Praying in Church
Nailpolish and Ablution
Makeup and prayers
Istikhara for prohibited actions?
Addiction & Islamic work
Is being Muslim necessary?
Wiping over a wig
Women's adornment
Sunday, September 13, 2009
ARE THREE UMRA EQUIVALENT TO HAJJ?
I praise the Almighty for the blessings of taking 10 days during the month of Ramadan to make an 'umrah in 1988, during my residence in Egypt. I was fasting and visiting Medina, Mecca and the stations for the Hajj. According to the Sunnah, I understood from my teachers that an 'umra fasting during Ramadan is given the blessings of hajj, and may count for hajj. In your article, you mentioned it as the "small hajj." For reasons of health, money, conditions of the journey, currently, I would highly appreciate if you could tell me if indeed it may count for hajj. I could have from my 'umrah during Ramadan 1988. I am 67 years old.
A. Making `umrah (lesser pilgrimage) during Ramadan three times, according to many scholars, is rewarded like the Hajj. However, it does not eliminate the obligation of Hajj. You will be given the reward (fadilat) of Hajj without fulfilling its obligation. Even if you did thousands of `umrah in Ramadan it would not eliminate the requirement for making the Hajj. Unless you do the actual Hajj during its season with its required rites, you will not be considered to have completed this requirement of the faith. Nowhere is it mentioned in Quran or hadith that this, the 5th pillar of Islam can be substituted by `umrah during Ramadan. Since you were able to do the `umrah, it means you are able to do Hajj, and this is what is advised.
A. Making `umrah (lesser pilgrimage) during Ramadan three times, according to many scholars, is rewarded like the Hajj. However, it does not eliminate the obligation of Hajj. You will be given the reward (fadilat) of Hajj without fulfilling its obligation. Even if you did thousands of `umrah in Ramadan it would not eliminate the requirement for making the Hajj. Unless you do the actual Hajj during its season with its required rites, you will not be considered to have completed this requirement of the faith. Nowhere is it mentioned in Quran or hadith that this, the 5th pillar of Islam can be substituted by `umrah during Ramadan. Since you were able to do the `umrah, it means you are able to do Hajj, and this is what is advised.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
THE SUCCESSION TO PROPHET MUHAMMAD (SAW)
The Succession to Muhammad concerns with the various aspects of successorship of Muhammad as to who lead the Muslims after his death, comprising who might be considered as his successor, how should that person be elected, the conditions of legitimacy, and the role of successor. Different answers to these questions have led to emerging several divisions in Muslim community since the first century of Muslim history; the most important of them are Sunnis, Shias and Kharijites.
From a historic viewpoint, with Muhammad's death in AD 632, disagreement broke out over who should succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. Umar ibn al-Khattab, a prominent companion of Muhammad, nominated Abu Bakr. Others added their support and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. This choice was disputed by some of Muhammad's companions, who held that Ali ibn Abi Talib, his cousin and son-in-law, had been designated his successor.[1] Later, during the First Fitna and the Second Fitna the community divided into several sects and groups, each of which had its own idea about successorship. Finally, after Rashidun caliphate turned into Monarchy and Sultanates, while in most of the area during Muslim history Sunnis have hold the power and Shias emerged as their opposition.
From a religious viewpoint, Muslims later split into two groups, Sunni and Shi'a. Sunnis assert that even though Muhammad never appointed a successor, Abu Bakr was elected first caliph by the Muslim community. The Sunnis recognize the first four caliphs as Muhammad's rightful successors. Shi'as believe that Muhammad explicitly named his successor Ali at Ghadir Khumm and Muslim leadership belonged to him who had been determined by divine order.[2][3]
The two groups also disagree on Ali's attitude towards Abu Bakr, and the two caliphs who succeeded him: Umar and Uthman Ibn Affan. Sunnis tend to stress Ali's acceptance and support of their rule, while the Shi'a claim that he distanced himself from them, and that he was being kept from fulfilling the religious duty that Muhammad had appointed to him. Sunnis maintain that if Ali was the rightful successor as ordained by God Himself, then it would have been his duty as leader of the Muslim nation to make war with these people (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) until Ali established the decree. Shias contend that Ali did not fight Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman, because firstly he did not have the military strength and if he decided to, it would have caused a civil war amongst the Muslims.[4] Ali also believed that he could fulfil his role of Imam'ate without this fighting .[5]
Contents[hide]
1 Historiography
2 Succession to Muhammad from historical viewpoint
2.1 Election of Abu Bakr
3 The Sunni view of the succession
3.1 Ghadir Khumm
3.2 Muhammad's last illness
3.3 The events at Saqifah
3.4 Ali's attitude towards Abu Bakr and Umar
3.5 Sunni attitude towards Ali
4 The Shi'a view of the succession
4.1 Life of Ali
4.2 The Qur'an
4.3 Hadith
4.3.1 Da‘wat dhul-‘Ashīrah - Summoning the Family
4.3.2 Ghadir Khumm
4.4 Muhammad's last illness
4.5 The events at Saqīfah
4.6 Shī‘at of ‘Alī
4.7 ‘Alī submits for the sake of his followers
5 Western academic views
6 See also
7 References
7.1 Footnotes
7.2 Academic books
7.3 Shi'a books
7.4 Sunni books
8 External links
8.1 Shi'a perspective
//
[edit] Historiography
See also: Historiography of early Islam and Hadith
Most of the Islamic history seems to have been primarily transmitted orally until well after the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate.[6]
The historical works by later Muslims writers include the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him (the sira and hadith literature), which provide further information on Muhammad's life.[7] The earliest surviving written sira (biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him) is Sirah Rasul Allah (Life of God's Messenger) by Ibn Ishaq(d. 761 or 767 CE[8]). Although the original work is lost, portions of it survive in the recensions of Ibn Hisham(d. 833 CE) and Al-Tabari(d. 923 CE).[9] Many, but not all, scholars accept the accuracy of these biographies, though their accuracy is unascertainable.[10] Studies by J. Schacht and Goldziher has led scholars to distinguish between the traditions touching legal matters and the purely historical ones. According to William Montgomery Watt, in the legal sphere it would seem that sheer invention could have very well happened. In the historical sphere however, aside from exceptional cases, the material may have been subject to "tendential shaping" rather than being made out of whole cloth.[11]
Modern Western scholars are much less likely than Islamic scholars to trust the work of the Abbasid historians. Western historians approach the classic Islamic histories with varying degrees of circumspection.
Hadith compilations are records of the traditions or sayings of the Muhammad. It might be defined as the biography of Muhammad perpetuated by the long memory of his community for their exemplification and obedience. The development of Hadith is a vital element during the first three centuries of Islamic history.[12] There had been a common tendency among the earlier western scholars against these narrations and reports gathered in later periods; such scholars regarding them as later fabrications. Leone Caetani considered the attribution of historical reports to Ibn Abbas and Aysha as mostly fictitious while proffering accounts reported without isnad by the early compilers of history like Ibn Ishaq. Wilferd Madelung has rejected the stance of indiscriminately dismissing everything not included in "early sources" and in this approach tendentious alone is no evidence for late origin. Madelung and some later historians do not reject the narrations which have been complied in later periods and try to judge them in the context of history and on the basis of their compatibility with the events and figures.[13]
The only contemporary source is The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays or Kitab al-Saqifah which is written by Sulaym ibn Qays(death: 75-95 AH (694-714)). This is a collection of Hadith and historical reports from 1st Century of the Islamic calendar and narrates the events which relate to the succession in detail.[14]
[edit] Succession to Muhammad from historical viewpoint
A series of articles onProphet of IslamMuhammad
LifeCompanions · Family tree · In Mecca · In Medina · Conquest of Mecca · The Farewell Sermon · Succession
CareerDiplomacy · Family · Wives · Military leadership
SuccessionFarewell Pilgrimage · Ghadir Khumm · Pen and paper · Saqifah · General bay'ah
Interactions withSlaves · Jews · Christians
PerspectivesMuslim (Poetic and Mawlid) · Medieval Christian · Historicity · Criticism · Depictions
v • d • e
[edit] Election of Abu Bakr
After uniting the Arabian tribes into a single Muslim religious polity in the last years of his life, Muhammad's death in 632 signalled disagreement over who would succeed him as leader of the Muslim community.[15]While Ali and the rest of Muhammad's close family were washing his body for burial, at a gathering attended by a small group of Muslims at Saqifah a companion of Muhammad named Abu Bakr was nominated for the leadership of the community. Others added their support and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. The choice of Abu Bakr disputed by some of Muhammad's companions, who held that Ali had been designated his successor by Muhammad himself [16][3], even though Ali accepted Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman's leadershiping [17] .
Following his election to the caliphate, Abu Bakr and Umar with a few other companions headed to Fatimah's house to obtain homage from Ali and his supporters who had gathered there. Then Umar threatened to set the house on fire unless they came out and swore allegiance with Abu Bakr. [18] There isn't consensus among the sources about what happened next. Some sources say upon seeing them, Ali came out with his sword drawn but was disarmed by Umar and their companions. Fatimah, in support of her husband, started a commotion and threatened to "uncover her hair", at which Abu Bakr relented and withdrew.[19] Ali, according to Shia, is reported to have repeatedly said that had there been forty men with him he would have resisted.[18] When Abu Bakr's selection to the caliphate was presented as a fait accompli, Ali withheld his oaths of allegiance until after the death of Fatimah. Ali did not actively assert his own right because he did not want to throw the nascent Muslim community into strife.[20]
Ali himself was firmly convinced of his legitimacy for caliphate based on his close kinship with Muhammad, his intimate association and his knowledge of Islam and his merits in serving its cause. He told Abu Bakr that his delay in pledging allegiance (bay'ah) as caliph was based on his belief of his own prior title. Ali did not change his mind when he finally pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr and then to Umar and to Uthman but had done so for the sake of the unity of Islam, at a time when it was clear that the Muslims had turned away from him.[21][3]
According to historical reports, Ali maintained his right to the caliphate and said:
"By Allah the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr) dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill...I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it... I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.[22]
[edit] The Sunni view of the succession
Part of a series onSunni Islam
Beliefs
MonotheismProphethood & MessengershipHoly Books • AngelsJudgement Day • Predestination
Pillars
Declaration of Faith • PrayerCharity • Fasting • Pilgrimage
Rightly Guided Caliphs
Abu Bakr • Umar ibn al-KhattabUthman ibn Affan • Ali ibn Abi Talib
Schools of Law (Shariah)
Hanafi • Shafi`i • Maliki • Hanbali
Schools of Theology
Maturidi • Ash'ari • Athari
Modern Movements
Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimoon • Deobandi • Barelwi • Salafi-Wahabi
Hadith Collections
Sahih Bukhari • Sahih MuslimAl-Sunan al-SughraSunan Abu DawoodSunan al-TirmidhiSunan ibn Maja • Al-MuwattaSunan al-Darami
This box: view • talk • edit
Sunni Muslims relate various hadith, or oral traditions, in which Muhammad is said to have recommended shura, elections or consultation, as the best method for making community decisions. In this view of the succession, he did not nominate a successor because he expected that the community themselves would choose the new leader — as was the custom in Arabia at the time. Some Sunnis argue that Muhammad had indicated his reliance upon Abu Bakr as second in command in many ways; he had called upon Abu Bakr to lead prayers and to make rulings in his (Muhammad's) absence. There are some hadiths asserting that Muhammad said that some would be desirous of power but he knew that God (and the Muslims) would make Abu Bakr the next leader (see Hadiths of Abu Bakr's succession). Sunnis point to the fact that the majority of the people accepted Abu-Bakr as their leader as proof that his selection was wise and just.
[edit] Ghadir Khumm
Main article: Hadith of the pond of Khumm
There is one hadith in the collection known as the Musnad which affirms that Muhammad made a speech at Ghadir Khumm, in which he said, "Of whomsoever I am the mawla, Ali is his mawla". The word mawla has many meanings in Arabic. In this case, say the Sunni scholars, Muhammad was merely saying that anyone who was his friend should also befriend Ali. This was a response to some soldiers who had complained about Ali [23]. A similar incident is described in Ibn Ishaq's Sirah; there Muhammad is reputed to have said, "Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of God, or the way of God, to be blamed." (Guillaume p. 650)
The Sunnis argue that it is a mistake to interpret an expression of friendship and support as the appointment of a successor. If Muhammad had wished to appoint Ali, surely he would have done so in Medina, in front of all the Muslim notables. The fact that there even was a dispute over the leadership after Muhammad's death is sufficient proof that no one had interpreted his words as a binding appointment.
