Saturday, December 5, 2020

Sam Shamoun "The True Religion and Guidance of Abraham" (1)



The Quran uses the term Muslims to all those that voluntarily submit to the divine will, whether that will manifested through Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Muhammad. Submission to the Divine Will, willingly or not, is according to the Quran, an observable reality in the universe down to our inner selves, since the origin of things 3:83-5,13:15,19:88-95,22:18 until all are commanded and made to disintegrate and resurrect 84:2.

That submission however is different in the spiritual realm. 

The creatures, including the humans, endowed with a spirituality, are to voluntarily choose submission to the divine will. It will never be enforced upon them. No other din/way is acceptable to Allah, other than voluntary self-submission, the meaning of Islam 3:19,2:127-130 because it is the natural fabric of the universe. Those who choose not to surrender totally to God or humbly and freely comply with His order of life, appear out of place in this design 
3:83"Do they seek a religion other than God’s, when every soul in the heavens and the earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion, and to Him they shall all return?" 
Islam and its derivatives (muslim, aslama) are used throughout the Quran to denote one's adoption of the divine will with his heart and soul, symbolized by "the face" in classical Arabic 
2:112"whoever submits his face (aslama wajhahu) to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others)..". 
To further corroborate, those claiming to adhere to the Quran are told to further 
2:208"enter into the silm/the volontary self-surrender". 
Being a "Muslim" is thus on a higher level that mere acceptance of the Quran and Islam, it transcends the simple label as understood nowadays. What it really entails is subordinating all aspects of one's life to the divine will. With the revelation of the Quran none may be labelled Muslim except those who adhere to it in faith and deeds. This isnt because of following the Quran per se, but because it is the final manifestation of the divine will. Prior to it, every individual that followed the latest manifestation of the divine will through a prophet of the time, could equally be labelled Muslim. With the Quran, the path to voluntary self-servitude to the divine will has been defined is such a clear way, that no compulsion is necessary for it to be adopted by a reasonable person 2:256,18:29. Through it, the divine will manifests in its purest form. 

That is why people of all ages and backgrounds have been entering into its fold like waves upon waves 110:1-3. There was no need to forcefully spread it. 

Any appellation that carries a connotation other than the one conveyed through "Muslim" and "Islam" is nothing but a distortion of this simple originality taught from Adam to Abraham, Moses, Jesus and down to Muhammad. When concluding in sura anbiya the stories of some of the most eminent prophets and pious personalities, the passage ends with a statement that these people that preceded, including the newly established nation of the last prophet are in fact a single nation with the same ultimate aims, despite the apparent disconnect between those that claim spiritual affiliation to them 21:92-3.

No prophet came between Ibrahim and Muhammad but that called their people to be upright/hanif in their submission to God 10:72,84,98:5. 

In pre-Islamic times, the term hanif had a strict monotheistic connotation. It was used in contrast to those that abhorred polytheism, but also who rejected the God incarnate of the Christians on one side and the ethno-centered monolatry of Judaism. It applied to those who exerted themselves to return to their original predisposition to uprightness as exemplified by Ibrahim. Like him, the prophets that followed him were all voluntary self-submitters, meaning Muslims, steadfastly constant on the path of servitude to God until their last breath 2:132-3,5:44,12:101,27:44 (the Queen of Sheba voluntarily submits). All belonged to the same community, under the same purpose 3:44,21:92,23:52-3, preaching monotheism 42:13.

