God as being the ways to success in the Hereafter, it says that these are all concepts known, written and transmitted by the prophets, from Ibrahim to Moses.

All of these things were known to the people whom Muhammad was addressing over 4000 years later but have been neglected for so long that only a dim remembrance of them remained 

23:83"Certainly we are promised this, and (so were) our fathers aforetime; this is naught but stories of those of old".

Muhammad revived the corrupted, obscured and forgotten way of Ibrahim

6:161"Say: Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the right path; (to) a most right religion, the faith of Ibrahim the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists".

The climax of that revival occured when he entered Mecca triumphantly, cleansed the Kaaba of its idols and rededicated it to its monotheistic purpose.

The prophet used to answer the call of freeman, slave, maid servant and destitute alike, shortening his prayer anytime someone would visit his open house so much so that his opponents spread it as a form of weakness and credulity while the prophet knew very well who to trust 9:61. The verse absolutely doesnt come in the context of charges of plagiarism. They would literally reproach him of being "an ear" because of his empathy and readiness to patiently listen to what anyone had to say. But although at first glance that seemingly gave the impression of being credulous it in fact reveals a great leadership quality of keeping cohesion within a group. He knows very well the liars or people with ill intentions but does not immidiately expose them to the rest of the community so as to leave them the chance to reform themselves, as is commanded within the Quran itself. This passive attitude should however not leave any ambiguity as regards the prophet's intellectual and spiritual stance, as denoted in the rest of the verse.

Sometimes as reflected in 33:53, his leniency, kindess and forbearance to his folks would often lead to abuse. People would enter his house at anytime, preventing him and his wives from their spiritual duties and basic privacy requirements. This injunction taught them certain rules of behaviour bearing on the life of such particular society, based on a true feeling of brotherhood, mutual consideration, and respect for the sanctity of each other's personality and privacy.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "REFUTING ADNAN RASHID PT. 3"

Islam Critiqued praises the prophet; Muhammad's encyclopediac knowledge?

Sam Shamoun "Muhammad’s Adulterous Lust for a Married Woman"

Sam Shamoun "Muhammad’s Adulterous Lust for a Married Woman"

These articles answer Sam Shamoun "Muhammad’s Adulterous Lust for a Married Woman"
Apostate prophet denounces inapropriate Marriage; prophet's union to Zaynab?
Apostate prophet misses little details; prophet unwilling to marry Zaynab?
Apostate prophet complains of human abuse; Quran bans adoption?

Sam Shamoun "The Reliability of Muslim Chronicler Ibn Ishaq"

Sam Shamoun "The Reliability of Muslim Chronicler Ibn Ishaq"

Many of the early writers, particularily the seera writers such as Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Al Waqidi, Ibn Saad were concerned by amassing and compiling all the material available or what was being talked about, surrounding any historical event or in comment to a verse, fearing they could be lost, without authenticating them. 

This shows the integrity of the Muslim tradition that did not seek to supress any information related to the life of the prophet and the early Muslims, nor invent things so as to advance their agenda. Such an endeavour would have been close to impossible to achieve anyway. There never was a centralized system of collecting information. Each narrator and historian took whatever was available to him, in his time and place. 

These historians, after gathering all that was floating around in oral tradition in regards an event of interest, would in the same time write down as many names among the chain of narrators as they could, so as to leave time and room for the specialists whose life was dedicated to sifting through the reliable and unreliable reports. They did not even attempt to examine the various reports in order to inform the reader of what they considered to be the reasons for various incidents. The biographers this way avoided taking responsibility for adopting a particular account when conflicting reports existed. Adopting specific accounts would mean discrediting the authenticity of other reporters and their accounts. And since was not their expertize, they preferred leaving it to the muhaddithun. When the experts finished selecting the authentic reports, the remainders were neither physically destroyed nor erased. They were instead kept as examples of what constitutes a weak narration, for future references and studies.

That is the difference between the Muslim tradition and the Judeo-Christian one that shamelessly accepts within its authentic collection of writings the most ridiculous and insulting things about God and the prophetic history, without any critical consideration for either the chain of transmission or the soundness of the content of a tradition. Neither do the Muslims take at face value the reports that over exalt the prophet and the early Muslims. If after deliberation they were deemed weak or unreliable, they were kept nevertheless if there was any moral lesson to derive from them. These weak and rejected narrations are well known to the Muslims, although the misinformed, unqualified critics of Islam make ample use of them to serve their anti Islamic propaganda machine.

These historians thus left the authentication process to the following generations in search of the truth. The famous historian Tabari for instance says in introduction to his work that his primary duty was to faithfully transmit whatever information he could gather, the responsibility is then on the reader or listener to verify not only the authenticity of the reports based on the transmitters' reliability, but also based on reason. As a case in point, the statement 'za'ama or za'amu often precedes Ibn Ishaq's reports implying the inherent caution of something being 'alleged'. This should make it clear for any sincere enquirer that there is more than a hint of a caution that the veracity of the statement he compiles is not necessarily determined as fact. Many narratives are this way injected with Arabic terms by the historians transmitting them, suggesting caution for the reader to undertake. 

