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

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?

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

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!"

Islam critiqued examines divine royalty; A Quranic throne and the exhausted YHWH?

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

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"

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

These articles answer Sam Shamoun "Muhammad Did it Again! More Proof that Jesus is God Incarnate Pt. 2"
Sam Shamoun "Muhammad’s Need of A Savior" (1)
Sam Shamoun "Muhammad’s Need of A Savior" (3)
Sam Shamoun "Quran’s Multiple Creators: More Proof of Islam’s Triadic Deity"

Sam Shamoun "Commanding Jihad Against Those Who Believe Differently"

Sam Shamoun "Commanding Jihad Against Those Who Believe Differently"

These articles answer Sam Shamoun "Commanding Jihad Against Those Who Believe Differently"
Acts17apologetics accuse Muhammad; Quran 9:29 attacks Jews and Christians for their faith?
Apostate prophet the orientalist; What is dhimmitude and jizya?
Apostate prophet watches too many mafia movies; jizya is racket?
Apostate prophet disappointed by his idol; Jesus allowed jizya?

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

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.

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

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!"

Sam Shamoun "Muhammad – The Great Satanic Usurper!"

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

Sam Shamoun "Another Case of Muhammad’s Sunnah Contradicting the Quran" (2)

Sam Shamoun "Another Case of Muhammad’s Sunnah Contradicting the Quran" (2)

Sam Shamoun "Another Case of Muhammad’s Sunnah Contradicting the Quran" (2)

Allah's has exalted some prophets above others in particular aspects 2:253,17:55 like in the manner in which revelation was bestowed upon them or in the type of signs they were given to confirm their prophethood, or in the universality of their message. 

Moses spoke to and was spoken to directly and repeatedly by Allah 4:164,7:143 possibly because he needed a special kind of reassurance considering the magnitude of the opposition, whether internal with the rebellious Israelites or external with the ruthless Pharao. 

Jesus was a living sign of Allah to the people, along with his mother 21:91,23:50 and the RUH al qudus/breeze of holiness was working with him, under Allah's command and control, allowing him the performance of spectacular signs 2:87,253,5:110. The RUH al qudus/breeze of holiness, besides its basic role of inspiration, gave him the strength and aptitude to perform the miracles that he did. Jesus' association to the RUH do not however make any of them divine. It was a tool sent upon Jesus as was sent on all prophets and regular believers, each time for the purpose for which Allah intends for it. God's breathing from His RUH in every human being doesnt make us or part of us divine 32:9,38:71-2. Ruhana/our breeze or breath is attached to God's name to stress its greatness, the particular connection it creates between the recipient and Allah, as is stated concerning the righteous 58:22"These are they into whose hearts He has impressed faith, and whom He has strengthened with a RUH from Him/minhu". And just as the Quran associates the RUH with Jesus, it does the same with the prophet Muhammad in the context of divine inspiration 16:102. The RUH sent by Allah, under His command, affects multiple people at once like the wind would. Similar usage is seen with the house of Allah or the month of Allah or the sakina of Allah/the soothing calmness that filled Muhammad and the believers, or the love from Allah bestowed upon Moses 20:39 etc. None of those things are considered parts of Allah, having any intrinsic power, or emanating from within His essence, or sharing in His divinity.

Jesus' mention with the RUH is among the patterns of the Quran of taking up the most cherished christological themes, then strip them from their paganistic implications.

David is often singled out, even in comparison to Muhammad, for the scripture he received. The exact aspect by which the original Psalm, now lost, excelled all other divine scriptures may be hard to define, but it could be in terms of beauty and eloquence, as seen by the description of all creation joining David in his hymns to Allah. Both the Quran and the HB speak of non-human creation joining David in his prayers to God. 