They are not responsible for the perversion of their message by their followers, including potentially the followers of the last prophet 
42:14,21:93,23:53"But they cut off their religion among themselves into sects, each part rejoicing in that which is with them". 
These prophets all followed the same pattern of spiritual thought, hence the necessity for anyone to reject any proposition that clearly goes against the re-establishment of that way 3:83-5. No appellation therefore is of any importance in Islam, so long as those claiming to belong to a certain group, submit themselves in words and deeds to the divine will as expounded by a prophet of their time 2:62,5:69. These 2 verses, which speak of righteous believers of the past as is clear from the context, are Medinan. They were recited in Medina after the prophet was confronted to the rejection of some among the people of the book. The idea often propounded by orientalists as regards Islam's supposed initial conciliatory tone towards other faiths, which then changed after the prophet's conflicts with Jews and Christians is therefore baseless. Further, Sura 5 is universally recognized as among the last revealed, much later than sura 3. The contemporaries of the prophet among the people of the book are spoken of in both Medinan and Meccan suras 2:121,3:113-115,199,4:162,7:159-170,17:107-9,28:52-4 where they are either praised or condemned, irrelevant of the political tensions with Muslims, as is here the case for Christians in a late Medinan revelation
 5:83"And when they hear what has been revealed to the Messenger, you see their eyes overflowing with tears because of what they have recognized of the truth. They say, "Our Lord, we have believed, so register us among the witnesses".
The appellations of Jewry or Christianity came into being after the time of the Patriarchs, and long after the times of Moses or Jesus 2:140. Objectively, these terms do not carry any connotation in relation to the divine will, as opposed to self-submission to God, as is intended with the descriptions of "Muslim" or "Islam". They are rather labels describing an affiliation to a race or individual. 

The very early few ones that believed in Jesus, and their contemporaries that followed in their footsteps werent even known as Christians at first but as Nazarenes. They were strict followers of the Torah and its laws, as Jesus enjoined on his community. These 120 small band of believers in Jesus, an inconsequential number considering the spectacular wonders that accompanied his life, death and resurrection, were the followers of "the way" Acts19:9,23,22:4,24:14,22 and known as the Nazarenes Acts24:11. The Quran calls them nasara from nusra/help in reference to those few core elements that valiantly stood by him, when he started sensing disbelief among his followers 3:52,61:14. This inner circle are not the cowards presented in the NT as fleeing Jesus when adversity came or unable to understand most if any, of his teachings which is why they abandoned his instructions to abide by the law soon after his death. In the Quran they pray Allah to make them witnesses of the truth, that their life becomes an embodiment, a testimony to Jesus' teachings.
"Christian" is a later appellation Acts11:26. In fact the word Christian itself is in reference to the belief that those who hold that qualification are anointed with God's oil, according to the earliest Christians such as Theophilus.

Nasara is phonetically close to the historical Nazarene/Nazoraios (Greek) or Nasraya (Syriac) Acts24. In the region of the Levant from where the Christians of the Hijaz originated, Christians called themselves Kristyane. It is expected that the Quran would address them by that same name just as it addresses Jews and other groups by their own names. Instead it chose to bring back to the spotlight an appellation forgotten by Christians themselves, found in their books, in reference to the first followers of Jesus, so as to illustrate how far they have gone astray. The last revelation this way vindicates Jesus' true followers, the Nazarenes, by bringing them back to the forefront of history after they had been relegated to darkness by the Christian pauline movement.

Another remarkable feature of the Quran, is in its emphatic description of Jesus' mission as exclusively meant for the Israelites. To the Jews of 7th century Arabia, as is the case today, the reason for Jesus' mission and to whom it was directed to, was of no importance. No Jew would have walked around teaching the notion that Jesus was sent to the Jewish tribes. Christians on the other hand, teach that Jesus' mission was meant for all of humanity. The NT itself makes the claim, contradicting itself. It is thus expected for a 7th century Arab who is neither a Jew nor Christian, and who awkwardly decides to reveal Jesus' target audience, to similarly state that Jesus was sent to all people. Or at the very least that he was sent to Christians just as Moses was sent to the Jews. Then the Quran addresses the Israelites as those who literally 62:6"became Jews" because what Moses and the other Israelite prophets really taught was essentially Islam, or lit. voluntary self-submission (to the divine will). There is a reason why the Quran exposes it as utter ignorance to claim that the patriarchs and the tribes/asbat were Jews; the Torah itself makes no mention of those people as Jews, rather as Israelites.
The root of "hadoo" includes the meaning of "those that were guided" and the Quran has attached this meaning to the Jews obviously because no other people ever received such manifest, continuous guidance. There are no Jewish prophets prior to Moses and there are no Christian prophets at all and all true prophets are Muslims in principle. So the most that can be said in this regard is that among those prophets whom the prophet Muhammad emulated, are some Jewish prophets.