Technically speaking, a seera book is a collection of reports about the prophet and his companions arranged in a chronoligical order with little attention given to reliability. The goal being to have as little gaps in time as possible.

Sam Shamoun "NOTES FOR THE LIVESTREAM ON ADNAN RASHID AND HIS MISUSE OF Q. 5:48"

Sam Shamoun "NOTES FOR THE LIVESTREAM ON ADNAN RASHID AND HIS MISUSE OF Q. 5:48"

The discontinuation of the line of prophethood is among the reasons that necessitated the protection of the final revelation to mankind, a revelation containing all previous books 98:2-3 as here reflected in the declaration of faith

2:177"believe in Allah and the last day and the angels and the Book and the prophets".  

3:23,5:44,4:44,51"Have you not considered those to whom a portion of the Book has been given? They buy error and desire that you should go astray from the way".

This indicates that the Torah and Injil were not the final words of God, but portions of one Book 6:156. The Quran in fact uses that established pattern of continuous revelation, to comfort the prophet, telling him that should his adressees disbelieve in that same pattern that is now bestowed upon him, then let him now, people preceded him that wholeheartedly believed in it. Further, their rejection does not compromise the honor and credibility of that lofty institution of prophethood. Instead of grieving, or even doubting, the prophet should follow the guidance of his predecessors who held fast by the revelation that came to them 6:84-90. All previous revelations are part of one Book called the Mother of the Book/umm al kitab which the Quran is also part of

43:4,13:39,2:236"and remember Allah's favour to you, and that which He has revealed to you of the Book".

The previous revelations forecasted the final revelation in the form of the Quran 4:47. This draws attention to an important truth: all the revealed scriptures contain the same spiritual and moral principles. They cannot contradict eachother and their only differences reside in that they were made to conform to the language of the addressees

26:192-6"And most surely this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Faithful Spirit has descended with it, Upon your heart that you may be of the warners, In plain Arabic language. And most surely the same is in the scriptures of the ancients".

The Quran then verifies the truth of these divine portions of the one Book and offers a clear global explanation of it

12:111,10:37,20:133"Has not there come to them a clear evidence of what is in the previous books?".

This is why it is said to be the Guardian and Arbitrer/Muhaymin and a clear explanation of THE Book (singular) of which past scriptures including the Quran are part of 5:48-9,10:37. This single scripture containing all past revelations as well as the Quran is said to be highly secure, purified and preserved, exalted and honored, inaccessible to evil interference and only between the hands of the most honourable custodians 26:193,56:77-80,80:13-16,81:19-21,88:22. It has been engraved in the lawh mahfuz/the preserved tablet 85:21-2, hence it

being referred to in the opening verses of sura baqara as 

2:2"dhaalika al kitab/that book or writing".  

The pronoun creates a distance with that kitab, because its katb/writing is done in a far heavenly place. In contrast the Quran speaks in many places of this/hadha al Quran denoting closeness because its recitation is being done in this world 

17:88"If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others". 

Another instance of the Quran's surgical use of words. 

Ibn Abbas was among the companions that understood dhaalika as a synonym for haadha/this. According to the well established grammatical rules of classical Arabic and pre-islamic poetry, pronouns such as dhaalika/haadha or fee/aala are often used interchangibly. The interesting manner in which the Quran makes use of that flexibility, creates several layers of understanding that complement one another; This worldly writing reproduces that writing done in heaven on the preserved tablet. 

The Quran, being from the same God and containing the same basic wisdom and truths of ancient scriptures 6:91,26:196,29:46 speaks highly about the Torah and Injeel. They are referred to as sources of mercy, wisdom, guidance and light 5:43,44,46,7:154,11:17,28:43,46:12 as well as criterions of truth and falsehood (furqan) clarifying all things 2:53,21:48,28:43,37:117. It even cites them sometimes as sources of guidance hand in hand with the Quran 28:48-9. Because again, they are never said to be totally corrupted. Read with the knowledge of the Quran, whose function is to be the muhaymin/protector and arbitrer, one can discern the guiding parts of previous oral and written traditions from the portion that were corrupted, either purposefully or through neglect. In 46:12 it says the Torah came prior to the Quran, as a guide and mercy. It is this guiding and merciful aspect of the Torah that the statement musaddiqan/declaring true, refers to, not simply the Torah. It doesnt say declaring "it" true. This is seen by the rest of the verse, paralelling the guidance and mercy of the Torah with the Quran being a warner and giver of glad tidings.

Again we see, the Quran only confirms the truthful aspects of past oral and written traditions, which the Quran never claims were entirely blotted out. This restricted aspect of the Quran's confirmation of the Torah is made clear in 6:154-7. The passage starts again with a praise of the Torah as being a book of mercy and guidance, followed by a parallel statement about the Quran, echoing stricly the merciful and guiding aspect of the Torah

"And this is a Book We have revealed, blessed; therefore follow it and be God-conscious that mercy may be shown to you".

The Torah contains many things that are neither guiding, nor sources of mercy, and other things that erroneous or even outright blasphemous about God and His prophets. The Quran does not confirm these things, and sometimes openly rejects them.