[edit] Muhammad's last illness
Muhammad asked permission from his wives to be taken to Fatema's house (his beloved daughter) and died with his head in her lap. Reportedly, before he died, Muhammad made a gesture of enormous trust in Ali by asking him to lead the prayers in the mosque as imam — a highly visible role virtually always undertaken, when possible, by Muhammad himself. Historically, the imam of a mosque has always been a leader in his local Muslim community; Muhammad asked to give him a pen and paper but Abu Bakr refused and claimed that Muhammad had something wrong with his head. Compendium of Muslim Texts - Volume 1, Book 11, Number 655
[edit] The events at Saqifah
The originally Medinan Muslims, the Ansar, held a meeting to discuss choosing a new leader among themselves, to rule their part of the community. When the news of the meeting spread, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubayda rushed to the scene. Abu Bakr argued that if the Ansar chose a leader, to lead the Ansar only, the Muslim community would split. The new leader must come from the Quraysh, Muhammad's clan; any other choice would destroy the community. Sa'd agreed to this. Abu Bakr suggested to the gathering that the people should choose either Umar or Abu Ubayda, as both were capable men of the Quraysh. Umar immediately grabbed Abu Bakr's hand and gave him bay'ah (declared his allegiance; an Arabian custom) causing the rest of the men at the gathering to also give their bay'ah. Umar later described this process as a falta, a rushed and hasty decision. However, this decision would not have been binding upon the rest of the Muslims unless they themselves chose to give their bay'ah, which all save the supporters of Ali did. According to the Sunni, this is the proof that the decision was the right one.
[edit] Ali's attitude towards Abu Bakr and Umar
Ali was extremely distressed not only to have been passed over for the leadership, but not even to have been consulted. Most accounts, Sunni or Shi'a, say that Ali initially refused to give his bay'ah to Abu Bakr. Sunni accounts say that after a period during which he withdrew from public affairs, Ali eventually decided to cooperate with Abu Bakr and give his public submission. One version of the story is found in an oral tradition collected by Bukhari. [24]
Sunni accounts say that after giving his oath, Ali supported and advised Abu Bakr, as he did for the two caliphs who succeeded Abu Bakr (Umar and Uthman). They reject Shi'a views stating that Ali never gave his submission, or gave it only unwillingly and thereafter retired from public affairs rather than help those he regarded as usurpers.
[edit] Sunni attitude towards Ali
Main articles: Sunni view of Ali and Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali
Sunni Muslims consider Ali as one of the prominent companions of prophet[citation needed], among the ten, including Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman, who were informed with the gift of paradise. They also consider Ali among the righteous caliphs and accept the hadiths narrated by him. They rejects the Shi'a view that Ali considered Abu Bakr's succession undeserved[citation needed].
[edit] The Shi'a view of the succession
[hide]
Part of a series onShī‘ah Islam
Beliefs & Practices
Succession of AliImamate of the FamilyMourning of MuharramIntercession · IsmahThe Occultation· Clergy
Views
The Qur'an · SahabaMu'awiya I · Abu Bakr · Umar
Holy Days
Ashura · Arba'een · MawlidEid ul-Fitr · Eid al-AdhaEid al-Ghadeer · Eid al-Mubahila
History
Twelver · Ismāʿīlī · ZaidiThe verse of purificationMubahala · Two thingsKhumm · Fatimah's houseFirst Fitna · Second FitnaThe Battle of KarbalaPersecution
Ahl al-Kisa
Muhammad · Ali · FatimahHasan · Husayn
The Four Companions
Salman al-FarsiMiqdad ibn AswadAbu Dharr al-GhifariAmmar ibn Yasir
This box: view • talk • edit
The Shī‘ah believe that just as a prophet is appointed by God alone, only God has the prerogative to appoint the successor to his prophet. They believe that God chose ‘Alī to be the successor, infallible and divinely chosen. Thus they say that Muhammad, before his death, appointed Ali as his successor.
[edit] Life of Ali
‘Alī was a leader in battle, and often entrusted with command. He was left in charge of the community at Madīnah when Muhammad led a raid on Tabuk. ‘Alī was also his cousin, and the husband of his daughter Fātimah, and the father of his beloved grandchildren Hasan and Husayn. Ali's father was the late Abū Tālib, Muhammad's uncle, foster father, and powerful protector. As a member of Abū Tālib's family, Muhammad had in fact played the role of an elder brother and guardian to ‘Alī — and ‘Alī had, as a youth, been among the first to accept Islām. He was now a charismatic defender of the faith in his own right, and it was perhaps inevitable that some in the Muslim community assumed that ‘Alī would claim a leadership position following Muhammad's death. In the end, however, it was Abu Bakr who assumed control of the Muslim community.
[edit] The Qur'an
The Shī‘ah refer to these verses from the Qu'rān to make their argument on Qur'ānic grounds: (5:55), (5:3), (5:67). They say that the verses refer to ‘Alī, and the last two verses were revealed at Ghadir Khumm. [25]
[edit] Hadith
The Shī‘ah point to a number of hadith that, they believe, show that Muhammad had left specific instructions as to his successor. These hadith have been given names: Ghadir Khumm, Safinah, Thaqalayn, Haqq, Manzilah, Da‘wat dhul-‘Ashīrah, and others.
Many of these oral traditions are also accepted by Sunni Muslims. However, the Sunni do not accept the Shī‘ah interpretation of these hadith.
The following two hadith are most often referred to by the Shī‘ah, when arguing for the explicit appointment of ‘Alī by Muhammad:
[edit] Da‘wat dhul-‘Ashīrah - Summoning the Family
Islām began when Muhammad became thirty seven years old. Initially, the mission was kept a secret. Then three years after the advent of Islām, he was ordered to commence the open declaration of his message. This was the occasion when God revealed the verse “And warn thy nearest relations.” (26:214).
When this verse was revealed, Muhammad organized a feast that is known in history as “Summoning the Family — Da‘wat dhul-‘Ashīra”. He invited around forty men from the Banū Hāshim and asked ‘Alī to make arrangements for the dinner. After having served his guests with food and drinks, when he wanted to speak to them about Islam, Abu Lahab forestalled him and said, “Your host has long since bewitched you.” All the guests dispersed before Muhammad could present his message to them.
Muhammad then invited them the next day. After the feast, he spoke to them, saying:
“
“O Sons of ‘Abdul-Muttalib! By Allāh, I do not know of any person among the Arabs who has come to his people with better than what I have brought to you. I have brought to you the good of this world and the next, and I have been commanded by the Lord to call you unto Him. Therefore, who amongst you will support me in this matter so that he may be my brother (akhhī), my successor (wasiyyī) and my caliph (khalifatī) among you?”[26]
”
This was the first time that Muhammad openly and publicly called the relations to accept him as the Messenger and Prophet of God, as well as being the first time that he called for a person who would aid him in his mission. At the time, no one but the youngest of them — ‘Alī, stood up and said, “I will be your helper, O Prophet of God.”[26]
Muhammad then put his hand on the back of ‘Alī's neck and said:
“
“Inna hadhã akhhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí fíkum, fasma‘û lahu wa atí‘û — Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you; therefore, listen to him and obey.”[26]
”
[edit] Ghadir Khumm
Main article: Hadith of the pond of Khumm
In 632 CE, Muhammad made his last pilgrimage to the Kaaba. Some early accounts say that after finishing his pilgrimage, on his return to Madīnah, he and his followers stopped at a spring and waypoint called Ghadir Khumm. Muhammad delivered a speech to his assembled followers, in which the traditions state that Muhammad said:
“
"...for whoever I am his mawla, ‘Alī is his mawla..."
”
According to the Shī‘ah, this hadith, Hadith-i ghadir, indicated the intent of Muhammad. They note that the translation of the word mawla as "friend" is highly unlikely and therefore misleading because: a) the word sadeeq is an appropriate, unambiguous and completely accurate translation of the word "friend". b) the connotations of the word mawla nearly always have an implication of a superior-inferior relationship. Hence, mawla can be taken to mean a variety of words in this context, such as master, commander or even slave, but friend is inaccurate. The Shī‘ah say that there were 120,000 witnesses to this declaration, including Umar ibn al-Khattāb and Abu Bakr.
[edit] Muhammad's last illness
Soon after returning from this pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill. He was nursed in the apartment of his wife Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr.
The Shī‘ah claim that most of the prominent men among the Muslims, expecting Muhammad's death and an ensuing struggle for power, disobeyed his orders to join a military expedition bound for Syria. They stayed in Madīnah, waiting for Muhammad's death and their chance to seize power.
According to Ibn ‘Abbās (cousin of Muhammad), the dying Muhammad said that he wished to write a letter — or wished to have a letter written — detailing his wishes for his community. According to Sahih Muslim Ibn ‘Abbās narrated that:
When Allah's Messenger was about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, 'Umar b. al-Kbattab being one of them. Allah's Apostle said: Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go astray after that. Thereupon Umar said: Verily Allah's Messenger is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Qur'an with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us. Those who were present in the house differed. Some of them said: Bring him (the writing material) so that Allah's Messenger may write a document for you and you would never go astray after him And some among them said what 'Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense and began to dispute in the presence of Allah's Messenger, he said: Get up (and go away) 'Ubaidullah said: Ibn ‘Abbās used to say: There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due to their dispute and noise. Allah's Messenger could not write (or dictate) the document for them.Sahih Muslim 13:4016
When Muhammad died, Umar denied his death stating rather that he would return back, and threatening to behead anyone who accede to his death. Abu Bakr, upon his returned to Madīnah, spoke to Umar and only then Umar did admit that Muhammad had died, this all was perceived by the Shiite as a ploy on Umar's part to delay the funeral and thus give Abu Bakr (who was outside the city) time to return to Madīnah.
[edit] The events at Saqīfah
When Muhammad died, his closest relatives, ‘Alī and Fātimah, took charge of the body. While they were engaged in washing the body and preparing it for burial, a secret meeting, of which Ali and the Muhajirun weren't told, was taking place at Saqifah, which ended with Abu Bakr being chosen as the new leader.
[edit] Shī‘at of ‘Alī
Just as ‘Alī had refused to give his allegiance (bay'ah) to Abu Bakr, many of the Muslims of Madīnah had also refused, thus they were known as: "Shī‘at ‘Alī" (the "Party of ‘Alī"). It took six months of threat and pressure to force the refusers to submit to Abu Bakr[27]. However, upon his refusal to give allegiance, ‘Alī had his house surrounded by an armed force led by Abu Bakr and Umar[28].
“
"In Madinah, Umar took charge of securing the pledge of allegiance of all residents. He dominated the streets with the help first of the Aslam and then the Abd Al-Ashhal of Aws, who in contrast to the majority of Khazraj, quickly became vigorous champions of the new regime. The sources mention the actual use of force only with respect to Companion Al-Zubayr who had been together with some others of the Muhajirun in the house of Fatima. Supposedly, Umar threatened to set the house on fire unless they came out and swore allegiance to Abu Bakr"[29].
”
Umar pushed his way into the house; Fātimah, who was pregnant, was crushed behind the door. She miscarried her unborn son, whom the Shī‘ah mourn as Al Muhsin. She had been injured by Umar and soon died. ‘Alī buried her at night, secretly, as he did not wish Abu Bakr or Umar, whom he blamed for her death, to attend her funeral. The Shī‘ah thus blame Abu Bakr and Umar for the death of Muhammad's daughter and grandson. Shi'ite Encyclopedia, Chapter 4[30]
[edit] ‘Alī submits for the sake of his followers
Some Shī‘ah believe that ‘Alī took pity upon the sufferings of his devoted followers and gave his submission, his bay'ah, to Abu Bakr,only after Fātimah, ‘Alī's wife and daughter of Muhammad who was angry with Abu Bakr [31] when he refused to give her right to inheritance of garden of Fadak. It may be because of the sake of unity that he might have helped them in matters of jurisprudence and administration but could never admit his obedience to them.
Other Shī‘ah say that ‘Alī did not give his allegiance, but only refrained from pressing his claims. Whatever happened, superficial unity was restored.
[edit] Western academic views
Western academics have, until recently, taken their cues from the Sunni versions of Islamic history. Until the 1950s and 1960s, many scholars tended to translate and expound on Sunni texts and generally tended to treat them as reliable[citation needed]. Then followed the age of doubt, when historians like Wansbrough and Crone took an independent, agnostic line, throwing doubt on the Sunni consensus and proposing daring theories about the Qur'an[citation needed]. Of late, the pendulum has swung somewhat the other way[citation needed].
Many contemporary scholars who have sifted through the early Muslim historical writings are proposing narratives that are closer to the received versions. In most cases, this has meant a swing back towards the Sunni version of events. However, one recent publication, The Succession to Muhammad by Wilferd Madelung, Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford, examines the course of events from 632, and the death of Muhammad, through the rise of the Umayyads — and rehabilitates some of the Shi'a narratives. On the right of Muhammad's household to succeed him, for instance, Madelung observes that:
“
In the Qur’an, the descendants and close kin of the prophets are their heirs also in respect to kingship (mulk), rule (hukm), wisdom (hikma), the book and the imamate. The Sunnite concept of the true caliphate itself defines it as a succession of the prophet in every respect except his prophethood. Why should Muhammad not be succeeded in it by any of his family like the earlier prophets? If God really wanted to indicate that he should not be succeeded by any of them why did He not let his grandsons and other kin die like his sons? There is thus a good reason to doubt that Muhammad failed to appoint a successor because he realized that the divine design excluded hereditary succession of his family and that he wanted the Muslims to choose their head by Shura. The Qur’an advises the faithful to settle some matters by consultation, but not the succession to prophets. That, according to the Qur’an, is settled by divine election, God usually chooses their successors, whether they become prophets or not from their own kin
”
(The Succession to Muhammad, Wilferd Madelung, p 17)Madelung writes on the basis of hadith of the pond of Khumm Ali later insisted on his religious authority superior to that of Abu Bakr and Umar.[32]
From a historic viewpoint, with Muhammad's death in AD 632, disagreement broke out over who should succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. Umar ibn al-Khattab, a prominent companion of Muhammad, nominated Abu Bakr. Others added their support and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. This choice was disputed by some of Muhammad's companions, who held that Ali ibn Abi Talib, his cousin and son-in-law, had been designated his successor.[1] Later, during the First Fitna and the Second Fitna the community divided into several sects and groups, each of which had its own idea about successorship. Finally, after Rashidun caliphate turned into Monarchy and Sultanates, while in most of the area during Muslim history Sunnis have hold the power and Shias emerged as their opposition.