Ibrahim was made a guide/imam of mankind, in terms of spiritual guidance 2:124. Of course Abraham was not the sole spiritual guide, but "a" guide among many noble personalities throughout the ages. Abraham's particularity in that aspect, as regards all spiritual guides that preceded and those that followed him, is that God Himself honored him with that appellation. This shows the magnitude of his righteousness and faith in Allah.

Muhammad closed the door of prophethood. Being the seal of the prophets 33:40, he was given a revelation that would guard the previous ones 5:48 and remain incorruptible for that purpose. The ahadith give other aspects by which Allah will exalt him on the resurrection; he will lead the sons of Adam, one could say, by virtue of his aforementioned sealing of the line of prophethood, being the final guide of mankind. The hadith in sahih Muslim shows it is speaking of the hereafter 

"I shall be pre-eminent/sayyid amongst the descendants of Adam on the Day of Resurrection". 

This is further borne out by the prophet's refusal to be called a sayyid in his own lifetime (see hadith below). Sayyid is one who is prominent in status, such as honor and authority. It carries a different connotation than "imam" used for Abraham. When the earth will split open for judgement 84:3-5,99:1-5, it will firstly do so in front of him, he will be the foremost to praise Allah and the first to be granted intercession. This of course does not mean that he alone will praise Allah, just that he will be the foremost, or that nobody else other than him will be allowed to intercede 21:28,43:86 just that he will be the first to do so. He will be honored at the right of the throne and nobody will be allowed at that specific place to the right. These are all marks of honor granted to the prophet, during the resurrection and judgement specifically. It does not exclude that others, whether regular believers, prophets, or angels will receive special stations of honor and exaltation. In fact the Quran states that the sincere believers will be among the prophets and other righteous in the hereafter 4:69. 

The concept of nearness to Allah implies honoring, satisfaction and reward as often stated in the Quran. It is used in different contexts, as in the magicians whom Pharaoh promised to honor by drawing them near to him 26:42, to the believers who are urged to seek the means to obtain Allah's nearness 5:35. Nearness to Allah in the Hereafter is presented as the foremost reward of the foremost in faith, far surpassing everything that heaven may offer of delights 56:10-11,88,54:55,83:28 the Prophet Jesus is likewise made near to Allah 3:45, as the angels near to Allah executing His commands 4:172. Those honored individuals will experience realities of the unseen that are restricted to others 83:21. Further, those nearest to God 

21:19"are never too proud to worship Him and never grow weary". 

Contrary to worldly ownership and mastership, the closer a servant is to his master the more benefits he gains in terms of power, material gains and personal freedom. But as regards to God's ownership which is the true and absolute one, the closer the servant is drawn to Him the more humbled and submissive the servant becomes, aware of his insignificance in relation to the Supreme Being. That is how complete and intricate the Quran is, in its argumentations for perfect monotheism.

The prophet being at the right of the throne does not mean at the right of Allah, and neither does it deny others being allowed at the right of the throne. Just that there will be a specific place to the right that will only be that of the prophet. In the Quran we read of entities bearing the Throne and being near it on the Day of Judgement. None of those verses say that God is or will be seated on this "Throne" 40:7,39:75,69:16-17. Such depictions are found in the HB 

1Kings22:19"I saw the Lord seated on His throne, and all the host of heaven were standing by Him on His right and on His left" 

or also in Isa6:1,37:16,Ezek1,2,3 all picturing God carried by angelic creatures, seated on His throne. He is also pictured as accompanied by innumerable chariots and angels during certain "important" movements Ps68:18.

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 give more legitimacy, honor or respect to one above another. Even when the prophet Muhammad himself stated that he was made leader of the prophets, as reported in the hadith, this is a role which Allah has ascribed to him, and should not diminish in the least the eminence of other prophets in our eyes. This reflects in the prophet Muhammad's warning to his addressees not to raise him in status even above the prophet Jonas/Yunus 

"No slave (of Allah) should say that I am better than Yunus bin Matta.” So the Prophet mentioned his father’s name with his name". 