 The Quran condemns only the people that write the scriptures and manipulate it with their own hands. This is one of the miraculous qualities of the Quran, where it never assaults the Torah or Injeel in the context of corruption, but it lays blame always on the scribes. The Torah and Injeel are revealed by God, and considering the Torah and Injeel are from the same source as the one who revealed the Quran, it is only natural that the Quran never attacks the text per say.

The Quran is therefore the official preserver of the Book and this means that if something is claimed to be in the Book but the Quran says otherwise, then it is not from the Book. If the Quran is silent then it may or may not be of the Book and if the Quran approves it then it certainly is part of the Book. A long time ago, the prophet Muhammad explained how to approach the previous scriptures and traditions

“Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them. Say: We have faith in Allah, in what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes of Israel, in what was given to Moses and Jesus, and in what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims surrendering to Him (2:136)”.

This hadith encapsulates the notion of muhaymin/arbitrer. Muslims unambiguously believe in what was revealed to the prophets 4:136. However, Muslims do not believe nor reject the current scriptures and traditions of the people of the book. This is because by rejecting them, they could inadvertently reject an authentic remnant of the teachings of the prophets. By believing in them on the other hand would carry the risk of accepting things that were never sent by God, nor approved by the prophets. The perfect way for Muslims to maintain the middle ground and not commit any faulty judgement would therefore be to hold fast by the Muhaymin/the arbitrer that has preserved the truth of the previous revelations. This reflects even in the attitude of the classical exegetes. They exhibited no interest in the Jews and Christians of whom they must have had some contemporary knowledge. With very few exceptions such as Ibn Kathir and Zamakshari, we find no reference to the varieties of Jewish and Christian belief and practices.

After declaring its status as the Guardian and Watcher, the Quran states that those legitimate differences between the scriptures that are not the subject of human corruption, were because the laws were subject to their respective time frames

"for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way".

Allah could have prescribed one and the same Law for all, making all of humanity into a single nation but He did not do so for many good reasons. One of these reasons is to test people whether they obey or not what is given to them. Those people, who understand the real nature and spirit of the Divine Way and the position of the regulations in it and are not prejudiced, will recognize and accept the Truth in whatever form it comes. Such people will never hesitate to submit to the new regulations sent by Allah to replace the former ones. To demonstrate the unbiased nature of the Quranic message, it even tells its prophet in a hypothetical scenario that should a revelation be sent from God superseding both the Quran and the Torah, then Muhammad should be the first to follow it and nothing else 28:48-9.

This verse isnt arguing from the angle of authenticity, that the new scripture supersedes the previous due to them being flawed. Neither does it give an indication as to whether one of the 2 is partially flawed while the other is pristine. The verse is arguing from the viewpoint of unconditional obedience to God, regardless of the level of authenticity of the current scriptures. Those, who do not understand the true spirit of the Way, but consider the regulations and their details alone to be the Way and who have become static and prejudiced because of their own additions to it, will reject every new thing that comes from Allah to replace what they already possess

5:48"and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed"  

22:67"therefore they should not dispute with you about the matter".

But the unbiased, who understand that God's guidance is indiscriminate, not only accept the new revelation but also

13:36"rejoice in that which has been revealed to you".

They read the book 2:121"as it ought to be read". Consequently they cannot but recognize it as the truth 4:162,5:83.

Just like when the Bani Israil were ordered to follow the Injeel when it was revealed, the same proclamation is made regarding the Quran, now that it has been revealed. It guides them out of the labyrinths of assumptions and conjectures

27:76"Surely this Quran declares to the children of Israel most of what they differ in".

It brings them back to the path they deviated from, when they failed upholding both the Torah and the Injeel 5:66. The only way they can rightly say that they are following their own scriptures is by believing in the Quran as well because these revelations are interconnected:

5:68"Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord; and surely that which has been revealed to you from your Lord shall make many of them increase in inordinacy and unbelief; grieve not therefore for the unbelieving people".

5:69"If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: But many of them follow a course that is evil." 

This distinguished group from among them is the one that was led to believe in "that which has been revealed to you from your Lord" due to their sincere adherence to their own books. While the other group is the one that not only rejected the Quran, but also increased in their already existing inordinacy consequent to their neglect and distortion of their own books.  

2:89-93"..but when there came to them (Prophet) that which they did recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah's curse is on the unbelievers. Evil is that for which they have sold their souls-- that they should deny what Allah has revealed, out of envy that Allah should send down of His grace on whomsoever of His servants He pleases..And when it is said to them, Believe in what Allah has revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that, while it is the truth verifying that which they have. Say: Why then did you kill Allah's Prophets before if you were indeed believers? And most certainly Musa came to you with clear arguments, then you took the calf (for a god) in his absence and you were unjust. And when We made a covenant with you and raised the mountain over you: Take hold of what We have given you with firmness and be obedient. They said: We hear and disobey. And they were made to imbibe (the love of) the calf into their hearts on account of their unbelief Say: Evil is that which your belief bids you if you are believers"

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "NOTES FOR THE LIVESTREAM ON ADNAN RASHID AND HIS MISUSE OF Q. 5:48"

Acts17apologetics deny Biblical scholarship; Quran confirms past scriptures?
Acts17apologetics find an obscure expression; musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi?
Acts17apologetics hit rock bottom; the state of Biblical writings?
Acts17apologetics take a brief look at sura ma'ida; confirmation of the corrupt Bible?
Acts17apologetics find a balanced view; absolute Biblical corruption?