Despite their clear spiritual failures and consequent divine disapproval and severe destructions, those most conceited in their spiritual and racial label were, and still are, the Jews. In the NT, Jesus and John the Baptist harshly reprimanded them for that attitude. The Quran removed their delusion as well as anyone, including the followers of Muhammad, who might think God would favor them on account of ancestry or due to the righteous deeds of one to whom they claim affiliation 2:80,111,3:24,5:18. It challenged the Jews specifically in that regard 
2:94,62:6"if you think that you are the friends of Allah to the exclusion of other people, then invoke death if you are truthful". 
But as the Quran pointed, they would never do such a thing 
2:96"on account of what their hands have sent before". 
They know and are fully aware of their failure as a community bound by a momentous covenant with God, and thus know that should they wish for death and consequently meet with their Lord, He will take them to account collectively as per the terms of the covenant, just as He demonstrated in this very world.
 
When those labelling themselves Jews, Christians or any other name, persist in following corrupted spiritual notions alien to that pattern of the prophets, despite receiving proper explanations of their errors and those of their predecessors, they are termed followers of "nothing good". They arent even upholding their own scriptures in sincerity 
5:68"Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Torah and the Injeel and that which is revealed to you from your Lord". 
The Torah and Injeel attest to 
"that which is revealed to you from your Lord"
 ie the Quran. 

To reject the Quran, a revelation interconnected with the previous ones and coming from the same Source 6:91,26:196,29:46, which in addition guards, protects, revives the pattern of the prophets, therefore means to deny their own scriptures and traditions. These writings and traditions attest to the veracity of the Quran, more particularly of the one that carried and propagated it 
6:20"Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons; (as for) those who have lost their souls, they will not believe". 
The Quran brings light to the distortions and confusions of those books and traditions, while confirming the remnants of truth.

Those on the other hand who recognized the Quran upon hearing it as attesting to the truth of their scriptures and the pattern of the prophets are the 
3:113-115"upright party; they recite Allah's communications in the nighttime and they adore (Him). They believe in Allah and the last day, and they enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and they strive with one another in hastening to good deeds, and those are among the good. And whatever good they do, they shall not be denied it, and Allah knows those who guard (against evil)". 
They were greatly devoted to their own scriptures prior to the coming of Islam. They sincerely followed the truth therein, without bias, instead of the conjectures of their corrupt leadership, nor their personal low desires in exchange of worldly benefits. It is only natural then that when they
 5:83"hear what has been revealed to the messenger you will see their eyes overflowing with tears on account of the truth that they recognize; they say: Our Lord! we believe, so write us down with the witnesses (of truth)".
They 
3:199"believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to you and (in) that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah; they do not sell the signs of Allah for a small price; these it is that have their reward with their Lord".  
This verse 3:199 stresses the obligation in believing in the Quran for them to be believers in their own scriptures, as it confirms the prophecies in their books and restores the truth. This does not need happening overnight and they might seek further information, study and knowledge to further confirm the initial gut instinct that made them recognize the truth of the Quran.

They are mainly the learned men among the Israelites 26:197,29:47 firm in knowledge as well as those among the common masses who adhere to their scriptures with sincerity and the best of their ability 4:162. They are those who overcame the stiff-neckdness and arrogance of their people, effortlessly and naturally recognizing the truth 46:10. Same is the case with the learned and austere and sincere believers among the Christians 5:82-4, and who will consequently be rewarded appropriately 28:52-4.
The Quran says that 
3:110,28:52"those whom We gave the Book before it, they are believers in it". 
It is a testimony to the conversions of Jews and Christians in Muhammad's lifetime and as a prophecy witnessed today. The image of God literally giving them the Book is a praise of their merit, a metonym for them having been granted wisdom and knowledge, because of their willingness and openness for guidance. To this effect the Quran quotes them testifying to their entire submission to their revealed scriptures, even before the revelation of the Quran 
28:53"surely we were submitters (lit. Muslims) before this". 
As stated above, the principle of being a "Muslim", voluntarily subservient to the divine will, is a feature of the rightly guided prior to the term becoming the sole prerogative of Muhammad's followers.
These are the ones to be sought for confirmation of the Quran's veracity, among the followers of previous scriptures 10:94. There is a reason why it calls them "those that read the book", in contrast to others among them, pictured as donkeys that carry a load while totally unaware of its contents 62:5. 