This is an interesting pattern in the history of prophethood that not a single prophet ever declared his superiority over another. Except in the Gospels' depiction of Jesus, proclaiming his eminence in relation to the prophet Jonah and Solomon in one breath Matt12.

God alone has the prerogative of appointing messengers, assigning roles specific to them and exalting them. It is not becoming of a believer to speak for Allah by saying that one prophet is better than the other. Just as it would not be appropriate for a regular citizen to declare the superiority of a specific army general above others, because the president has honored that general with more medals. The prophet did not say that his leadership of the prophets entailed more honor and praise by his followers. This exalted status is one that affects the relationship between prophets only, and has nothing to do with the relationship between us and the prophets as a whole. 

The prophet condemned a zealous follower who overstepped the limits by slapping a man who was speaking of the superiority of Moses on Muhammad, saying it is wrong to engage in discussions discriminating among prophets. He sometimes praised the superiority of character of certain prophets. For example he once said he would not have had Yusuf's strength of character when he provided the interpretation of the king's dream while unjustly imprisoned 

"I would not have done so until I put a condition on them that they let me out...May Allah have mercy on Yusuf.  May Allah bless him for his patience, and Allah will forgive him.  I could not have done that..."

There is a very deep and relevant reason for which the Quran in 2:253 has specifically pointed out Moses and Jesus in the context of God's exaltedness of some prophets above others in particular aspects. The Jews regard it as an article of faith to declare Moses the greatest of all prophets that preceded and followed him, precisely because of the reason mentioned in the verse, ie the manner in which God spoke to him without intermediaries like angels. This discrimination reflects even in the manner in which they have classified and canonized their books, following a descending order of "holiness" depending on the manner in which God communicated with the personalities who authored them. For example the Hebrew Bible is composed first and foremost of the Torah of Moses, viewed as the most sacred of all, then come the books of nevi'im/prophets that are considered holy but not as much as the Torah since although the prophets who wrote these books communicated with God, their interaction with Him were indirect or "blurry" ie through visions or dreams that required interpretation. The last books of the Hebrew bible are the ketuvim/writings, also regarded as holy, but even on a lesser degree than the nevi'im/prophets because their authors -not considered prophets- did not communicate with God, but either through intermediaries like angels, as in Daniel's case whom Rabbis have still not agreed whether he is a prophet or not, or through the ruach hakodesh/spirit of holiness (what the Quran calls ruh alqudus/breath or spirit of holiness). With the passage of time, the years of suffering and exile, and the ensuing loss of the Torah and knowledge of Jewish history, even the praise given to Moses diminished in favor of a new prophetic figure. Ezra, because of his role in re-introducing the Torah, both as a text and in practice, to the exiled Jews, was seen as deserving of having received the revelation of Sinai as Moses was 

"R. Yossi says: “Ezra was fit to have the Torah given to Israel by him, if it weren’t for the fact that Moses came before him.”

Christians on the other hand regard Jesus to be the greatest of all prophets sent to mankind, even raising him to the status of a deity, precisely because of those qualities spoken of in 2:253 and that Allah made to shine through him more than with other prophets; the manifestation of the holy spirit through him and the wonders he performed.

That is where the Quran steps in, saying that all prophets received clear signs 57:25 and all of them received God's spirit/breath of prophecy carried down into their hearts by angelic messengers 16:2 and although God's spirit filled some prophets with more intensity than others, were able to perform more spectacular signs than others, or were sometimes spoken to without angelic intermediaries, it is Allah who, in His wisdom, has exalted them in some particular aspects. 

Therefore from a true believer's perspective it is not befitting to discriminate among God's messengers in terms of status, holiness or relevancy, or in light of the manner God communicated with them. There is no real standard to use as a reference anyway, since the process of inspiration is something of which very little knowledge has been imparted to us 17:85. The Tanakh itself discards these discriminatory criteria at once when it states, concerning all prophets, including since the time of their exodus with Moses whom they regard as the chief of all prophets 

Hosea12:10"I spoke to the prophets, gave them many visions and told parables through them". 