Sam Shamoun "The Prophet of Sensuality and Inconsistency; The Case of Maria The Copt"

Sam Shamoun "The Prophet of Sensuality and Inconsistency; The Case of Maria The Copt"

As regards the number of right hand posessions (an expression that includes but is not restricted to "concubines", see articles below), There is the case of Tukana who was taken under his care until he died. She lived in his household under the status of right hand possession without becoming his concubine. After her death, she married Abbas, the prophet's uncle. This indicates that the prophet would not have had intercourse with her during her years as a right hand possession in his household. Further, had any of she been taken by the prophet as concubine, then we would have read of the kind of tension which is abundantly found in the history books between the prophet's wives and the prophet's only concubine, Maria the Copt. The prophet would have also settled her in a seperate house as he did with Maria. 

There were several such right hand posessions that lived in the prophet's household, side by side with his wives, as maids only. Such assistance was certainly needed and justified, given the number of guests constantly entering, day and night, and who were always kindly hosted to such an extent that they would overstay. The very fact that the history books speak of only one such right hand posession, Maria, as having had issues with the prophet's wives on account of her concubine relationship with him, the only right hand posession that was settled in her own house, while there is complete silence regarding his other right hand posessions, means that the burden of proof is upon those leveling the claim, to establish that the prophet was intimate with other women than those that are known, whether from his wives or right hand posessions.

Through the verse 33:52, the prophet was specifically told not to marry more women or divorce anyone from the wives he already had, if it is for purely physical motives. Here is a man who is supposedly lustful for women, forbidden from taking wives on the basis of their beauty only, which is precisely what is supposed to satisfy his alleged lusts. And besides, the ones leveling this type of mindless arguments, mainly Christians nowadays should ask themselves; how does having multiple or young/beautiful wives stain his truthfulness as a prophet, considering the marital and concubinal history of the prophets of the Hebrew Bible?

33:52 was an answer to the hypocrites' annoying talk and unjust provocations the likes that were directed at other righteous men and women 33:48,57-58. The prophet is not here being denied the right to divorce. He is denied to do it for purely physical motives. He could divorce a woman if she misbehaved, then replace her with one regardless of her age or marital history, whose selection would strictly be on the basis of high morality and spiritual qualities 66:5. His divorces therefore would be dictated not by whims or lust but by righteousness and uprightness in conduct, or as the HB states in Prov31 after listing the true qualities of a married woman 

"Charm is false and beauty is futile; a God-fearing woman is to be praised". 

That is based on the notion that 

24:26"corrupt women are for corrupt men, and corrupt men, for corrupt women - just as good women are for good men, and good men, for good women". 

This negates the charges and calumnies raised by modern critics, mainly from a Judeo-Christian background, concerning the motives behind the prophet's marriages and these critics should rather turn attention towards their own scriptures where "divine ordinances" regulate whom is to marry whom, strictly on a physical basis 

Ezek44:22"And neither a widow nor a divorced woman may they (the high priests) take for wives, but they shall take virgins from the descendants of the House of Israel".

Such calumnies werent reserved to Muhammad, in the prophetic history, the likes of Moses were slandered to such an extent that the HB portrays YHWH wrathfully descending on the culprits Numb12,Ex2:21,Quran33:69. Despite these talks, the prophet is consoled that he is under constant spiritual blessings by God and His angels. These blessings in themselves will bring to naught all such imputations levelled against him or the believers in general, while a grievious sin will be written upon the culprits 33:56-8.  

What is very interesting is that the verse, although restricts any future marriage, allows him still to have as many right hand possessions as he would like to have and establish concubine relationships with them. And yet, here again is a man supposedly lustful, taking only 1 such women although he had the possibility of having much more, even as many as he would have liked. Again, we see a clear pattern from the prophet, abiding by all the restrictions imposed on him but not taking advantage of the legal relaxations. 

The religion of Islam, as exemplified in the life of the prophet, is against the concept of monasticism, the depraved idea of conflict between the flesh and the spirit, and the rejection of this world's legitimate pleasures. Accordingly, the Prophet said 

“By Allah, I fear Allah more than you do, and I am most obedient and dutiful among you to Him, but still I observe fast and break it; perform prayer and sleep at night and take wives. So whoever turns away from my Sunnah does not belong to me”. 

That balance between wordly enjoyments and spirituality is encapsulated in another hadith, placed by an Nasa'i in the chapter on the kind treatment of women 

“In your world, women and perfume have been made dear to me, and my comfort has been provided in prayer". 