From a religious viewpoint, Muslims later split into two groups, Sunni and Shi'a. Sunnis assert that even though Muhammad never appointed a successor, Abu Bakr was elected first caliph by the Muslim community. The Sunnis recognize the first four caliphs as Muhammad's rightful successors. Shi'as believe that Muhammad explicitly named his successor Ali at Ghadir Khumm and Muslim leadership belonged to him who had been determined by divine order.[2][3]
The two groups also disagree on Ali's attitude towards Abu Bakr, and the two caliphs who succeeded him: Umar and Uthman Ibn Affan. Sunnis tend to stress Ali's acceptance and support of their rule, while the Shi'a claim that he distanced himself from them, and that he was being kept from fulfilling the religious duty that Muhammad had appointed to him. Sunnis maintain that if Ali was the rightful successor as ordained by God Himself, then it would have been his duty as leader of the Muslim nation to make war with these people (Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman) until Ali established the decree. Shias contend that Ali did not fight Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman, because firstly he did not have the military strength and if he decided to, it would have caused a civil war amongst the Muslims.[4] Ali also believed that he could fulfil his role of Imam'ate without this fighting .[5]
Contents[hide]
1 Historiography
2 Succession to Muhammad from historical viewpoint
2.1 Election of Abu Bakr
3 The Sunni view of the succession
3.1 Ghadir Khumm
3.2 Muhammad's last illness
3.3 The events at Saqifah
3.4 Ali's attitude towards Abu Bakr and Umar
3.5 Sunni attitude towards Ali
4 The Shi'a view of the succession
4.1 Life of Ali
4.2 The Qur'an
4.3 Hadith
4.3.1 Da‘wat dhul-‘Ashīrah - Summoning the Family
4.3.2 Ghadir Khumm
4.4 Muhammad's last illness
4.5 The events at Saqīfah
4.6 Shī‘at of ‘Alī
4.7 ‘Alī submits for the sake of his followers
5 Western academic views
6 See also
7 References
7.1 Footnotes
7.2 Academic books
7.3 Shi'a books
7.4 Sunni books
8 External links
8.1 Shi'a perspective
//
[edit] Historiography
See also: Historiography of early Islam and Hadith
Most of the Islamic history seems to have been primarily transmitted orally until well after the rise of the Abbasid Caliphate.[6]
The historical works by later Muslims writers include the traditional Muslim biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him (the sira and hadith literature), which provide further information on Muhammad's life.[7] The earliest surviving written sira (biographies of Muhammad and quotes attributed to him) is Sirah Rasul Allah (Life of God's Messenger) by Ibn Ishaq(d. 761 or 767 CE[8]). Although the original work is lost, portions of it survive in the recensions of Ibn Hisham(d. 833 CE) and Al-Tabari(d. 923 CE).[9] Many, but not all, scholars accept the accuracy of these biographies, though their accuracy is unascertainable.[10] Studies by J. Schacht and Goldziher has led scholars to distinguish between the traditions touching legal matters and the purely historical ones. According to William Montgomery Watt, in the legal sphere it would seem that sheer invention could have very well happened. In the historical sphere however, aside from exceptional cases, the material may have been subject to "tendential shaping" rather than being made out of whole cloth.[11]
Modern Western scholars are much less likely than Islamic scholars to trust the work of the Abbasid historians. Western historians approach the classic Islamic histories with varying degrees of circumspection.
Hadith compilations are records of the traditions or sayings of the Muhammad. It might be defined as the biography of Muhammad perpetuated by the long memory of his community for their exemplification and obedience. The development of Hadith is a vital element during the first three centuries of Islamic history.[12] There had been a common tendency among the earlier western scholars against these narrations and reports gathered in later periods; such scholars regarding them as later fabrications. Leone Caetani considered the attribution of historical reports to Ibn Abbas and Aysha as mostly fictitious while proffering accounts reported without isnad by the early compilers of history like Ibn Ishaq. Wilferd Madelung has rejected the stance of indiscriminately dismissing everything not included in "early sources" and in this approach tendentious alone is no evidence for late origin. Madelung and some later historians do not reject the narrations which have been complied in later periods and try to judge them in the context of history and on the basis of their compatibility with the events and figures.[13]
The only contemporary source is The Book of Sulaym ibn Qays or Kitab al-Saqifah which is written by Sulaym ibn Qays(death: 75-95 AH (694-714)). This is a collection of Hadith and historical reports from 1st Century of the Islamic calendar and narrates the events which relate to the succession in detail.[14]
[edit] Succession to Muhammad from historical viewpoint
A series of articles onProphet of IslamMuhammad
LifeCompanions · Family tree · In Mecca · In Medina · Conquest of Mecca · The Farewell Sermon · Succession
CareerDiplomacy · Family · Wives · Military leadership
SuccessionFarewell Pilgrimage · Ghadir Khumm · Pen and paper · Saqifah · General bay'ah
Interactions withSlaves · Jews · Christians
PerspectivesMuslim (Poetic and Mawlid) · Medieval Christian · Historicity · Criticism · Depictions
v • d • e
[edit] Election of Abu Bakr
After uniting the Arabian tribes into a single Muslim religious polity in the last years of his life, Muhammad's death in 632 signalled disagreement over who would succeed him as leader of the Muslim community.[15]While Ali and the rest of Muhammad's close family were washing his body for burial, at a gathering attended by a small group of Muslims at Saqifah a companion of Muhammad named Abu Bakr was nominated for the leadership of the community. Others added their support and Abu Bakr was made the first caliph. The choice of Abu Bakr disputed by some of Muhammad's companions, who held that Ali had been designated his successor by Muhammad himself [16][3], even though Ali accepted Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman's leadershiping [17] .
Following his election to the caliphate, Abu Bakr and Umar with a few other companions headed to Fatimah's house to obtain homage from Ali and his supporters who had gathered there. Then Umar threatened to set the house on fire unless they came out and swore allegiance with Abu Bakr. [18] There isn't consensus among the sources about what happened next. Some sources say upon seeing them, Ali came out with his sword drawn but was disarmed by Umar and their companions. Fatimah, in support of her husband, started a commotion and threatened to "uncover her hair", at which Abu Bakr relented and withdrew.[19] Ali, according to Shia, is reported to have repeatedly said that had there been forty men with him he would have resisted.[18] When Abu Bakr's selection to the caliphate was presented as a fait accompli, Ali withheld his oaths of allegiance until after the death of Fatimah. Ali did not actively assert his own right because he did not want to throw the nascent Muslim community into strife.[20]
Ali himself was firmly convinced of his legitimacy for caliphate based on his close kinship with Muhammad, his intimate association and his knowledge of Islam and his merits in serving its cause. He told Abu Bakr that his delay in pledging allegiance (bay'ah) as caliph was based on his belief of his own prior title. Ali did not change his mind when he finally pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr and then to Umar and to Uthman but had done so for the sake of the unity of Islam, at a time when it was clear that the Muslims had turned away from him.[21][3]
According to historical reports, Ali maintained his right to the caliphate and said:
"By Allah the son of Abu Quhafah (Abu Bakr) dressed himself with it (the caliphate) and he certainly knew that my position in relation to it was the same as the position of the axis in relation to the hand-mill...I put a curtain against the caliphate and kept myself detached from it... I watched the plundering of my inheritance till the first one went his way but handed over the Caliphate to Ibn al-Khattab after himself.[22]
[edit] The Sunni view of the succession
Part of a series onSunni Islam
Beliefs
MonotheismProphethood & MessengershipHoly Books • AngelsJudgement Day • Predestination
Pillars
Declaration of Faith • PrayerCharity • Fasting • Pilgrimage
Rightly Guided Caliphs
Abu Bakr • Umar ibn al-KhattabUthman ibn Affan • Ali ibn Abi Talib
Schools of Law (Shariah)
Hanafi • Shafi`i • Maliki • Hanbali
Schools of Theology
Maturidi • Ash'ari • Athari
Modern Movements
Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimoon • Deobandi • Barelwi • Salafi-Wahabi
Hadith Collections
Sahih Bukhari • Sahih MuslimAl-Sunan al-SughraSunan Abu DawoodSunan al-TirmidhiSunan ibn Maja • Al-MuwattaSunan al-Darami
This box: view • talk • edit
Sunni Muslims relate various hadith, or oral traditions, in which Muhammad is said to have recommended shura, elections or consultation, as the best method for making community decisions. In this view of the succession, he did not nominate a successor because he expected that the community themselves would choose the new leader — as was the custom in Arabia at the time. Some Sunnis argue that Muhammad had indicated his reliance upon Abu Bakr as second in command in many ways; he had called upon Abu Bakr to lead prayers and to make rulings in his (Muhammad's) absence. There are some hadiths asserting that Muhammad said that some would be desirous of power but he knew that God (and the Muslims) would make Abu Bakr the next leader (see Hadiths of Abu Bakr's succession). Sunnis point to the fact that the majority of the people accepted Abu-Bakr as their leader as proof that his selection was wise and just.
[edit] Ghadir Khumm
Main article: Hadith of the pond of Khumm
There is one hadith in the collection known as the Musnad which affirms that Muhammad made a speech at Ghadir Khumm, in which he said, "Of whomsoever I am the mawla, Ali is his mawla". The word mawla has many meanings in Arabic. In this case, say the Sunni scholars, Muhammad was merely saying that anyone who was his friend should also befriend Ali. This was a response to some soldiers who had complained about Ali [23]. A similar incident is described in Ibn Ishaq's Sirah; there Muhammad is reputed to have said, "Do not blame Ali, for he is too scrupulous in the things of God, or the way of God, to be blamed." (Guillaume p. 650)
The Sunnis argue that it is a mistake to interpret an expression of friendship and support as the appointment of a successor. If Muhammad had wished to appoint Ali, surely he would have done so in Medina, in front of all the Muslim notables. The fact that there even was a dispute over the leadership after Muhammad's death is sufficient proof that no one had interpreted his words as a binding appointment.
[edit] Muhammad's last illness
Muhammad asked permission from his wives to be taken to Fatema's house (his beloved daughter) and died with his head in her lap. Reportedly, before he died, Muhammad made a gesture of enormous trust in Ali by asking him to lead the prayers in the mosque as imam — a highly visible role virtually always undertaken, when possible, by Muhammad himself. Historically, the imam of a mosque has always been a leader in his local Muslim community; Muhammad asked to give him a pen and paper but Abu Bakr refused and claimed that Muhammad had something wrong with his head. Compendium of Muslim Texts - Volume 1, Book 11, Number 655
[edit] The events at Saqifah
The originally Medinan Muslims, the Ansar, held a meeting to discuss choosing a new leader among themselves, to rule their part of the community. When the news of the meeting spread, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Abu Ubayda rushed to the scene. Abu Bakr argued that if the Ansar chose a leader, to lead the Ansar only, the Muslim community would split. The new leader must come from the Quraysh, Muhammad's clan; any other choice would destroy the community. Sa'd agreed to this. Abu Bakr suggested to the gathering that the people should choose either Umar or Abu Ubayda, as both were capable men of the Quraysh. Umar immediately grabbed Abu Bakr's hand and gave him bay'ah (declared his allegiance; an Arabian custom) causing the rest of the men at the gathering to also give their bay'ah. Umar later described this process as a falta, a rushed and hasty decision. However, this decision would not have been binding upon the rest of the Muslims unless they themselves chose to give their bay'ah, which all save the supporters of Ali did. According to the Sunni, this is the proof that the decision was the right one.
[edit] Ali's attitude towards Abu Bakr and Umar
Ali was extremely distressed not only to have been passed over for the leadership, but not even to have been consulted. Most accounts, Sunni or Shi'a, say that Ali initially refused to give his bay'ah to Abu Bakr. Sunni accounts say that after a period during which he withdrew from public affairs, Ali eventually decided to cooperate with Abu Bakr and give his public submission. One version of the story is found in an oral tradition collected by Bukhari. [24]
Sunni accounts say that after giving his oath, Ali supported and advised Abu Bakr, as he did for the two caliphs who succeeded Abu Bakr (Umar and Uthman). They reject Shi'a views stating that Ali never gave his submission, or gave it only unwillingly and thereafter retired from public affairs rather than help those he regarded as usurpers.
[edit] Sunni attitude towards Ali
Main articles: Sunni view of Ali and Umayyad tradition of cursing Ali
Sunni Muslims consider Ali as one of the prominent companions of prophet[citation needed], among the ten, including Abu Bakr, Umar and Usman, who were informed with the gift of paradise. They also consider Ali among the righteous caliphs and accept the hadiths narrated by him. They rejects the Shi'a view that Ali considered Abu Bakr's succession undeserved[citation needed].