All of them are true prophets, no mention of grades despite the different visions they received.

Muslims are required first and foremost as one of the pillars of faith to believe in the existence and truthfulness of all of God's envoys, humans or angels 2:177,285. 

Secondly, as regards the human messengers, they must be revered and accepted on the same level, not making any distinction between them in terms of status.  In order to stress that particular point to its audience among the people of the book, who were most guilty of that type of partisanship, the Quran, a revelation bestowed upon the Ishmaelite prophet, mentions the Abrahamic lineage and the illustrious names among them. It starts with the common spiritual ancestor Abraham, then his 2 righteous sons and prophets, Ishmael and Isaac, then demonstrates the correct mindframe as regards the noble institution of prophethood. It firstly praises the Israelite line of prophets, citing Jacob, and implicitly the many prophets that were sent among his descendants (al asbat), with the 2 most influential being Moses and Jesus, then ends with a general mention of "the prophets" that includes all of God's envoys sent to the world 

3:84,4:152,2:136"Say:'We believe in Allah and in what has been sent down to us, and what was sent down to Abraham and, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no difference between any of them. And to Him do we submit". 

Again, these verses are Medinian, addressing the people of the book and demonstrating its unprejudiced and non-discriminatory perspective. That is why it only passingly alludes to the Abrahamic line through Ishmael (implicitly in 3:33), focusing instead on the line of its addressees who are from the line of Jacob/Israel.  

It is worthwhile to note the term used in the Quran when speaking of the continuous sending of prophets following Moses in 2:87. It says qafayna, derived from q-f-w meaning the back of the neck. The verb means to follow (because you follow the back of someone). It is a word used to describe a poetically structured text or speech because it denotes a close, synchronized, harmonious succession. In the same way, the prophets were closely synchronized in their message, and Allah in the Quran repeatedly states how all revelations are one in essence 46:9,21:7‑10,4:163. This by the way not only is meant at denying any discrimination among them, but it also means that none of those noble personalities deviated in the message he was conveying so as to depart from a well established pattern. 

This implies that Jesus, an Israelite prophet in a long line of prophets, would have never asked to be worshiped so as to depart from the pattern of his predecessors.

Muhammad was inspired following the same pattern as other known illustrious men before him were, including many unnamed and forgotten ones, whether among the tribes of Israel (Jewish tradition holds that thousands were sent to them) or outside of them 

4:163-4"We inspired towards you as We inspired towards Noah and the prophets from after him. And We inspired towards Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the children (of Jacob)/alasbat and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon. And we brought to David, Psalm. And (We sent) apostles We have mentioned to you before and apostles we have not mentioned to you; and to Musa, Allah addressed His Word, speaking (to him)." 

As shown above through the attitude of Jews and Christians in whose creed one must acknowledge the superiority of one prophet above all others, Islam, truly earns its name as the "willful surrender unto God" instead of surrendering to one's prejudice and desires. 

Just as it calls and presents the prophet Muhammad as no more than a humble slave of Allah, Jesus is equally shown as powerless without Allah's will and in entire submission to Him. That description is appropriate given the Christians' raising him to divine status. Moses likewise, seen as the wisest of all prophets by the Jews, is shown humbling himself before another of God's messengers who far surpassed him in wisdom and knowledge of the unseen. This again is highly appropriate given the particular exaltation the Jews give him in comparison to other prophets.

The Quran in addition admonishes against the attitude of claiming belief in God but rejecting a particular prophet 4:150. Those who do so simply do not like the message from the God they claim to believe in, it threatens their sinful ways and prevents them from pursuing their evil interests.

Muslims are warned not to fall in the same prejudice and error of the Jews and Christians who each gave such absolute reverence to a particular prophet that they regarded and still do, the acceptance of a new prophet with a different message as a denial of the superiority of their revered figure. In 45:16-18 the Quran addresses Muhammad, telling him just as another nation was vouchsafed revelation, he too is now chosen and put on the straight path, thus stressing the continuation of the divine message. 