Al-Suyuti offers the following insights on this report 

"In view of the fact that what is understood from the context of this Hadith is that the Prophet wanted to clarify what he received from the enjoyments of this world; he started his statement saying, “In your world, women and perfume have been made dear to me …“. In view of the fact of what has been made dear to him from the enjoyments of this world is the best thing of it; the women, as evidenced by his saying in another Hadith “The world is but a (quick passing) enjoyment; and the best enjoyment of the world is a pious virtuous woman” [Muslim]. It is appropriate to include the best religious matter, prayer, in the same Hadith, as prayer is the best worship that ranks second to faith. Therefore, we learn that this Hadith is a rhetorical one as it includes the best worldly enjoyments besides the best religious worships. Furthermore, the Prophet simply used the words “made dear to me” for the worldly matters while for the religious worships, he used the great expression of “my comfort has been provided in” as we can see that the word ‘comfort’ is used to express a great love not a normal one like the word “dear”".

The single right hand posession that was in addition his concubine was the noble Maria the Copt, who wasnt even a war captive, meaning the prophet didnt even go out of his way to find a woman that pleased him. She was given to him out of reverence by an Egyptian notable. It is interesting to note that there are at least 2 similar precedents in prophetic history, of a prophet's union with the Egyptian daughter of royalty. First Hagar who was given to Abraham, and then Solomon's unnamed Egyptian wife 1Kings3. The Egyptian notable wanted to establish political relations with the prophet, and this gesture was considered normal as per the decorum of ancient societies. Some reports say that two women were given, Maria and Sirin. The prophet freed Sirin whom he married to a close follower and took Maria as his concubine and lodged her in one of his followers' houses temporarily, Haritha. 

The prophet died only 2-3 years later. It is reasonable to assume that he would have eventually freed then married her, as seen from his relationship pattern in his household.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "The Prophet of Sensuality and Inconsistency; The Case of Maria The Copt"
Acts17apologetics jealous of the VIP: special treatment for the prophet?
dontconvert2islam tries talking human rights, what happened at Awtas?
dontconvert2islam examines Quran; Islam allows sex with married women?
dontconvert2islam dislikes the semitic traditions; Muslims have sex slaves?
dontconvert2islam exposes Jesus' teachings; Christian sex slavery?
dontconvert2islam tries handling Quran AND hadith, Maria/Hafsa affair?
dontconvert2islam seeks tabloids juicy news; any truth in the maria/hafsa affair?
dontconvert2islam wont break an oath; but can one ever be justified in doing so?

Sam Shamoun "JESUS CHRIST – THE MUHAMMAD OF THE QURAN?" (2)

Sam Shamoun "JESUS CHRIST – THE MUHAMMAD OF THE QURAN?" (2)

With the last Qibla change, the Israelites had been definitely deposed from their spiritual leadership over mankind. , a leadership that what was for them to honourably carry 2:63-64,3:187,28:5,32:24. This prophecied supplanting, as stated by Jesus in Matt21, meant they werent worthy of carrying the flame anymore, that the geographical center of monotheism has switched to another location, under a new established nation under God 

33:45-46"We have sent you as a witness, and as a bearer of good news and as a warner, And as one inviting to Allah by His permission, and as a light-giving torch". 

This meant that their hopes of seeing the Jerusalem Temple rebuilt for the 3rd time through Divine sanction by their messianic salvific figure was over. The era of prophethood itself has now ceased 

33:40"Muhammad..is the Messenger of Allah and the khaatim of the prophets; and Allah is cognizant of all things". 

The term khaatim from kh-t-m means to seal something shut so that nothing can get in or out of it. It is used often to mean that something is finished since one seals something when it is over. It is also used for a well demarcated feature of an entity or person.

Nowhere in the NT, or in the HB in those passages which Christians retrospectively apply to Jesus, is Jesus presented conceptually as, or even named the seal of the prophets. Not even in post NT traditions and writings. Christianity also posits that one should believe in Jesus' death on the cross to earn salvation. Not merely believing in 47:2"what is revealed to the Oft-Praised One (muhammadin)" in addition to righteousness. Neither did Jesus' followers show any firmness against the disbelievers, much less in a military sense as in the direct context of 48:29. Jesus' closest disciples fled the scene at his arrest and even denied knowing him. And Jesus was certainly not, according to Christianity, a messenger like all those that passed away 3:144. The context of 3:144 is that of war. Nothing to do with the circumstances of Jesus' mission. 

It was revealed in the context of the battle of Uhud during which the Muslims were overwhelmed by the enemy and rumor spread that the prophet was killed. So many of the believers fled the battlefield and some considered apostasy. They are admonished not for stopping to fight but for depending their faith on the prophet; meaning their belief would continue as long as he lived, and disappear the moment he died, turning back to their former state after finding the guidance. The verse tells them that the religion of truth and its succesful establishment is in the hands of Allah, Muhammad has no authority in this affair, he is but a messenger charged with conveying the message and many passed away before him. This is particularly made clear when Allah mentions the war of Badr and his assitance to the believers and suddenly cuts short the speech, turning towards His Prophet to tell him, 

3:127-128"You have no concern in the affair". 