[edit] The Shi'a view of the succession
[hide]
Part of a series onShī‘ah Islam
Beliefs & Practices
Succession of AliImamate of the FamilyMourning of MuharramIntercession · IsmahThe Occultation· Clergy
Views
The Qur'an · SahabaMu'awiya I · Abu Bakr · Umar
Holy Days
Ashura · Arba'een · MawlidEid ul-Fitr · Eid al-AdhaEid al-Ghadeer · Eid al-Mubahila
History
Twelver · Ismāʿīlī · ZaidiThe verse of purificationMubahala · Two thingsKhumm · Fatimah's houseFirst Fitna · Second FitnaThe Battle of KarbalaPersecution
Ahl al-Kisa
Muhammad · Ali · FatimahHasan · Husayn
The Four Companions
Salman al-FarsiMiqdad ibn AswadAbu Dharr al-GhifariAmmar ibn Yasir
This box: view • talk • edit
The Shī‘ah believe that just as a prophet is appointed by God alone, only God has the prerogative to appoint the successor to his prophet. They believe that God chose ‘Alī to be the successor, infallible and divinely chosen. Thus they say that Muhammad, before his death, appointed Ali as his successor.
[edit] Life of Ali
‘Alī was a leader in battle, and often entrusted with command. He was left in charge of the community at Madīnah when Muhammad led a raid on Tabuk. ‘Alī was also his cousin, and the husband of his daughter Fātimah, and the father of his beloved grandchildren Hasan and Husayn. Ali's father was the late Abū Tālib, Muhammad's uncle, foster father, and powerful protector. As a member of Abū Tālib's family, Muhammad had in fact played the role of an elder brother and guardian to ‘Alī — and ‘Alī had, as a youth, been among the first to accept Islām. He was now a charismatic defender of the faith in his own right, and it was perhaps inevitable that some in the Muslim community assumed that ‘Alī would claim a leadership position following Muhammad's death. In the end, however, it was Abu Bakr who assumed control of the Muslim community.
[edit] The Qur'an
The Shī‘ah refer to these verses from the Qu'rān to make their argument on Qur'ānic grounds: (5:55), (5:3), (5:67). They say that the verses refer to ‘Alī, and the last two verses were revealed at Ghadir Khumm. [25]
[edit] Hadith
The Shī‘ah point to a number of hadith that, they believe, show that Muhammad had left specific instructions as to his successor. These hadith have been given names: Ghadir Khumm, Safinah, Thaqalayn, Haqq, Manzilah, Da‘wat dhul-‘Ashīrah, and others.
Many of these oral traditions are also accepted by Sunni Muslims. However, the Sunni do not accept the Shī‘ah interpretation of these hadith.
The following two hadith are most often referred to by the Shī‘ah, when arguing for the explicit appointment of ‘Alī by Muhammad:
[edit] Da‘wat dhul-‘Ashīrah - Summoning the Family
Islām began when Muhammad became thirty seven years old. Initially, the mission was kept a secret. Then three years after the advent of Islām, he was ordered to commence the open declaration of his message. This was the occasion when God revealed the verse “And warn thy nearest relations.” (26:214).
When this verse was revealed, Muhammad organized a feast that is known in history as “Summoning the Family — Da‘wat dhul-‘Ashīra”. He invited around forty men from the Banū Hāshim and asked ‘Alī to make arrangements for the dinner. After having served his guests with food and drinks, when he wanted to speak to them about Islam, Abu Lahab forestalled him and said, “Your host has long since bewitched you.” All the guests dispersed before Muhammad could present his message to them.
Muhammad then invited them the next day. After the feast, he spoke to them, saying:
“
“O Sons of ‘Abdul-Muttalib! By Allāh, I do not know of any person among the Arabs who has come to his people with better than what I have brought to you. I have brought to you the good of this world and the next, and I have been commanded by the Lord to call you unto Him. Therefore, who amongst you will support me in this matter so that he may be my brother (akhhī), my successor (wasiyyī) and my caliph (khalifatī) among you?”[26]
”
This was the first time that Muhammad openly and publicly called the relations to accept him as the Messenger and Prophet of God, as well as being the first time that he called for a person who would aid him in his mission. At the time, no one but the youngest of them — ‘Alī, stood up and said, “I will be your helper, O Prophet of God.”[26]
Muhammad then put his hand on the back of ‘Alī's neck and said:
“
“Inna hadhã akhhí wa wasiyyí wa khalífatí fíkum, fasma‘û lahu wa atí‘û — Verily this is my brother, my successor, and my caliph amongst you; therefore, listen to him and obey.”[26]
”
[edit] Ghadir Khumm
Main article: Hadith of the pond of Khumm
In 632 CE, Muhammad made his last pilgrimage to the Kaaba. Some early accounts say that after finishing his pilgrimage, on his return to Madīnah, he and his followers stopped at a spring and waypoint called Ghadir Khumm. Muhammad delivered a speech to his assembled followers, in which the traditions state that Muhammad said:
“
"...for whoever I am his mawla, ‘Alī is his mawla..."
”
According to the Shī‘ah, this hadith, Hadith-i ghadir, indicated the intent of Muhammad. They note that the translation of the word mawla as "friend" is highly unlikely and therefore misleading because: a) the word sadeeq is an appropriate, unambiguous and completely accurate translation of the word "friend". b) the connotations of the word mawla nearly always have an implication of a superior-inferior relationship. Hence, mawla can be taken to mean a variety of words in this context, such as master, commander or even slave, but friend is inaccurate. The Shī‘ah say that there were 120,000 witnesses to this declaration, including Umar ibn al-Khattāb and Abu Bakr.
[edit] Muhammad's last illness
Soon after returning from this pilgrimage, Muhammad fell ill. He was nursed in the apartment of his wife Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr.
The Shī‘ah claim that most of the prominent men among the Muslims, expecting Muhammad's death and an ensuing struggle for power, disobeyed his orders to join a military expedition bound for Syria. They stayed in Madīnah, waiting for Muhammad's death and their chance to seize power.
According to Ibn ‘Abbās (cousin of Muhammad), the dying Muhammad said that he wished to write a letter — or wished to have a letter written — detailing his wishes for his community. According to Sahih Muslim Ibn ‘Abbās narrated that:
When Allah's Messenger was about to leave this world, there were persons (around him) in his house, 'Umar b. al-Kbattab being one of them. Allah's Apostle said: Come, I may write for you a document; you would not go astray after that. Thereupon Umar said: Verily Allah's Messenger is deeply afflicted with pain. You have the Qur'an with you. The Book of Allah is sufficient for us. Those who were present in the house differed. Some of them said: Bring him (the writing material) so that Allah's Messenger may write a document for you and you would never go astray after him And some among them said what 'Umar had (already) said. When they indulged in nonsense and began to dispute in the presence of Allah's Messenger, he said: Get up (and go away) 'Ubaidullah said: Ibn ‘Abbās used to say: There was a heavy loss, indeed a heavy loss, that, due to their dispute and noise. Allah's Messenger could not write (or dictate) the document for them.Sahih Muslim 13:4016
When Muhammad died, Umar denied his death stating rather that he would return back, and threatening to behead anyone who accede to his death. Abu Bakr, upon his returned to Madīnah, spoke to Umar and only then Umar did admit that Muhammad had died, this all was perceived by the Shiite as a ploy on Umar's part to delay the funeral and thus give Abu Bakr (who was outside the city) time to return to Madīnah.
[edit] The events at Saqīfah
When Muhammad died, his closest relatives, ‘Alī and Fātimah, took charge of the body. While they were engaged in washing the body and preparing it for burial, a secret meeting, of which Ali and the Muhajirun weren't told, was taking place at Saqifah, which ended with Abu Bakr being chosen as the new leader.
[edit] Shī‘at of ‘Alī
Just as ‘Alī had refused to give his allegiance (bay'ah) to Abu Bakr, many of the Muslims of Madīnah had also refused, thus they were known as: "Shī‘at ‘Alī" (the "Party of ‘Alī"). It took six months of threat and pressure to force the refusers to submit to Abu Bakr[27]. However, upon his refusal to give allegiance, ‘Alī had his house surrounded by an armed force led by Abu Bakr and Umar[28].
“
"In Madinah, Umar took charge of securing the pledge of allegiance of all residents. He dominated the streets with the help first of the Aslam and then the Abd Al-Ashhal of Aws, who in contrast to the majority of Khazraj, quickly became vigorous champions of the new regime. The sources mention the actual use of force only with respect to Companion Al-Zubayr who had been together with some others of the Muhajirun in the house of Fatima. Supposedly, Umar threatened to set the house on fire unless they came out and swore allegiance to Abu Bakr"[29].
”
Umar pushed his way into the house; Fātimah, who was pregnant, was crushed behind the door. She miscarried her unborn son, whom the Shī‘ah mourn as Al Muhsin. She had been injured by Umar and soon died. ‘Alī buried her at night, secretly, as he did not wish Abu Bakr or Umar, whom he blamed for her death, to attend her funeral. The Shī‘ah thus blame Abu Bakr and Umar for the death of Muhammad's daughter and grandson. Shi'ite Encyclopedia, Chapter 4[30]
[edit] ‘Alī submits for the sake of his followers
Some Shī‘ah believe that ‘Alī took pity upon the sufferings of his devoted followers and gave his submission, his bay'ah, to Abu Bakr,only after Fātimah, ‘Alī's wife and daughter of Muhammad who was angry with Abu Bakr [31] when he refused to give her right to inheritance of garden of Fadak. It may be because of the sake of unity that he might have helped them in matters of jurisprudence and administration but could never admit his obedience to them.
Other Shī‘ah say that ‘Alī did not give his allegiance, but only refrained from pressing his claims. Whatever happened, superficial unity was restored.
[edit] Western academic views
Western academics have, until recently, taken their cues from the Sunni versions of Islamic history. Until the 1950s and 1960s, many scholars tended to translate and expound on Sunni texts and generally tended to treat them as reliable[citation needed]. Then followed the age of doubt, when historians like Wansbrough and Crone took an independent, agnostic line, throwing doubt on the Sunni consensus and proposing daring theories about the Qur'an[citation needed]. Of late, the pendulum has swung somewhat the other way[citation needed].
Many contemporary scholars who have sifted through the early Muslim historical writings are proposing narratives that are closer to the received versions. In most cases, this has meant a swing back towards the Sunni version of events. However, one recent publication, The Succession to Muhammad by Wilferd Madelung, Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford, examines the course of events from 632, and the death of Muhammad, through the rise of the Umayyads — and rehabilitates some of the Shi'a narratives. On the right of Muhammad's household to succeed him, for instance, Madelung observes that:
“
In the Qur’an, the descendants and close kin of the prophets are their heirs also in respect to kingship (mulk), rule (hukm), wisdom (hikma), the book and the imamate. The Sunnite concept of the true caliphate itself defines it as a succession of the prophet in every respect except his prophethood. Why should Muhammad not be succeeded in it by any of his family like the earlier prophets? If God really wanted to indicate that he should not be succeeded by any of them why did He not let his grandsons and other kin die like his sons? There is thus a good reason to doubt that Muhammad failed to appoint a successor because he realized that the divine design excluded hereditary succession of his family and that he wanted the Muslims to choose their head by Shura. The Qur’an advises the faithful to settle some matters by consultation, but not the succession to prophets. That, according to the Qur’an, is settled by divine election, God usually chooses their successors, whether they become prophets or not from their own kin
”
(The Succession to Muhammad, Wilferd Madelung, p 17)Madelung writes on the basis of hadith of the pond of Khumm Ali later insisted on his religious authority superior to that of Abu Bakr and Umar.[32]
MICHIEL JACKSON DIED AS A MUSLIM AL FATIHAT
Published: 21 Nov 2008
MICHAEL JACKSON has become a Muslim - and changed his name to MIKAEEL.
The skint superstar, 50, donned Islamic garb to pledge allegiance to the Koran in a ceremony at a pal's mansion in Los Angeles, The Sun can reveal.
Jacko sat on the floor wearing a tiny hat after an Imam was summoned to officiate - days before the singer is due to appear at London's High Court where he is being sued by an Arab sheik.
Ceremony ... pop king Jacko
A source told last night how Jacko, brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, decided to convert as he used a studio at the home of his chum to record a new album.
The star - whose hits include The Way You Make Me Feel - was spotted looking "a bit down" by a producer and a songwriter who had both embraced Islam.
Shahada
The source said: "They began talking to him about their beliefs, and how they thought they had become better people after they converted. Michael soon began warming to the idea.
"An Imam was summoned from the mosque and Michael went through the shahada, which is the Muslim declaration of belief." Mikaeel is the name of one of Allah's angels.
"Jacko rejected an alternative name, Mustafa - meaning "the chosen one".
Brit singer Yousef Islam, 60 - who was called Cat Stevens until he famously converted - turned up to help Jacko celebrate.
Advertisement
var blueLithium = "No";
blueLithium = get_cookie("BL")==null?"No":get_cookie("BL");It was his pals David Wharnsby - a Canadian songwriter - and producer Phillip Bubal who counselled Jacko.
The pair's new names are Dawud Wharnsby Ali and Idris Phillips.
Jacko now prays to Mecca after the ceremony at the Hollywood Hills home of Toto keyboard player Steve Porcaro, 51, who composed music on the singer's Thriller album.
Jacko, who rarely ventures out without a mask, is due to give evidence on Monday in a £4.7million lawsuit brought by Prince Abdulla Al-Khalif of Bahrain.