Stress is also laid, in different ways, on the principle that rejecting one messenger amounts to rejecting all the messengers because all of them had brought one and the same message from Allah 26:105,123,141,160,176. 

Whatever was the special knowledge distinction or ability with which they excelled their people, the prophets always attributed them to God 12:37-40,27:15-19.

The Quran, when referring to the most honourable experiences of the prophet still calls him a slave, such as in the context of his chosenness, possessor of a miracle and taken on the israa and miraj 2:23,17:1,18:1. Therefore the Quran continuously stresses the prophet Muhammad being a slave of Allah like any Muslims 7:194, not possessing the keys of the unseen except what Allah granted him 7:188 and him being nothing but a warner and giver of glad tidings.

Muslims of the past and today, including contemporaries of the prophet would sometimes over exalt him. Like in every community with a charismatic leader, there will be people who will be inclined to overstep the bounds of reverence, even when the leader explicitly tells them not to do so. And when these leaders are prophets, per the Quran the highest rank a human being can reach in terms of spiritual eminence, then this tendency among the followers becomes more pronounced. 

The prophet Muhammad disliked being honoured like a royalty, and hence forbade his people to stand up for him. His followers knew it and despite their love for him would refrain from doing so 

"There was no person more beloved to them than the Messenger of Allah." [He said:] "And they would not stand when they saw him because they knew that he disliked that." 

This resulted in many times visitors being unable to distinguish between him and the remaining assembly. In contrast, one thing God made sure of is that the believers should lower their voices and carefully listen to the prophet in their midst and on whose instructions salvation depends 49:2. He would not let people stand for him although he himself would stand up for others, as he did when 

"A funeral passed by the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and he stood up. It was said to him, “It is a Jew.” The Prophet said, “Was he not a soul?”. Just as he refused for others to stand up for him, he did not let anyone bow down for him out of reverance "When Mu‘aadh ibn Jabal came from Syria, he prostrated to the Prophet, who said, “What is this, O Mu‘aadh?” He said, I went to Syria and saw them prostrating to their archbishops and patriarchs, and I wanted to do that for you. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said, “Do not do that". 

Many ahadith, let alone the Quran, explain that there is a fine line between justified reverence, due to a person's righteousness only, and unjustified over exaltation 

”A group of men once said, ‘O Muhammad! You are our most righteous person, and the son of our most righteous person, our ‘sayyid’ (great Master) and the son of our ‘sayyid.’ The Messenger of Allah thereupon said, ‘O people! Say what you have to say, but do not allow Satan to deceive you. I am Muhammad Ibn ‘Abdullah, Allah’s Servant and Messenger. I do not like that you elevate me above the rank that Allah, Almighty and Ever-Majestic be He, has granted me.’ “ 

The prophet further said 

“Do not exagerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary,for I am only a slave. So, call me the slave of Allah and His Messenger". 

The result is that despite the reverence of the multitudes, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, for various reasons, towards this righteous, humble and God-fearing man, neither he nor his admirers, past and present, claimed that he was a son of God, His incarnation or divine in any other way, but instead he always was and still is the slave and messenger of Allah. This was certainly no false humility. Although he was known as the most trustworthy individual among his contemporaries, enemies and friends alike who would both entrust him with valuables, as well as the fair distribution of charity, to the point that he was given the epithet al-amin/the trustworthy one, he showed that this quality, even in its supreme form is not his prerogative 

"The Prophet said, "Every nation has an Amin (i.e. the most honest man), and the Amin of this nation is Abu 'Ubaida bin Al-Jarrah"

He consistently refused the offers of worldly compensation by his opponents in exchange for giving up or changing some of his message. Even when the community had grown prosperous he maintained a simple, sometimes bordering on ascetic lifestyle.