In its wider implication the verse re-states the fundamental Islamic doctrine that adoration is due to God alone, and that no human being - not even a prophet - may have any share in it. 3:144 also hints to another reality, by mentionning both the possibilities of assassination and of Muhammad dying a natural death it projects on the future behavior of the Muslims and warns them that Muhammad is naught but a messenger, that they should not idolise him and turn upon their heels after him. When prophets were sent to humanity with the guidance, wisdom and Book from Allah, it was not for their followers to be their servants and neither to be worshiped, but to worship Allah alone 3:78-79. Muslims must uphold at all costs, this religion of Ibrahim and this Quran. The striking similarity between 

3:144"Muhammad is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away" 

and 

5:75"The Messiah son of Marium is not except a messenger, indeed, the messengers before him have passed away" 

comes as a sign from Allah who makes clear His communications. Only these 2 messengers are described with the exact same wording because no other prophets were inappropriately over exalted among the nations to whom they were sent and the subsequent generations, as much as these 2 

"See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away". 

On a final note, finality of Prophethood seems to be a tenuous claim. After all, potentially anyone can stand up and say that he is a Prophet of God - but so far all the instances in which this has happened has failed to even come close to the scale and scope of the Prophet Muhammad's mission. Also, if we examine the entire career of these claimants - they have singularly and absolutely failed to match the life-chart of Prophet Muhammad and moreover their death poses even more questions than their life. What is even more interesting that none of them claimed to be the final Prophet, much less Jesus who predicted the coming of a powerful figure after him, the Paraclete, that shall bring justice to the world.

Sam Shamoun "JESUS CHRIST – THE MUHAMMAD OF THE QURAN?" (1)

Sam Shamoun "JESUS CHRIST – THE MUHAMMAD OF THE QURAN?" (1)

Some wild theories did float around in the previous century arguing that Islam could have originated in a Christian milieu. For example the Protestant theologian Gunter Luling theorized in the 1960s that Mecca was thoroughly christianized by Muhammad’s lifetime, and was a significant Christian town ruled by the Quraysh, a Christianized tribe that worshipped in the Kaaba, a Christian church built with an orientation toward Jerusalem. This assertion however remains unsubstantiated whether from Muslim or Christian sources, just as his assumption of a massive Christian presence in central and northwestern Arabia.

Going back in time, some 100 years after the prophet's death, there is John of Damascus. The short passage by this esteemed "church father" is by no means representative of the Quran's contents, form or extent as it was in his time. It surely is not, considering the heavy bias and intent of the author, representative of Islamic beliefs of the time. Especially coming from a school of thought known as justifying its use of lies and deceit, so as to save people into the loving arms of Christ. The author doesnt claim to have gone through the book from cover to cover. He did not even have a manuscript while penning his work and was obviously relying on hearsay. He paraphrases very few verses as he heard them, amplifying certain aspects so as to serve the purpose of his polemic. And because he has no Quran from which he is quoting, He jumbles clear Quranic chapters, calling them "books" since the scripture of his Christian audience is composed of books, and extra Quranic material, oral and written, as well as 2nd hand reports from non-Muslims about Muslims, like Herodotus's statement about Muslims worshiping Aphrodite. 

This concise polemic is meant to resonnate to the average Christian of his time, ignorant of the teachings of their own bible on similar issues that undermine his very contentions against Muslims; Arianism, sexual depravity and parallelisms with the antichrist. Jesus' portrayal in the Quran is thus presented as partly in line with Arianism and gnosticism, Muhammad's prophethood is rejected, certain Islamic laws are amplified and misrepresented, sometimes completely distorted so as to render them offensive to flesh-hating Christians, including monastics like himself. 

As a side note, it was common for polemicists to purposefuly misrepresent Islam and its prophet so as to deride Muslims and instill hatred for them in their Christian audiences. For example Muhammad is depicted as claiming he would be married to the emaculate mother of Jesus Christ in heaven. This latter polemic was invented in the 800s by Eulogius of Cordova, making its way even among some Muslim Quran comentaries. Ibn Kathir cites it while disputing its authenticity. Among other lies of this untalented Christian hate-mongerer, there is Muhammad's failure to rise on the 3rd day following his death, as he supposedly claimed, contrary to the "risen" Jesus. Robert Hoyland observes about this writer, after sketching a portrait of the prophet's early life, most likely plagiarized from John of Damascus 

"follows a lampoon of the Qur'an, mocking the chapter titles involving animals and twisting the words of the verse on the divorce of Zayd and Zaynab (Qur'an xxxiii.37). The final section recounts Muhammad's failed attempt at resurrection, as told in John of Seville's note, adding that an annual slaughter of dogs was instituted to avenge him. This is pure invention, presumably meant to compare Muhammad unfavourably with Christ, and a similar fiction is found in the Bahira legend. "It was appropriate that a prophet of this kind fill the stomachs of dogs," concludes the author, "a prophet who committed not only his own soul, but those of many, to hell.""

Continuing with John' polemic; Islam is presented as a "heresy", but clearly not in the sense that it grew out of Christianity, rather in the sense of "false doctrine". John discusses in that polemic many other belief systems which he labels heresies, including pre-Christian religions. 

The irony is that this caricature of Islam, read through a Christian lens and aimed at a Christian audience even more ignorant than him of what Islam is, would undermine similar later criticisms of Islam, more particularily modern, by his Christ-loving peers. He for instance although is unfamiliar with the Quranic text, speaks multiple times of descendents of Abraham and Ishmael, venerating a single Book whose messenger, a "seemingly" pious man named Muhammad, received from heaven. The book was thus already present in his time, compiled as a single unit. His Muslim contemporaries whom he repeatedly "embarasses", affirmed the oral and textual corruption of his Bible. 