With this reality in mind, it is thus meaningless to state that being a Jew or Christian is equivalent to being on the right path. Success in the Hereafter doesnt depend on labels 
2:111"And they say: no one will enter the Garden except he who was a Jew or a Christian". 
God, who knows the secrets of the hearts, answers such assertion by first dismissing it as baseless scripturally and lacking any evidence whatsoever. It then lays stress on humility, instead of boasting of one's man made labels. It finally explains, that even being Muslim isnt enough of a label. What is important is that 
2:112"whoever submits himself entirely to Allah and he is the doer of good (to others) he has his reward from his Lord, and there is no fear for him nor shall he grieve".  
The true path is therefore independent of any label, its validity being contingent on agreement with the established pattern of the prophets, as revived in the Quran, with Abraham being the prototype monotheist and unflinching, humble servant of God, the spiritual leader/imam of mankind, the hanif/upright, who never adopted polytheism 2:128-135,3:67. Ibrahim was neither a precursor of Judaism nor of Christianity, as advocated in the conflicting theological, sometimes tribal and prejudiced analysis of his life details and the implications, by these groups 3:65. One example among many would be in regards to the implication of sacrificing his only son, which carries entirely different connotations to a Jew than to a Christian.

Muslims in turn must bear witness to being affiliated to the path of Abraham and those eminent personalities that followed him, the only path acceptable to God. In an answer to Ibrahim's prayers that in his footsteps might come a nation voluntarily submitted/muslim to the One God 2:128-132, Allah raised a prophet among his Ishmaelite descendants, who revived his spiritual path, urging his followers to be upright (hanif) in the religion 10:105,22:31, to turn away from polytheism 
22:78"And strive hard in (the way of) Allah, (such) a striving as is due to Him; He has chosen you and has not laid upon you an hardship in religion; the faith of your father Ibrahim; He named you Muslims before and in this, that the Apostle may be a bearer of witness to you, and you may be bearers of witness to the people; therefore keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate and hold fast by Allah; He is your Guardian; how excellent the Guardian and how excellent the Helper!".
The notion of Abrahamic religion is an Islamic one. No such concept exists in Judaism and Christianity. The Quran calls it the millah/way and din/religion of Ibrahim, consisting of reasoning to derive monotheism, faith and deeds in the way of Allah 2:130,135,3:95, 6:161,16:123,22:78.

Islam isnt a continuation of what the followers of their respective prophets later named "christianity" or "judaism". It is the continuation of the purest form of willful servitude to the one God, characterizing itself with the unadulterated, timeless message it upholds, which was transmitted to mankind since Adam. This timeless message being, as condensed in 98:5, a cognition of God's oneness and uniqueness and, implicitly, of man's responsibility to Him; a turning-away from all false concepts that compromise God's attributes, all over-estimation of oneself, and superstitions, with a great emphasis on kindness and charity towards all of God's creatures indiscriminately. 

The Quran came to preserve and revive these concepts majoritarly abandoned and modified with time, as is easily seen through a cursory reading of what survived from the previous scriptures. So Just like the prophet Ibrahim was neither a Jew not Christian, but one who willfully surrendered to Allah 3:67 his descendant the prophet Muhammad was told to follow the same original path of submission to the will of God 
6:161,16:123"Then We revealed to you, [O Muhammad], to follow the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth; and he was not of those who associate with Allah".
Judaism, or more precisely the so called Mosaic law was a system meant for the children of Israel only, and until the rise of the prophet "like unto Moses". That prophet, per the clear context of the prophecy made at Horeb, would establish a new nation under a new law code. Since coming from the "brethren" of the Israelites, he would not be bound by the law of the Israelites, and especially not in its corrupt state, including its laws meant to punish the Israelites for their sins as well as contain their propensity to sin. But the Israelites on the other hand would be bound by whatever this prophet tells them, under the threat of divine destruction, as per the prophecy in their own book, and as happened to them when they opposed the prophet Muhammad. Islam therefore is certainly in line with "the religion of the prophets". Christianity is a complete departure of this "way of the prophets". It cherry picks which parts of the so called Mosaic law to literally or metaphorically observe, and which parts to dismiss. It is a man made system meant to appeal to a gentile audience which, in the first place, wasnt even bound by the Mosaic law. And this, in total opposition to Jesus' mission and practice. Being an Israelite prophet he was bound by the law, and hence directed his message to the Israelites only to admonish them for their sins and religious hypocrisy, and bring them back to the essence of the law which they were likewise bound to observe.