The sheik claims he bankrolled the singer's lavish lifestyle in exchange for an exclusive recording contract. The billionaire sent songs for him to record but claims he was blanked.
He told the court yesterday: "Many times he confirmed to me he would pay me back."
He is said to have been encouraged by Canadian songwriter David Wharnsby and Phillip Bubal, a producer, who both approached him after he appeared 'a bit down'.
A source told The Sun: 'They began talking to him about their beliefs, and how they thought they had become better people after they converted. Michael soon began warming to the idea.
'An imam was summoned from the mosque and Michael went through the shahada, which is the Muslim declaration of belief.'
His brother Jermaine Friday, previously hinted Jackson was considering converting to the religion.
'When I came back from Mecca I got him a lot of books and he asked me lots of things about my religion and I told him that it's peaceful and beautiful,' said Friday, who embraced the faith in 1989.
'He read everything and he was proud of me that I found something that would give me inner strength and peace.
'He could do so much, just like I am trying to do. Michael and I and the word of God, we could do so much.'
Meanwhile, Jackson is scheduled to give evidence in person at London's High Court to defend allegations that he owes an Arab sheikh £4.7 million.
His barrister, Robert Englehart QC, told Mr Justice Sweeney today that he was withdrawing his application for Jackson to give his evidence via video link from Los Angeles because of health fears.
'He has been cleared by his medical advisers to travel in two days' time,' he told the judge.
Jackson is expected to arrive in the UK over the weekend to give his evidence on Monday afternoon.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1088225/Michael-Jackson-Muslim-changes-Mikaeel.html#ixzz0Oef801Lt
MICHAEL JACKSON has become a Muslim - and changed his name to MIKAEEL.
The skint superstar, 50, donned Islamic garb to pledge allegiance to the Koran in a ceremony at a pal's mansion in Los Angeles, The Sun can reveal.
Jacko sat on the floor wearing a tiny hat after an Imam was summoned to officiate - days before the singer is due to appear at London's High Court where he is being sued by an Arab sheik.
Ceremony ... pop king Jacko
A source told last night how Jacko, brought up as a Jehovah's Witness, decided to convert as he used a studio at the home of his chum to record a new album.
The star - whose hits include The Way You Make Me Feel - was spotted looking "a bit down" by a producer and a songwriter who had both embraced Islam.
Shahada
The source said: "They began talking to him about their beliefs, and how they thought they had become better people after they converted. Michael soon began warming to the idea.
"An Imam was summoned from the mosque and Michael went through the shahada, which is the Muslim declaration of belief." Mikaeel is the name of one of Allah's angels.
"Jacko rejected an alternative name, Mustafa - meaning "the chosen one".
Brit singer Yousef Islam, 60 - who was called Cat Stevens until he famously converted - turned up to help Jacko celebrate.
Advertisement
var blueLithium = "No";
blueLithium = get_cookie("BL")==null?"No":get_cookie("BL");It was his pals David Wharnsby - a Canadian songwriter - and producer Phillip Bubal who counselled Jacko.
The pair's new names are Dawud Wharnsby Ali and Idris Phillips.
Jacko now prays to Mecca after the ceremony at the Hollywood Hills home of Toto keyboard player Steve Porcaro, 51, who composed music on the singer's Thriller album.
Jacko, who rarely ventures out without a mask, is due to give evidence on Monday in a £4.7million lawsuit brought by Prince Abdulla Al-Khalif of Bahrain.
The sheik claims he bankrolled the singer's lavish lifestyle in exchange for an exclusive recording contract. The billionaire sent songs for him to record but claims he was blanked.
He told the court yesterday: "Many times he confirmed to me he would pay me back."
He is said to have been encouraged by Canadian songwriter David Wharnsby and Phillip Bubal, a producer, who both approached him after he appeared 'a bit down'.
A source told The Sun: 'They began talking to him about their beliefs, and how they thought they had become better people after they converted. Michael soon began warming to the idea.
'An imam was summoned from the mosque and Michael went through the shahada, which is the Muslim declaration of belief.'
His brother Jermaine Friday, previously hinted Jackson was considering converting to the religion.
'When I came back from Mecca I got him a lot of books and he asked me lots of things about my religion and I told him that it's peaceful and beautiful,' said Friday, who embraced the faith in 1989.
'He read everything and he was proud of me that I found something that would give me inner strength and peace.
'He could do so much, just like I am trying to do. Michael and I and the word of God, we could do so much.'
Meanwhile, Jackson is scheduled to give evidence in person at London's High Court to defend allegations that he owes an Arab sheikh £4.7 million.
His barrister, Robert Englehart QC, told Mr Justice Sweeney today that he was withdrawing his application for Jackson to give his evidence via video link from Los Angeles because of health fears.
'He has been cleared by his medical advisers to travel in two days' time,' he told the judge.
Jackson is expected to arrive in the UK over the weekend to give his evidence on Monday afternoon.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1088225/Michael-Jackson-Muslim-changes-Mikaeel.html#ixzz0Oef801Lt
THE 60 QUESTION MUSLIM DONT LIKE TO BE ASK
60 Questions to ask Muslims Now that you know Muslims will get mad easily by asking them too many questions they don’t want to answer, we suggest the following:
-Pick one or two questions.-Be very kind in your tone.-Be patient for their answer.-Do not condescend.-Pray for them to see the truth.
Muslims claim, that a proof the Koran was from God, is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology before man discovered it for himself. However, all the information in the Koran regarding Embryology is copied from three sources, 1. A Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. 2. A Jewish doctor named Samuel ha-Yehudi who lived 150 AD. 3. the Greek father of medicine Hippocrates who lived 400 BC. My question is: in light of the fact that all the information contained in the Koran was already in print by these three doctors, will you retract the argument on Embryology? If not, will you supply one detail revealed in the Koran about Embryology, that was not already revealed or that was new?
Muslims claim, that a proof that the Koran was from God is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology, yet in 86:6-7 the Koran says, "man was created from ejected liquid- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believed semen originates, from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally out of the body. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317) My question is: do you reject modern science and believe the Koran when it says sperm originates from the mid-gut section of a man's body.
Muslims quote an article written in 1957 by the Jehovah's Witnesses who stated there were 50,000 errors in the translation of the King James version. My question is: Even if this were true, (which of course it is not), how does this prove there is corruption in the original Greek MSS from which the King James version was translated?
Muslims claim, that the many different translations of the English Bible will render a single text with many different words and phrases. You said this was proof the Bible is corrupted and that the Koran reads exactly the same way everywhere in the world in Arabic. My question is: Since the many English translations of the Koran also render a single text with many different words, does that proof that the Koran is corrupted?
Muslims believe the word Allah was used by Jesus when he hung on the cross. The Bible records that Jesus said "Eli Eli lama sabachthani", but you say Jesus really cried out to Allah and said "Allah, Allah lama sabachthani" My question is: Would you please explain why you would use this argument when you don't believe Jesus ever hung on the cross? And second, since Jesus was quoting Ps 22:1 on the cross, isn't rather unlikely that both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament are wrong using Eli, a Hebrew word, rather than Allah, an arab word?
Muslims chide Christians because the earliest complete copies of the Bible were written 300 years after the originals of the first century. Yet Muslim scholars state the earliest copy of the Koran was written no earlier than 150 years after Muhammad died. My question is: in light of this fact, how could the Koran possibly be better than the Bible and would you please state the name and location and date of the earliest Koran you believe to be in existence?
Both the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul are written in the script style called "Kufic". And not the earlier style known as Ma'il or Mashq. This fact is the reason Muslim scholars date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. My question is: leaving aside blind faith and wishful thinking, what evidence do you supply that these MSS were written any earlier?
The British Museum in London has an ancient copy of the Koran written in the Ma'il style of script, but practicing Muslim scholar Martin Lings, who is the former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates this manuscript at 790 AD. My question is: Apart from just making the claim, what evidence do you supply that this MSS were written any earlier?
The text of the Koran in 37:103 reads "they had both submitted their wills (became Muslims)" while the Arabic text of the Tashkent MSS gives the exact opposite meaning, "they did not submitted their wills" (they did NOT become Muslims.) My question is: have you actually read the Tashkent MSS for yourself in this passage and how do you explain this textual variation given your comments on the miracle of the perfect Koran?
Qur’an 18:9, makes into real history, the second century myth of 7 Christian youths who were persecuted for their faith and went to sleep in a cave for 300 years and then woke up with no ill effects. In the original myth the hero is a Christian, but in the Koran the hero is a Muslim. My question is: in the absence of any copyright laws when the Koran was written, are you at least prepared to pay compensation to the living relatives of the author of this myth? If not, would you be in favor of going starting up a charity fund to compensate for damages of copyright infringement?
Koran 5:116, represents Christians as worshipping Mary which is a historical error. Given the fact that the pagan Arabs did worship Mary’s idol in the Kaba, and that history records no group of Christians had ever worshiped Mary at this time, my question is would you please name the sect of Christians who worshiped Mary at the time of Muhammad?
Muslim's reject the doctrine of inherited sin of Adam but teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The reason the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was invented was to remove inherited sin. My question is: since you reject the doctrine of inherited sin and believe all men are born without sin, why do Muslim's teach the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?
In Koran 7:125, death by crucifixion is stated to exist at the time of Moses in 1500BC. Yet Encyclopedia Britannica, in harmony with all records of history, reports that crucifixion did not exist any earlier than 500 BC. My question is: to how do you explain this blaring historical error, and do you just disregard the history of the world merely because the Karen says otherwise?
Muslim scholar, Tabbarah, said in his book, The Spirit of Islam, "Moslems do not worship the Black Stone, but only show special reverence and veneration for its dignity and they kiss it only after the example of the Prophet and to keep their Covenant with God to obey His Will and avoid His disobedience." (Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam, p. 173, Muslim). Focusing on Tabbarah’s key phrase of showing reverence and veneration to the Black Stone, My question is do you see any difference between the Muslim practice of kissing showing reverence and venerating the Black Stone and the Catholic practice of pope John Paul II kissing the statute of the Virgin Mary with reverence and veneration?
Informed Christians know there is no passage and the Koran that says the Bible is lost altered or corrupted. My question is would you please list all the passages you know where the Qur'an says the Bible that was in the hands of the Christians at the time of Muhammad had been corrupted?
Muslims will quote Quran 2:79 as a verse where the Koran says the canon of the Bible is corrupted, "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!" My question is: If this verse refers to the corruption of the Bible, then why did Muhammad command Christians to follow the Bible they possessed in 600 AD in Quran 2:89; 7:157? And is this the only verse in the Koran that says the Bible is corrupt? (see also Quran 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11)
Muslims will quote Jer 8:8 as proof that the Old Testament canon is corrupt, "How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie" Yet this verse is clearly speaking of the written scribal interpretations of the Bible as Jesus condemned in Mt 15:1-14. Here Jesus accused the Scribes of the same thing regarding washing of hands and Corban, "you invalidate the written word of God for the sake of your tradition." My question is: is this the only text in the Bible where you claim the canon was corrupted? If not quote the other texts.
How can Muslims claim there are no textual variations in the Koran, when the Tashkent MSS differs from the modern Egyptian Qur’an in 5 passages: 2:284, 2:283, 3:37, 3:109 and 5:119. The Tashkent MSS uses the word 'Allah' while the modern Egyptian Qur'an, uses the word 'huwa' (the pronoun 'he'). My question is: Which word do you believe are in the "preserved master tablet" and "mother of all books" in heaven?
The yearly Passover ritual began the same year it was initiated in the 10th plague and continued uninterrupted for 1500 years. The weekly Lord’s supper ritual began the same week that Christ was crucified and has continued ever since for 2000 years. The Islamic rituals just come out of nowhere, 2600 years after Abraham lived. Being as unbiased as you possibly can, My question is: are not the Jewish and Christian rituals more likely to be based on real history since the rituals of Islam that just pop out of nowhere 2600 years later?
The "Throw" is a reenactment ritual based upon Abraham and the "Run" is a reenactment ritual based upon Hagar. My question is: Did Adam perform the throw and the Run, and if not exactly when did they become part of Islamic ritual and do you have any actual historical evidence to support such?
Given the fact that Isaac Watt, said in his book, Islam and Christianity Today, "By the standards of modern historiography, the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the most certain events in past history" (Watt, Islam and Christianity Today, p. 144). My question is: What historical evidence do you give outside of the Qur'an that Jesus did not die on across?
If all Muslim's must reject the crucifixion of Christ based on the Koran and all Christians must reject Muhammad as a prophet based on the Bible, my question is: on exactly what basis do you believe Christianity and Islam are compatible religions?
Given the fact that the gospel of Barnabas is the 15th century forgery by Muslims, my question is: why do you quote this document as proof that early Christians denied the crucifixion of Christ and what proof do you offer that it is not a Muslim forgery?