Regardless of the sharpness of their arguments or whether these Muslim interlocutors are real or fictitious, putting aside their supposed legends surrounding the Kaaba and the black stone, which are conveniently embarassing and self-serving for his polemic, these Muslims still affirmed the Abrahamic legacy with the Kaaba whose stone he says Muslims rub their face upon 

"but they still assert that the stone is Abraham's". 

In his "refutation" of that Muslim claim, he appeals to his Bible which he seems as unfamiliar with as he is with the Quran and Muslim tradition. Abraham had to travel, according to Genesis for a few days from Beersheba where he gathered wood to the location of the near sacrifice in Moriah. The wood was obviously not freshly cut from a forest as it would not burn, and neither is Beersheba an area that has wooded mountains. Abraham took wood from what he had already gathered, which he simply split, traveling with what he needed and leaving the rest behind. This makes John's argument for the supposed lack of wood at the Kaaba's location irrelevant to his contention. He further deceptively states or is simply ignorant of the text he appeals to, that the wood was gathered on the spot of the sacrifice itself. 

The blunder is so gross, coming from an esteemed church father, that one can only conclude that it is a purposeful deception so as to win an argument. What is clear is that some zealous Muslim contemporaries hit a nerve for John, accusing him of idolatrous worship of the cross, while John himself was having a hard time defending the veneration of icons against many fellow Christians. 

Instead of justifying his position, as he does against the Muslim rejection of Jesus' divinity, he engages in an untenable polemical invention. The black stone supposedly is, up to his day a carving with the features of the head of Aphrodite. The Muslim historians do not shy away from naming, describing every main idol and statue introduced into the Kaaba and the surrounding sites. None has ever mentionned anything close to that claim. Not a single idol was left standing in the precincts of Mecca after its conquest, including the main idol Hubal. Why would an obscure female deity be left up to a 100 years later?

Sam Shamoun "AHMAD OR THE HOLY SPIRIT?"

Sam Shamoun "AHMAD OR THE HOLY SPIRIT?"

61:6"And when Isa son of Maryam said: O children of Israel! surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic"

Ahmad in this verse is in the grammatical form of ism tafdeel. For example a sentence might say "this person is kabeer/great but that one is akbar/greater". Ism tafdeel indicates that the characteristics described are greater in the individual concerned. It is an observable reality that the prophet Muhammad's name is much more revered than that of Jesus. That characteristic reached a point that the ism tafdeel became equivalent to the prophet Muhammad's proper name. It is reported that nobody had that name prior to the prophet. Shortly after the prophet's time however, Muslims began using it as a name. Ibn Abi Ahmad for instance, who narrated ahadith from Abu Hurayra who himself died around 59AH. Or another hadith narrator who was his contemporary, named Al Jamdi Abu Ahmad. The prophet referred to himself as Ahmad, among 5 other names. His companions did too, including in poems about him.

Ibn Ishaq in his sirah refers to "Ahmad" while relating the story of the prophet's birth.

 Hassan b. Thabit said: ‘I was a well-grown boy of seven or eight, understanding all that I heard, when I heard a Jew calling out at the top of his voice from the top of a fort in Yathrib “O company of Jews” until they all came together and called out “Confound you, what is the matter?” He answered: “Tonight has risen a star under which Ahmad is to be born.”

According to world renowned Islamicist professor Déroche, the earliest Quranic manuscripts contain the exact same wording as 61:6 (Catalogue des manuscrits Arabes). Arthur Jeffrey's proposition that 61:6 did not originally contain the reference to "Ahmad" is based on a marginal quote in a late 13th century book on qiraat by a certain "al-Marandi".  Outside what that late source supposedly says, no evidence exists for Ubay's alleged variant reading, while every early manuscript containing the passage agrees with the Uthmanic recension. Also, just because someone claims something about Islam and is Muslim means nothing in terms of authenticity. There are many variants attested to this day that do not pass the standards and that do have at least a partial chain of transmission, contrary to this supposed variant that has none.

Muhammad, through his appellation and the praises he receives virtually every second of the day, fulfilled that prophecy in both ways, as established in the Quran 

94:4"And We raised for you, your remembrance." 

Further, nobody came after the prophet Jesus claiming to be a messenger of God and whose evidences were repeatedly and consistently treated as magic 

46:7"Our clear lucid verses were read to them. But, referring to the truth as it came to them, the unbelievers said, “This is obviously a magic!”".

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "AHMAD OR THE HOLY SPIRIT?"

Acts17apologetics reveal an NT prophecy; Muhammad is the paraclete?
Acts17apologetics uncover shocking news; paraclete cannot be holyspirit?
Acts17apologetics introduced to proper context; reason of the paraclete prophecy?
Acts17apologetics ask the HB; where is the holy spirit in the Bible?
Acts17apologetics find the intangible spirit; paraclete is a person?
Acts17apologetics discover Jewish trinity; How many gods fit in Genesis?
Acts17apologetics keep hitting the same brick wall; where did JEsus claim divinity?