For this reason, the followers of the last Ishmaelite prophet are considered closer to the path of Ibrahim than the nations that preceded them and claimed spiritual descendency from him 
3:68"Indeed, the most worthy of Abraham among the people are those who followed him [in submission to Allah] and this prophet, and those who believe [in his message]. And Allah is the ally of the believers".
Judaism sees in Islam the manifestation of God's promised blessings of Ishmael, admits that Islam is the only religion along with Noachidism (the system revealed to, and taught by Noah, as alluded to in the Quran 42:13) that can earn non-Jews success in the hereafter. They see in both of these "gentile religions" a complete compatibility with the universal spiritual principles revealed prior to Moses and the mosaic law (which is exclusively binding on Jews). Trinitarian Christianity on the other hand is a different issue. 

Islam doesnt need Judaism to be justified but it is interesting to see how the closest people to Christianity, reading the same books, those who should a priori understand and accept the Christian proposition in regards to their doctrines, are actually further from them than from Islam which they see as a legitimate gentile religion 
2:113"And the Jews say: The Christians do not follow anything (good) and the Christians say: The Jews do not follow anything (good) while they recite the (same) Book. Even thus say those who have no knowledge, like to what they say; so Allah shall judge between them on the day of resurrection in what they differ". 
The truth of Islam is independent of whether Jews, Christians or Buddhists recognize it. It stands firm and strong because of its own internal arguments while the aforementioned groups crumble in the light of their own internal evidence, let alone common sense.

Christians are often the ones trying to disparage Islam by painting it as seemingly in disconnect with the Judeo-Christian system. This argument, as shown earlier is built on false assumptions; that Islam claims to be in continuity with these 2 religions, and that Christianity itself is a continuation of Judaism. Ironically and as the Quran alludes to, Judaism, which is supposed to be the precursor of Christianity, actually argues, based on the same books of the Christians, that the latter is a sinful way while Islam is in congruence with the pre-mosaic system. This is a quiet devastating observation to those trying to use that sort of analogy of continuity against Muslims.

Further reading answering Sam Shamoun "The True Religion and Guidance of Abraham";

Sam Shamoun "THE RELIGION OF ISLAM: THE REEMERGENCE OF BAAL WORSHIP" (3)


The Kaaba faces several terrestrial and heavenly bodies. This led to the Arabs' use of astronomical phenomenon such as sunrise or sunset during equinoxes, solstices, Pole star, Canopus etc to direct the mosques towards the kaaba. It was in fact the favorite way adopted by religious authorities in medieval times to use astronomical alignments, particularly cardinal and solstitial directions and the rising point of the star Canopus to determine the correct qibla. These astronomical alignments were used by the early Muslims because they were so familiar with the Kaaba that they knew that when they stood in front of the edifice, they were facing a particular astronomical direction. So in order to face the appropriate part of the Kaaba which was associated with their geographical location, they used the same astronomically-defined direction for the qibla as they would have been standing directly in front of that particular segment of Kaaba. 

During the course of history, these Ishmaelites who were supposed to be the custodians of Ibrahim's legacy and the kaaba began worshipping these phenomenons and associating them to the supreme God. Among them Canopus which a minority worshipped, while the vast majority were idol worshipers who recognized the superiority of the One God above the idols they placed as intercessors with Him. The Temple wasnt dedicated to anyone but Allah, much less to canopus, sirius and other astral bodies which were far from being the greatest deities of the Kaaba. The first Temple in Jerusalem faced east. It was built by the prophet Solomon who prayed God to listen to the people's prayers that are in direction of this qibla 1kings8. The prophet David's supplications Ps5:8,138:2 or Daniel's 3 daily prayers were directed to it Dan6:11. This does not mean it was originally intended for sun worship because of later generations of Jews having strayed into the adoration of the rising sun, moon, stars and other idols whose representations they brought inside the Temple itself 2Kings23,Ezek8. Its nonsense. 