Muslim's will quote Yusuf Ali’s comment in footnote 663, as proof that the three early Christian sects of Marcion, Docetism, Basilides, denied the crucifixion of Christ. Given the fact the three sects are condemned as false teachers, deceivers and the anti-Christ in six Bible passages (1 John 1:1,14; 2:22; 4:1-3; 5:6; 2 John 7) My question is: on what basis do you claim they are Christian sects and isn't it as much of a misrepresentation for you to quote these Gnostic sects as Christians who deny the crucifixion, as it would be a misrepresentation for Christians to quote the Baha'i faith as proof Muhammad was not the final Prophet? (The holy Qur’an, text, translation and commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. 1872-1952, First published in 1938, 1973 ed., p. 230, footnote 663, commenting on 4:157)
The Koran says in 4:157, that God causes someone who looked like Jesus to die on the cross in his place, therefore tricking the apostles of Christ into thinking he was crucified. My question is: how can you escape the fact that the rise of Christianity to the largest religion in the world is ultimately the result of the divine action of Allah?
The deity of Jesus is affirmed four times in Hebrews chapter 1. Jesus Christ is called the son of God, worshiped by Angels, called God by the Father and stated to be the creator. Given the fact that you would say that this is a textual corruption of the original gospel message, my question is would you not agree that this corrupted text does indeed call Jesus God?
The Islamic religion teaches that Jesus Christ was a practicing Muslim. My question is: is this any less ridiculous than if Christians said Muhammad was a practicing Buddhist?
Muslim's claim that Isaiah 42 is a prophecy of Muhammad. Yet Isaiah 53 is one of the foremost prophecies of the crucifixion of Christ in the entire Old Testament. My question is: on what basis do you feel Isaiah 42 is uncorrupted which prophecies Muhammad, but Isaiah 53 is corrupted that prophesies the crucifixion of Christ?
My question is: If you feel the Bible is so corrupted, than why do you quote Deut 18:18 and John 16:13 as uncorrupted prophecies of Muhammad’s comment in the sixth century AD.
Acts 19:23-41 mentions a religion that worshipped the great goddess Artemis and her meteorite which fell down from heaven. Taking note that this religion centered around a meteorite, my question is: is it possible that this is a pagan corruption of the Black Stone and meteorite that fell at the foot of Adam and that at the time of Christ the Black Stone was actually in Ephesus Asia minor?
Galatians 1:6-9 Apostle Paul says "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Christ for a different religion. But even if an angel from heaven, should preach to you a different religion, let him be accursed." My question is: Do you think it possible that this is a genuine text from God and he foresaw that both Muhammad and Joseph Smith would be taught a new religion by an angel?
Before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls in 1947 the earliest copy of the Old Testament was the Massoretic Text dated at 1000 AD. The dead sea scrolls are dated at 100 B.C. contain 19 copies of Isaiah, 25 copies of Deuteronomy and 30 copies of Psalms that are virtually identical to what we have in our Bible's today. My question is: since you believe the Old Testament was corrupted long before the dead sea scrolls were written in 100 B.C., will you at least admit that there has been no further corruption of the Old Testament since 100 B.C. right down to the present?
In Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3; John 16:13 and 2 Tim 3:16 the Bible is called an all sufficient book with no need for anything else in regards to how we live our lives or worship God. You claim the same thing for the Qur'an. My question is: how can the Qur'an be all sufficient in our worship of Allah, if it does not even mention something as important as praying five times a day and does this not prove that the Koran without the Hadith is like a car without an engine?
The Huleatt Manuscript was written in 50 AD and is actually a prayer addressed to Jesus and calls Jesus "God". Therefore, Christians have in their possession archeological inscriptions within 20 years of Christ’s resurrection that say he is God. My question is: Do you know of any archeological inscription dated within 100 years of Muhammad's death where he is called a prophet? If so, please name it.
The Bible contains over 60 distinct prophecies of Jesus Christ 1000 years before hand. My question is: what is the single most remarkable prophecy that Muhammad made that was fulfilled?
Muslim's believe the Bible is corrupted. Yet in Isa 40:22 and three other passages. (Prov 8:27; Amos 9:6 Job 26:10) it says the earth is round and not flat. Job 26:7 says the earth is free-floating in space: "he hangs the earth on nothing." Both these facts are scientifically accurate, and revealed in the Bible long before man discovered it for himself. My question is: Are these passages scientifically accurate corruption's?
Muslims proudly quote several passages in the Koran 30:48; 24:43, as scientifically accurate explanations of the hydrologic water cycle. My question is: given the fact the Bible had already fully documented the hydrologic water cycle 1600 before the Koran in Job 36:27-28, and 3 other passages (Eccl 11:3; Job 26:8; Eccl 1:6-7), doesn't this proof Muhammad merely copied the scientific facts of the hydrologic water cycle directly from the Bible? (Clouds hold water: Eccl 11:3; Job 26:8; Rivers recycle water: Eccl 1:6-7; Evapouration: Amos 9:6)
The 66 books of the Bible were written by 40 different men over a period of 1600 years with multiple threads of unified themes that span cover to cover. My question is: would you not agree that in contrast to the Bible, that the Qur'an is a jumble of disjointed material, without order, continuity or unity of any kind?
Muslims authorities refuse to release photographs of the ancient Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul, one of the three oldest Korans in existence. My question is: do you have any idea why Muslim authorities refuse to release documentary photographs of the Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul and what they are afraid for the world to see?
Muslims have repeatedly claimed that Muslim women have more rights in Islam then Western women do in Canada and the USA. The proof you supplied with the fact that Islam gave women the right to vote 1400 years ago but women in the West only got the right to vote 100 years ago. My question is: would you please name one country in the world today that is ruled by a Islamic "Shariah" law where women are permitted to vote?
Muslim's claim that their growth rate is 235 percent and 47 percent for Christianity. This statistic came from the Readers Digest Almanac and Yearbook 1983, and represents 235 percent increase over 50 years. A simple review of the readers Digest study shows that the growth rate of Islam vs. Christianity is directly linked to the birth rate in Third World countries where Islam dominates and not actual conversions to each religion. My question is: do you have any more recent statistics on an annualized basis?
Muslims claim that Jesus prayed using the Muslim prayer posture, along with all the prophets. Yet Jesus instructed his disciples to pray while standing up. (Mark 11:25), King David prayed while sitting in (2 Sam 7:18), and Paul instructed prayer in church with hands lifted up in the air. (1 Tim 2:8) My question is: If Jesus was a Muslim, why would he instruct his disciples to pray standing up? And when it says Jesus fell on his face and prayed, how do you know he was not fully prostrate?
Muslims claim that Muhammad always worshipped Allah in a 100% correct way, without the need for any restoral. My question is: If this is true, then why did Muhammad pray towards Jerusalem for the first 5 years of his prophethood, and later redirected his prays towards Mecca? And did Jesus pray towards Mecca 5 times a towards Jerusalem or Mecca?
The Bible defines a miracle as something that defies the laws of nature. Muslims claim the Koran is a miracle merely because it was allegedly transmitted perfectly without alteration and flaw till the second coming. Since the Harry Potter books will certainly be transmitted perfectly without alteration or flaw, and be around until the second coming, my question is: does this make the Harry Potter books a miracle like the Koran?
Muslims claim that in Isa 42:1 Muhammad fulfilled the expression "bring forth justice to the nations" indicating that the immoral pagan Arabs before Muhammad’s time were reformed into a just moral society. My question is: Even though you believe the New Testament is corrupt, had the Immoral Pagan Arabs all become Christians and followed the moral standards revealed in the corrupted New Testament, would they not have also transformed into a just moral society? If no why not? And how is the moral standard in the Koran superior to the moral standard of the Bible?
Muslims claim that the Angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit who came upon Mary and caused her to conceive based upon Luke 1:26:38. My question is: If this is true, then why did Gabriel say to Mary in verse 35, "the power of the Holy Spirit will come upon you" rather than "my power will come upon you"?
Muslims quote Luke 22:43 as proof that when Jesus cried out to God not to be crucified, that an angel came and saved him from crucifixion. However the next verses says that Jesus was arrested by the mob for crucifixion. My Question is: on what basis do you accept the first passage as uncorrupted scripture, but reject the next verse as corrupted scripture?
Muslims claim it was medically impossible for blood and water to come out of Jesus when his side was pierced with spear because all the blood in Jesus body would have been clotted. The universal opinion of forensic scientists say that blood takes days to clot. My question is: Is this another example of where you reject all known science simply because Islam says this?
Muslims quote liberal agnostic Bible trashes who claim that the four gospels were copied from a lost original gospel known as the "Q document". This is a mythological document invented by these skeptics who reject Christianity, because they simply cannot accept the Bible is a book inspired from God. My question is: are you aware that the "Q Document" is a purely theoretical document that has never been found and is a complete fabrication and invention of the mind? And what is the value of quoting those who reject Christianity and Islam equally?
Muslims claim that the heading at the beginning of the four gospels "Gospel according to John", for example indicated the words came from John alone and prove the Bible to be a book of human authorship? In fact, that this text, like chapter and verse numbers, was added much later and are not part of the Bible? My question is: where did you learn that this text was part of the Bible?
Muslims state that they believe that the Bible is a book filled with pornography, and quoted Gen 19:32 where Lot made his two daughters pregnant. My Question is: Do you feel that the Bible should be removed from every library in Canada? And are you comfortable with the fact that your prophet Muhammad married a six year old child, when he was 55 years old? Do you think this is a good story to tell children?
Muslims teach Muhammad was sinless. However the Koran specifically limits the number of wives a Muslim man can marry to 4. Yet Muhammad married at least 12 women. My question is: Is Muhammad above the very law he gave in the Koran and isn’t the definition of sin violating the law of God?
Muslims quote George Bernard Shaw who said, "The Bible is the most dangerous book in the world, keep it lock and keyed." My question is: What value is there for you to quote an atheist like Shaw who also said: "There is not one single established religion that an intelligent, educated man can believe." (George Bernard Shaw quoted in "2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt", by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996) Shaw also said: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. (George Bernard Shaw, Androcles and the Lion, Preface, 1916)
To prove the Bible text is corrupted, Muslims quote a newspaper article in the "Daily News" of Durban South Africa, Tues. May 22, 1990, where you claimed the Church of Scotland had deleted the virgin birth from the Bible. The article actually said that the church of Scotland had merely deleted the teaching from their local church creed and statement of faith. My question is: Would you please explain how a church deleting the virgin birth from their church doctrine books, in any way proves the Bible is corrupted?
Muslims quote Isa 42 as a prophecy of Muhammad and say that Christians teach it is a prophecy of the Holy Spirit. (In fact Christians apply the text to Christ.) You also said that Isa 42 can only be fulfilled by Muhammad because Jesus is never called "my servant". My question is: why did Matthew quote Isa 42 and apply the whole text to Jesus in Matthew 12:18?
Muslims claim that the prophecy of the coming prophet in Deut 18:18 cannot be fulfilled by Jesus but could be fulfilled by Muhammad because the text says the prophet must arise from among their own brethren. Muslims say that if a Hebrew was intended, that the Bible would have said, "from among yourselves" rather than the expression "from among their own brethren". Hence Muslims claim the expression, "from among their own brethren" excludes all Hebrews and specifically Jesus. My question is: Since Deut 17:15 uses exactly the same expression, when it said, "you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your own brethren" why did God appoint Saul and David as King and not an Ishmaelite? And in Deut 18:2 it says, "The Levites shall have no inheritance from among their brethren." Did the Ishmaelites share the inheritance of the promised land of Palestine with the Hebrews?
The Koran says in 4:157, that God causes someone who looked like Jesus to die on the cross in his place, therefore tricking the apostles of Christ into thinking he was crucified. Apostle John wrote in1 John 1:1 concerning the crucifixion: "What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life". My question is: Was not John accurately reporting the things he actually saw, things that Allah made appear to happen?
Muslims claim that the New Testament story of Jesus dying on the cross is a corruption of the truth and that Allah made it appear that Jesus died on the cross, as per Q4:157. My question is: How can Muslims claim that they believe any of the New Testament was originally revealed by God, since the corruption must have begun at the cross.
Muslims believe that the whole concept of blood atonement is an invention of the Christian church. My question is: What were the Jews doing since 1500 BC on the "day of atonement".
Muslims reject the gospel story of Jesus being a substitute for our sins, the just for the unjust. They use the illustration of a man having to pay for a speeding ticket he did not commit. My question is: How do you explain that in the Muslim view of the cross, someone completely innocent died in Jesus place, after God made him appear to be Jesus? Was not this a Substitutionary sacrifice?
Written by Brother Andrew
The 45 Bonus Questions for Muslims:
by Robert Morey
The outline below contains the very answers to the very questions Muhammad did not want his followers to know, namely that Islam is a sanitized version of ancient polytheistic moon worship which he invented to exercise military control.
Does the Qur’an define the word "Allah"? No.
Was the name "Allah" revealed for the first time in the Qur’an? No
Does the Qur’an assume that its readers have already heard of "Allah"? Yes
Should we look into pre-Islamic Arabian history to see who "Allah" was before Muhammad? Yes.
According to Muslim tradition, was Muhammad born into a Christian family and tribe? No
Was he born into a Jewish family or tribe? No
What religion was his family and tribe? Pagans
What was the name of his pagan father? Abdullah (Abd + Allah)
Did Muhammad participate in the pagan ceremonies of Mecca? Yes
Did the Arabs in pre-Islamic times worship 360 gods? Yes
Did the pagans Arabs worship the sun, moon and the stars? Yes
Did the Arabs built temples to the Moon-god? Yes
Did different Arab tribes give the Moon-god different names/titles? Yes
What were some of the names/titles? Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh, Al-ilah.