Sam Shamoun "The Quran and Sunnah In Conflict: Is Every Living Thing From Water?"

Sam Shamoun "The Quran and Sunnah In Conflict: Is Every Living Thing From Water?"

When the Quran speaks of the creation of the human race, it consistently implies the action of fashioning, molding, forming, perfecting 40:64,64:3,87:2 starting with an extract/sulala of various inorganic, earthly elements 15:26,23:12,32:7,37:11,55:14 and water 21:30,24:45,25:54. Obviously the absence of organic life entails it originated from inorganic compounds. In some of these verses it speaks of dust, dry clay at others of muddy, sticky clay, indicating that a combination of elements (the aforementionned water and dry matter) was involved at the beginning of the process. 

All languages inherently accept exceptions unless the statement is clearly absolute, or that no other statements from the same source exist to allow the exclusion. The Quran speaks in several places of different non organic compounds at mankind's origins and in none of these verses does it make an absolute assertion. Nowhere does it say mankind was made exclusively of dust or only of water. The same reasoning applies to the verses speaking of the creation of the jinn. None of them make absolute statements or negate there being other elements involved in their creation than those mentionned.

The Jinn are beings whose essence is, contrary to the earthly substance of mankind, a special kind of fire 6:100,15:26-27,21:30,55:15. Just as we originated from inorganic earthly elements, then passing through various stages of creation, became a flesh and blood entity capable of procreating 30:20 so did the jinn species originate with what the Quran calls "smokeless fire" and water 21:30 (water and ethanol can emit fire if ignited for example) then passing through various stages of creation, the initial model became a different entity of which we know little or nothing, capable of spreading its species 55:14-15,15:26-27. They are not immaterial or non-physical entities, rather non visible to mankind specifically. The term itself, stems from JNN and means hidden. The Arabic for garden is JANNA, from the same root, as it implies a hidden place from sight due to the lush vegetation. The term is thus used for the hidden entities. All beliefs, including the Abrahamic faiths, accept them. But each culture has ascribed more or less fantastical additions to this belief. The Quran refutes many of the beliefs the pre-Islamic Arabs had about them. It also adds some insights that were unknown about their nature and history.

They have freewill, a body and a soul, males and females 72:6, were made before men 15:27 and currently live on earth but cannot be perceived by mankind. Man's current vision is only engineered to perceive a fraction of the spectrum of light. Many realities of the universe remain hidden to us in this world yet they surround us. They are morally accountable for both their actions and spiritual choices, so they will be raised for judgement like the humans 6:128-130,51:56,55:14-16,31-39,72:1-7,11-14.

Sam Shamoun "Does the Quran Reject Christ’s Eternal Generation? Pt. 1"

Sam Shamoun "Does the Quran Reject Christ’s Eternal Generation? Pt. 1"

Warith/to inherit stems from w-r-th. The common denominator between all derivates of the root is the idea of acquiring something that has survived. The word in itself does not indicate ownership status. It essentially conveys the idea that what has been acquired has survived an event that caused things around it to perish (death, destruction, etc). Only the context of its use determines whether there was previous ownership or not. 

The Quran, as Jesus does in the NT Matt25 (see also Zechariah2:12), describes the righteous believers as the inheritors of paradise 19:63,23:10-11,39:74,43:72. Literaly, the meaning is that they have received a thing that remained despite a destructive event, the resurrection in this case. The Arabic, again, does not indicate previous ownership status. Inheriting paradise does not imply it belonged to another who then forfeited his ownership to them. Metaphorically, it carries the notion of aqcuiring without much exertion. Because the immense reward of Paradise is many times described as far surpassing in value any kind of deed. 

But ultimately all things are perishing and only God is everlasting in and of Himself 55:26-7,28:88. Ultimately, He is the true inheritor and the Quran calls Allah khayr al waritheen/the best of those who inherit 3:180,15:23,19:40,21:89,28:58. He receives all that perdures, because even the life of those who "receive what has survived", such as the aforementionned case of the inheritors of paradise, is entirely dependant on His will. Should He cease sustaining them then all perduring things will return to Him 

11:108"And as to those who are made happy, they shall be in the garden, abiding in it as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord please". 

It is important to note here the concept of rajaa/"returning" to God. Nothing in the heavens and the earth has ever escaped His ownership. Some of these things were, at most, temporary trusts put at mankind's disposal by virtue of man's vicegerency on the earth, to test his gratitude and aptitude to make use of them in God-consciousness. Numerous verses reinforce that notion. So God's status is never altered during that whole process, neither does He gain or lose while His favors are entrusted to the humans, up until they are returned to him when He decrees to stop sustaining all life. 

It is in this sense that the prophet Zakariyya, in sura anbiya and aal imran, describes Allah as khayr al waritheen/best of the inheriters, when he prays Allah for a heir. With that wording, Zakariyya shows his farseighted wisdom. He humbly acknowledges that all life, including that of the heir he so wholeheartedly desires will end when God stops maintaining it. The higher implication is that, what his heir will inherit from him, will one day return to the true and ultimate Heir.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "Does the Quran Reject Christ’s Eternal Generation? Pt. 1"

CIRA International uncover Quran mistake; foreign gods can only have carnal sons?