And besides, Arabs even before Islam did not face Canopus during prayer and rituals, but the Kaaba, wherever they were. Similarly, Jewish prayers were and are still directed at the Temple despite the tabernacle made to face the east. The Quran since its earliest verses used the argument that these celestial objects were, among other entities they worshipped like the sun or the moon 41:37 besides Allah who was a different entity altogether and the supreme God of their pantheon 29:60-65,31:25,39:3 nothing but stars created by Allah who is their sustainer and maintainer 53:49,86:1-3. How can these heavenly bodies that will eventually scatter, darken and be destroyed on the day of resurrection, have any will of their own and divine attributes? In the HB, the prophet Amos, a herdsman who had observed the celestial bodies and adored their maker contrary to his contemporaries who had forsaken Him, uses similar reasoning when addressing the idolaters 
Amos5:8"He Who made the Pleiades and Orion and turns darkness into morning, and day He darkens as night; He Who calls the water of the sea and pours it out on the face of the earth, the Lord is His Name".
By further alluding to the punctual, predictable, cyclical appearing and disappearing of those celestial entities, the Quran gives clear evidence to their subservience to some higher authority who regulates them according to his own decree. The foolish have only given importance to the rising of these heavenly bodies and have made them their deities whereas they should also have witnessed their setting which is a very clear evidence of their subservience to a superior being 
52:49"And in the night, give Him glory too, and at the setting of the stars". 
They have therefore no powers per se of effecting earthly events as the soothsayers deceptively claimed 81:15-16. The same argument that was once inspired to Ibrahim's polytheistic nation 6:75-83 was here inspired to his descendant Muhammad following in his upright footsteps.

It would be worthwile noting here the speculations as regards Allah being a "Moon-god" from pre-Islamic times. The proponents of this idea, abandonned by many inside both Christian and anti-Muslim missionary circles, find inspiration from Robert Morey's writings. Morey, known for his misquotes of previous scholars, if not fabrication and supression of evidence so as to enforce his liberal conclusions, has himself based his ideas on the now discarded speculations of Ditlef Nielsen. In the early 1900's Nielsen divided the Semitic deities of Arabia into a triad of Father-Moon, Mother-Sun and Son-Venus. He proposed similar theories as regards the lunar origins of the Biblical Yahweh, actually being a Moon-god and part of the triad of Yahweh - Baal - Ashtart. The last 2 deities are known to have been constantly reintroduced into the religion of the Israelites, and in their worship sites as related throughout the Hebrew Bible. The same was the case with other competing cosmic deities like those inspired from the sun Ezek6:4.

As archaeological evidence, Morey uses the figurine of a seated man wearing a crescent/disc necklace, found at Hazor in Upper Gallilee, as evidence of his Allah/moon-god association. No scholar of the field, including those that made the findings ever identified that statue with a "Moon-god", let alone Allah. Nobody concluded that the inscriptions found on the site indicated moon-god worship. Neither were there "smaller statues" found at the site, supposedly depicting the moon-god's daughters.

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, December 4, 2020

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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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



Sam Shamoun "Commanding Jihad Against Those Who Believe Differently"



Thursday, December 3, 2020

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


The light of Allah is permanently guiding all of creation 
24:35"God is the Light of the heavens and the earth". 
The light spoken of is not the physical, created sensory light 6:1. Like the Sun, Allah's light shines continuously but can only benefit those that expose themselves to it 
6:122"He who was lifeless, then We gave him life and provided him with a light by which he walks among the people". 
Just as shutting the windows of a room one after another, gradually darkens the light of the sun inside of it, the disbelievers try dimming the light of Allah present within the believers' hearts. They do so with their mouth, corrupting the truth so that people's spirituality is progressively shut and the light of Allah within the hearts is slowly overtaken by darkness. But Allah instead perfects His light which is shining in the hearts, by sending more sources of light in the form of revelations 14:1,5,31:20,33:46 that clarify the matters which the disbelievers attempt to confuse 9:32-3,61:8-9. The believers' spirituality open up wide despite the efforts to shut them down, allowing the light of God to intensify within, and fully brighten their hearts. The light of Allah is thus something perceived with the senses of the spirit 
"Shall we see our Lord on the Day of Resurrection?" The Prophet (ï·º) 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 (ï·º) 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.