Was the title "al-ilah" (the god) used of the Moon-god? Yes
Was the word "Allah" derived from "al-ilah?" Yes
Was the pagan "Allah" a high god in a pantheon of deities? Yes.
Was he worshipped at the Kabah? Yes.
Was Allah only one of many Meccan gods? Yes
Did they place a statue of Hubul on top of the Kabah? Yes.
At that time was Hubul considered the Moon-god? Yes.
Was the Kabah thus the "house of the Moon-god"? Yes.
Did the name "Allah" eventually replace that of Hubul as the name of the Moon god? Yes.
Did they call the Kabah the "house of Allah"? Yes
Did the pagans develop religious rites in connection with the worship of their gods? Yes.
Did the pagans practice the Pilgrimage, the Fast of Ramadan, running around the Kabah seven times, kissing the black stone, shaving the head, animal sacrifices, running up and down two hills, throwing stones at the devil, snorting water in and out the nose, praying several times a day toward Mecca, giving alms, Friday prayers, etc.? Yes.
Did Muhammad command his followers to participate in these pagan ceremonies while the pagans were still in control of Mecca? Yes (Yusuf Ali, fn. 214, pg. 78).
Did Islam go on to adopt these pagan religious rites? Yes. (Yusuf Ali: fn. 223 pg. 80).
Were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat called "the daughters of Allah"? Yes.
Did the Qur’an at one point tell Muslims to worship al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat? Yes. In Surah 53:19-20.
Have those verses been "abrogated" out of the present Qur’an? Yes.
What were they called? "The Satanic Verses." Yes.
Was the crescent moon an ancient pagan symbol of the Moon-god throughout the ancient world? Yes.
Was it the religious symbol of the Moon-god in Arabia? Yes
Were stars also used as pagan symbols of the daughers of Allah? Yes
Did the Jews or the Christians of Arabia use the crescent moon with several stars next to it as symbols of their faith? No
Did Islam adopt the pagan crescent moon and stars as it religious symbol? Yes.
As Islam developed over the centuries, did it adopt pagan names, pagan ceremonies, pagan temples and pagan symbols? Yes
Is it possible that most Muslims do not know the pagan sources of the symbols and rites of their own religion? Yes.
Are they shocked to find out the true sources of their ceremonies and stories? Yes
Can Islam be the religion of Abraham if it is derived from paganism? No
What then is Islam? A modern version of one of the ancient fertility cults.
Is the "Allah" of the Qur’an, the Christian God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? No
Do the Jews say that the Muslim "Allah" is their God too? No
Then whose god is Allah? Paganism
-Pick one or two questions.-Be very kind in your tone.-Be patient for their answer.-Do not condescend.-Pray for them to see the truth.
Muslims claim, that a proof the Koran was from God, is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology before man discovered it for himself. However, all the information in the Koran regarding Embryology is copied from three sources, 1. A Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. 2. A Jewish doctor named Samuel ha-Yehudi who lived 150 AD. 3. the Greek father of medicine Hippocrates who lived 400 BC. My question is: in light of the fact that all the information contained in the Koran was already in print by these three doctors, will you retract the argument on Embryology? If not, will you supply one detail revealed in the Koran about Embryology, that was not already revealed or that was new?
Muslims claim, that a proof that the Koran was from God is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology, yet in 86:6-7 the Koran says, "man was created from ejected liquid- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believed semen originates, from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally out of the body. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317) My question is: do you reject modern science and believe the Koran when it says sperm originates from the mid-gut section of a man's body.
Muslims quote an article written in 1957 by the Jehovah's Witnesses who stated there were 50,000 errors in the translation of the King James version. My question is: Even if this were true, (which of course it is not), how does this prove there is corruption in the original Greek MSS from which the King James version was translated?
Muslims claim, that the many different translations of the English Bible will render a single text with many different words and phrases. You said this was proof the Bible is corrupted and that the Koran reads exactly the same way everywhere in the world in Arabic. My question is: Since the many English translations of the Koran also render a single text with many different words, does that proof that the Koran is corrupted?
Muslims believe the word Allah was used by Jesus when he hung on the cross. The Bible records that Jesus said "Eli Eli lama sabachthani", but you say Jesus really cried out to Allah and said "Allah, Allah lama sabachthani" My question is: Would you please explain why you would use this argument when you don't believe Jesus ever hung on the cross? And second, since Jesus was quoting Ps 22:1 on the cross, isn't rather unlikely that both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament are wrong using Eli, a Hebrew word, rather than Allah, an arab word?
Muslims chide Christians because the earliest complete copies of the Bible were written 300 years after the originals of the first century. Yet Muslim scholars state the earliest copy of the Koran was written no earlier than 150 years after Muhammad died. My question is: in light of this fact, how could the Koran possibly be better than the Bible and would you please state the name and location and date of the earliest Koran you believe to be in existence?
Both the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul are written in the script style called "Kufic". And not the earlier style known as Ma'il or Mashq. This fact is the reason Muslim scholars date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. My question is: leaving aside blind faith and wishful thinking, what evidence do you supply that these MSS were written any earlier?
The British Museum in London has an ancient copy of the Koran written in the Ma'il style of script, but practicing Muslim scholar Martin Lings, who is the former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates this manuscript at 790 AD. My question is: Apart from just making the claim, what evidence do you supply that this MSS were written any earlier?
The text of the Koran in 37:103 reads "they had both submitted their wills (became Muslims)" while the Arabic text of the Tashkent MSS gives the exact opposite meaning, "they did not submitted their wills" (they did NOT become Muslims.) My question is: have you actually read the Tashkent MSS for yourself in this passage and how do you explain this textual variation given your comments on the miracle of the perfect Koran?
Qur’an 18:9, makes into real history, the second century myth of 7 Christian youths who were persecuted for their faith and went to sleep in a cave for 300 years and then woke up with no ill effects. In the original myth the hero is a Christian, but in the Koran the hero is a Muslim. My question is: in the absence of any copyright laws when the Koran was written, are you at least prepared to pay compensation to the living relatives of the author of this myth? If not, would you be in favor of going starting up a charity fund to compensate for damages of copyright infringement?
Koran 5:116, represents Christians as worshipping Mary which is a historical error. Given the fact that the pagan Arabs did worship Mary’s idol in the Kaba, and that history records no group of Christians had ever worshiped Mary at this time, my question is would you please name the sect of Christians who worshiped Mary at the time of Muhammad?
Muslim's reject the doctrine of inherited sin of Adam but teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The reason the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was invented was to remove inherited sin. My question is: since you reject the doctrine of inherited sin and believe all men are born without sin, why do Muslim's teach the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary?
In Koran 7:125, death by crucifixion is stated to exist at the time of Moses in 1500BC. Yet Encyclopedia Britannica, in harmony with all records of history, reports that crucifixion did not exist any earlier than 500 BC. My question is: to how do you explain this blaring historical error, and do you just disregard the history of the world merely because the Karen says otherwise?
Muslim scholar, Tabbarah, said in his book, The Spirit of Islam, "Moslems do not worship the Black Stone, but only show special reverence and veneration for its dignity and they kiss it only after the example of the Prophet and to keep their Covenant with God to obey His Will and avoid His disobedience." (Tabbarah, The Spirit of Islam, p. 173, Muslim). Focusing on Tabbarah’s key phrase of showing reverence and veneration to the Black Stone, My question is do you see any difference between the Muslim practice of kissing showing reverence and venerating the Black Stone and the Catholic practice of pope John Paul II kissing the statute of the Virgin Mary with reverence and veneration?
Informed Christians know there is no passage and the Koran that says the Bible is lost altered or corrupted. My question is would you please list all the passages you know where the Qur'an says the Bible that was in the hands of the Christians at the time of Muhammad had been corrupted?
Muslims will quote Quran 2:79 as a verse where the Koran says the canon of the Bible is corrupted, "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!" My question is: If this verse refers to the corruption of the Bible, then why did Muhammad command Christians to follow the Bible they possessed in 600 AD in Quran 2:89; 7:157? And is this the only verse in the Koran that says the Bible is corrupt? (see also Quran 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11)
Muslims will quote Jer 8:8 as proof that the Old Testament canon is corrupt, "How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the Lord is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie" Yet this verse is clearly speaking of the written scribal interpretations of the Bible as Jesus condemned in Mt 15:1-14. Here Jesus accused the Scribes of the same thing regarding washing of hands and Corban, "you invalidate the written word of God for the sake of your tradition." My question is: is this the only text in the Bible where you claim the canon was corrupted? If not quote the other texts.
How can Muslims claim there are no textual variations in the Koran, when the Tashkent MSS differs from the modern Egyptian Qur’an in 5 passages: 2:284, 2:283, 3:37, 3:109 and 5:119. The Tashkent MSS uses the word 'Allah' while the modern Egyptian Qur'an, uses the word 'huwa' (the pronoun 'he'). My question is: Which word do you believe are in the "preserved master tablet" and "mother of all books" in heaven?
The yearly Passover ritual began the same year it was initiated in the 10th plague and continued uninterrupted for 1500 years. The weekly Lord’s supper ritual began the same week that Christ was crucified and has continued ever since for 2000 years. The Islamic rituals just come out of nowhere, 2600 years after Abraham lived. Being as unbiased as you possibly can, My question is: are not the Jewish and Christian rituals more likely to be based on real history since the rituals of Islam that just pop out of nowhere 2600 years later?
The "Throw" is a reenactment ritual based upon Abraham and the "Run" is a reenactment ritual based upon Hagar. My question is: Did Adam perform the throw and the Run, and if not exactly when did they become part of Islamic ritual and do you have any actual historical evidence to support such?
Given the fact that Isaac Watt, said in his book, Islam and Christianity Today, "By the standards of modern historiography, the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the most certain events in past history" (Watt, Islam and Christianity Today, p. 144). My question is: What historical evidence do you give outside of the Qur'an that Jesus did not die on across?
If all Muslim's must reject the crucifixion of Christ based on the Koran and all Christians must reject Muhammad as a prophet based on the Bible, my question is: on exactly what basis do you believe Christianity and Islam are compatible religions?
Given the fact that the gospel of Barnabas is the 15th century forgery by Muslims, my question is: why do you quote this document as proof that early Christians denied the crucifixion of Christ and what proof do you offer that it is not a Muslim forgery?
Muslim's will quote Yusuf Ali’s comment in footnote 663, as proof that the three early Christian sects of Marcion, Docetism, Basilides, denied the crucifixion of Christ. Given the fact the three sects are condemned as false teachers, deceivers and the anti-Christ in six Bible passages (1 John 1:1,14; 2:22; 4:1-3; 5:6; 2 John 7) My question is: on what basis do you claim they are Christian sects and isn't it as much of a misrepresentation for you to quote these Gnostic sects as Christians who deny the crucifixion, as it would be a misrepresentation for Christians to quote the Baha'i faith as proof Muhammad was not the final Prophet? (The holy Qur’an, text, translation and commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. 1872-1952, First published in 1938, 1973 ed., p. 230, footnote 663, commenting on 4:157)
The Koran says in 4:157, that God causes someone who looked like Jesus to die on the cross in his place, therefore tricking the apostles of Christ into thinking he was crucified. My question is: how can you escape the fact that the rise of Christianity to the largest religion in the world is ultimately the result of the divine action of Allah?
The deity of Jesus is affirmed four times in Hebrews chapter 1. Jesus Christ is called the son of God, worshiped by Angels, called God by the Father and stated to be the creator. Given the fact that you would say that this is a textual corruption of the original gospel message, my question is would you not agree that this corrupted text does indeed call Jesus God?
The Islamic religion teaches that Jesus Christ was a practicing Muslim. My question is: is this any less ridiculous than if Christians said Muhammad was a practicing Buddhist?
Muslim's claim that Isaiah 42 is a prophecy of Muhammad. Yet Isaiah 53 is one of the foremost prophecies of the crucifixion of Christ in the entire Old Testament. My question is: on what basis do you feel Isaiah 42 is uncorrupted which prophecies Muhammad, but Isaiah 53 is corrupted that prophesies the crucifixion of Christ?
My question is: If you feel the Bible is so corrupted, than why do you quote Deut 18:18 and John 16:13 as uncorrupted prophecies of Muhammad’s comment in the sixth century AD.
Acts 19:23-41 mentions a religion that worshipped the great goddess Artemis and her meteorite which fell down from heaven. Taking note that this religion centered around a meteorite, my question is: is it possible that this is a pagan corruption of the Black Stone and meteorite that fell at the foot of Adam and that at the time of Christ the Black Stone was actually in Ephesus Asia minor?
Galatians 1:6-9 Apostle Paul says "I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Christ for a different religion. But even if an angel from heaven, should preach to you a different religion, let him be accursed." My question is: Do you think it possible that this is a genuine text from God and he foresaw that both Muhammad and Joseph Smith would be taught a new religion by an angel?
Before the discovery of the dead sea scrolls in 1947 the earliest copy of the Old Testament was the Massoretic Text dated at 1000 AD. The dead sea scrolls are dated at 100 B.C. contain 19 copies of Isaiah, 25 copies of Deuteronomy and 30 copies of Psalms that are virtually identical to what we have in our Bible's today. My question is: since you believe the Old Testament was corrupted long before the dead sea scrolls were written in 100 B.C., will you at least admit that there has been no further corruption of the Old Testament since 100 B.C. right down to the present?
In Jude 3; 2 Peter 1:3; John 16:13 and 2 Tim 3:16 the Bible is called an all sufficient book with no need for anything else in regards to how we live our lives or worship God. You claim the same thing for the Qur'an. My question is: how can the Qur'an be all sufficient in our worship of Allah, if it does not even mention something as important as praying five times a day and does this not prove that the Koran without the Hadith is like a car without an engine?
The Huleatt Manuscript was written in 50 AD and is actually a prayer addressed to Jesus and calls Jesus "God". Therefore, Christians have in their possession archeological inscriptions within 20 years of Christ’s resurrection that say he is God. My question is: Do you know of any archeological inscription dated within 100 years of Muhammad's death where he is called a prophet? If so, please name it.
The Bible contains over 60 distinct prophecies of Jesus Christ 1000 years before hand. My question is: what is the single most remarkable prophecy that Muhammad made that was fulfilled?
Muslim's believe the Bible is corrupted. Yet in Isa 40:22 and three other passages. (Prov 8:27; Amos 9:6 Job 26:10) it says the earth is round and not flat. Job 26:7 says the earth is free-floating in space: "he hangs the earth on nothing." Both these facts are scientifically accurate, and revealed in the Bible long before man discovered it for himself. My question is: Are these passages scientifically accurate corruption's?
Muslims proudly quote several passages in the Koran 30:48; 24:43, as scientifically accurate explanations of the hydrologic water cycle. My question is: given the fact the Bible had already fully documented the hydrologic water cycle 1600 before the Koran in Job 36:27-28, and 3 other passages (Eccl 11:3; Job 26:8; Eccl 1:6-7), doesn't this proof Muhammad merely copied the scientific facts of the hydrologic water cycle directly from the Bible? (Clouds hold water: Eccl 11:3; Job 26:8; Rivers recycle water: Eccl 1:6-7; Evapouration: Amos 9:6)
The 66 books of the Bible were written by 40 different men over a period of 1600 years with multiple threads of unified themes that span cover to cover. My question is: would you not agree that in contrast to the Bible, that the Qur'an is a jumble of disjointed material, without order, continuity or unity of any kind?
Muslims authorities refuse to release photographs of the ancient Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul, one of the three oldest Korans in existence. My question is: do you have any idea why Muslim authorities refuse to release documentary photographs of the Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul and what they are afraid for the world to see?
Muslims have repeatedly claimed that Muslim women have more rights in Islam then Western women do in Canada and the USA. The proof you supplied with the fact that Islam gave women the right to vote 1400 years ago but women in the West only got the right to vote 100 years ago. My question is: would you please name one country in the world today that is ruled by a Islamic "Shariah" law where women are permitted to vote?
Muslim's claim that their growth rate is 235 percent and 47 percent for Christianity. This statistic came from the Readers Digest Almanac and Yearbook 1983, and represents 235 percent increase over 50 years. A simple review of the readers Digest study shows that the growth rate of Islam vs. Christianity is directly linked to the birth rate in Third World countries where Islam dominates and not actual conversions to each religion. My question is: do you have any more recent statistics on an annualized basis?
Muslims claim that Jesus prayed using the Muslim prayer posture, along with all the prophets. Yet Jesus instructed his disciples to pray while standing up. (Mark 11:25), King David prayed while sitting in (2 Sam 7:18), and Paul instructed prayer in church with hands lifted up in the air. (1 Tim 2:8) My question is: If Jesus was a Muslim, why would he instruct his disciples to pray standing up? And when it says Jesus fell on his face and prayed, how do you know he was not fully prostrate?
Muslims claim that Muhammad always worshipped Allah in a 100% correct way, without the need for any restoral. My question is: If this is true, then why did Muhammad pray towards Jerusalem for the first 5 years of his prophethood, and later redirected his prays towards Mecca? And did Jesus pray towards Mecca 5 times a towards Jerusalem or Mecca?
The Bible defines a miracle as something that defies the laws of nature. Muslims claim the Koran is a miracle merely because it was allegedly transmitted perfectly without alteration and flaw till the second coming. Since the Harry Potter books will certainly be transmitted perfectly without alteration or flaw, and be around until the second coming, my question is: does this make the Harry Potter books a miracle like the Koran?
Muslims claim that in Isa 42:1 Muhammad fulfilled the expression "bring forth justice to the nations" indicating that the immoral pagan Arabs before Muhammad’s time were reformed into a just moral society. My question is: Even though you believe the New Testament is corrupt, had the Immoral Pagan Arabs all become Christians and followed the moral standards revealed in the corrupted New Testament, would they not have also transformed into a just moral society? If no why not? And how is the moral standard in the Koran superior to the moral standard of the Bible?
Muslims claim that the Angel Gabriel is the Holy Spirit who came upon Mary and caused her to conceive based upon Luke 1:26:38. My question is: If this is true, then why did Gabriel say to Mary in verse 35, "the power of the Holy Spirit will come upon you" rather than "my power will come upon you"?
Muslims quote Luke 22:43 as proof that when Jesus cried out to God not to be crucified, that an angel came and saved him from crucifixion. However the next verses says that Jesus was arrested by the mob for crucifixion. My Question is: on what basis do you accept the first passage as uncorrupted scripture, but reject the next verse as corrupted scripture?
Muslims claim it was medically impossible for blood and water to come out of Jesus when his side was pierced with spear because all the blood in Jesus body would have been clotted. The universal opinion of forensic scientists say that blood takes days to clot. My question is: Is this another example of where you reject all known science simply because Islam says this?
Muslims quote liberal agnostic Bible trashes who claim that the four gospels were copied from a lost original gospel known as the "Q document". This is a mythological document invented by these skeptics who reject Christianity, because they simply cannot accept the Bible is a book inspired from God. My question is: are you aware that the "Q Document" is a purely theoretical document that has never been found and is a complete fabrication and invention of the mind? And what is the value of quoting those who reject Christianity and Islam equally?
Muslims claim that the heading at the beginning of the four gospels "Gospel according to John", for example indicated the words came from John alone and prove the Bible to be a book of human authorship? In fact, that this text, like chapter and verse numbers, was added much later and are not part of the Bible? My question is: where did you learn that this text was part of the Bible?
Muslims state that they believe that the Bible is a book filled with pornography, and quoted Gen 19:32 where Lot made his two daughters pregnant. My Question is: Do you feel that the Bible should be removed from every library in Canada? And are you comfortable with the fact that your prophet Muhammad married a six year old child, when he was 55 years old? Do you think this is a good story to tell children?
Muslims teach Muhammad was sinless. However the Koran specifically limits the number of wives a Muslim man can marry to 4. Yet Muhammad married at least 12 women. My question is: Is Muhammad above the very law he gave in the Koran and isn’t the definition of sin violating the law of God?
Muslims quote George Bernard Shaw who said, "The Bible is the most dangerous book in the world, keep it lock and keyed." My question is: What value is there for you to quote an atheist like Shaw who also said: "There is not one single established religion that an intelligent, educated man can believe." (George Bernard Shaw quoted in "2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt", by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996) Shaw also said: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality. (George Bernard Shaw, Androcles and the Lion, Preface, 1916)
To prove the Bible text is corrupted, Muslims quote a newspaper article in the "Daily News" of Durban South Africa, Tues. May 22, 1990, where you claimed the Church of Scotland had deleted the virgin birth from the Bible. The article actually said that the church of Scotland had merely deleted the teaching from their local church creed and statement of faith. My question is: Would you please explain how a church deleting the virgin birth from their church doctrine books, in any way proves the Bible is corrupted?
Muslims quote Isa 42 as a prophecy of Muhammad and say that Christians teach it is a prophecy of the Holy Spirit. (In fact Christians apply the text to Christ.) You also said that Isa 42 can only be fulfilled by Muhammad because Jesus is never called "my servant". My question is: why did Matthew quote Isa 42 and apply the whole text to Jesus in Matthew 12:18?
Muslims claim that the prophecy of the coming prophet in Deut 18:18 cannot be fulfilled by Jesus but could be fulfilled by Muhammad because the text says the prophet must arise from among their own brethren. Muslims say that if a Hebrew was intended, that the Bible would have said, "from among yourselves" rather than the expression "from among their own brethren". Hence Muslims claim the expression, "from among their own brethren" excludes all Hebrews and specifically Jesus. My question is: Since Deut 17:15 uses exactly the same expression, when it said, "you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses, one from among your own brethren" why did God appoint Saul and David as King and not an Ishmaelite? And in Deut 18:2 it says, "The Levites shall have no inheritance from among their brethren." Did the Ishmaelites share the inheritance of the promised land of Palestine with the Hebrews?
The Koran says in 4:157, that God causes someone who looked like Jesus to die on the cross in his place, therefore tricking the apostles of Christ into thinking he was crucified. Apostle John wrote in1 John 1:1 concerning the crucifixion: "What we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life". My question is: Was not John accurately reporting the things he actually saw, things that Allah made appear to happen?
Muslims claim that the New Testament story of Jesus dying on the cross is a corruption of the truth and that Allah made it appear that Jesus died on the cross, as per Q4:157. My question is: How can Muslims claim that they believe any of the New Testament was originally revealed by God, since the corruption must have begun at the cross.
Muslims believe that the whole concept of blood atonement is an invention of the Christian church. My question is: What were the Jews doing since 1500 BC on the "day of atonement".
Muslims reject the gospel story of Jesus being a substitute for our sins, the just for the unjust. They use the illustration of a man having to pay for a speeding ticket he did not commit. My question is: How do you explain that in the Muslim view of the cross, someone completely innocent died in Jesus place, after God made him appear to be Jesus? Was not this a Substitutionary sacrifice?
Written by Brother Andrew
The 45 Bonus Questions for Muslims:
by Robert Morey
The outline below contains the very answers to the very questions Muhammad did not want his followers to know, namely that Islam is a sanitized version of ancient polytheistic moon worship which he invented to exercise military control.
Does the Qur’an define the word "Allah"? No.
Was the name "Allah" revealed for the first time in the Qur’an? No
Does the Qur’an assume that its readers have already heard of "Allah"? Yes
Should we look into pre-Islamic Arabian history to see who "Allah" was before Muhammad? Yes.
According to Muslim tradition, was Muhammad born into a Christian family and tribe? No
Was he born into a Jewish family or tribe? No
What religion was his family and tribe? Pagans
What was the name of his pagan father? Abdullah (Abd + Allah)
Did Muhammad participate in the pagan ceremonies of Mecca? Yes
Did the Arabs in pre-Islamic times worship 360 gods? Yes
Did the pagans Arabs worship the sun, moon and the stars? Yes
Did the Arabs built temples to the Moon-god? Yes
Did different Arab tribes give the Moon-god different names/titles? Yes
What were some of the names/titles? Sin, Hubul, Ilumquh, Al-ilah.
Was the title "al-ilah" (the god) used of the Moon-god? Yes
Was the word "Allah" derived from "al-ilah?" Yes
Was the pagan "Allah" a high god in a pantheon of deities? Yes.
Was he worshipped at the Kabah? Yes.
Was Allah only one of many Meccan gods? Yes
Did they place a statue of Hubul on top of the Kabah? Yes.
At that time was Hubul considered the Moon-god? Yes.
Was the Kabah thus the "house of the Moon-god"? Yes.
Did the name "Allah" eventually replace that of Hubul as the name of the Moon god? Yes.
Did they call the Kabah the "house of Allah"? Yes
Did the pagans develop religious rites in connection with the worship of their gods? Yes.
Did the pagans practice the Pilgrimage, the Fast of Ramadan, running around the Kabah seven times, kissing the black stone, shaving the head, animal sacrifices, running up and down two hills, throwing stones at the devil, snorting water in and out the nose, praying several times a day toward Mecca, giving alms, Friday prayers, etc.? Yes.
Did Muhammad command his followers to participate in these pagan ceremonies while the pagans were still in control of Mecca? Yes (Yusuf Ali, fn. 214, pg. 78).
Did Islam go on to adopt these pagan religious rites? Yes. (Yusuf Ali: fn. 223 pg. 80).
Were al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat called "the daughters of Allah"? Yes.
Did the Qur’an at one point tell Muslims to worship al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat? Yes. In Surah 53:19-20.
Have those verses been "abrogated" out of the present Qur’an? Yes.
What were they called? "The Satanic Verses." Yes.
Was the crescent moon an ancient pagan symbol of the Moon-god throughout the ancient world? Yes.
Was it the religious symbol of the Moon-god in Arabia? Yes
Were stars also used as pagan symbols of the daughers of Allah? Yes
Did the Jews or the Christians of Arabia use the crescent moon with several stars next to it as symbols of their faith? No
Did Islam adopt the pagan crescent moon and stars as it religious symbol? Yes.
As Islam developed over the centuries, did it adopt pagan names, pagan ceremonies, pagan temples and pagan symbols? Yes
Is it possible that most Muslims do not know the pagan sources of the symbols and rites of their own religion? Yes.
Are they shocked to find out the true sources of their ceremonies and stories? Yes
Can Islam be the religion of Abraham if it is derived from paganism? No
What then is Islam? A modern version of one of the ancient fertility cults.
Is the "Allah" of the Qur’an, the Christian God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? No
Do the Jews say that the Muslim "Allah" is their God too? No
Then whose god is Allah? Paganism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)