These people would have described themselves as Hanifs. Ishmael and Abraham (pbut) introduced monotheism into the Arabian Peninsula. Outside of sources of Islamic tradition there is other documentation related to this Pre-Islamic monotheism in Arabia:
There are confirmations independent of Islamic tradition of the existence of the pre-Islamic Arab monotheism: as early as the fifth century, the Palestinian Christian historian Sozomenus sketched the outlines of a pre-Mosaic monotheism which he said, some Arabs had rediscovered and still practiced in his own day
[Sourced from p175, The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity - Edited by John Mcmanners, Oxford University Press, 1990]
If anybody is interested in following the teachings of the Prophets – the most obvious start is to begin by practicing pure monotheism – Islamic monotheism.
How the Bible Led Me to Islam: The Story of a Former Christian Youth Minister (Joshua Evans):
If you are interested in Islam please do contact your local Islamic centre. If you are in a more isolated area, feel free to leave a comment asking for some sort of direction to help you learn more.
May Allah guide us all. Ameen
The great Mosque/University of al-Azhar in Cairo was founded by the same Fatimid general, Jawhar, who had started building the city itself the previous year. With the distinct feature of having three minarets, the mosque is thought to have been named after the Prophet’s daughter Fatima al-Zahra. Orignally built to serve only as a mosque for the new city, it gradually developed into a major centre of Islamic scholarship, providing education for students of all ages. As late as 1925, the subjects taught remained exclusively religious, based on the Quran, the Traditions and their interpretations
[Taken from p271, A Chronology of Islamic History 570-1000CE, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd, 2003]
I just finished listening to the debate and i must say the reason i feel james white wanted to debate dr bart ehrman was because he wanted it on his resume,there is no way he will want to debate him again after that performance. especially in the q&a james white was all over the place and honestly i didnt understand some of his questions and answers,as a supposed new testament scholar i really dont think he measures up well against ehrman or even agaisnt other chrisrtian nt scholars,probaly the reason why he never gets any academic recognition although there is no doubt he so badly wants it. he could provide no rebuttal to ehrmans questioning of why God didnt at least preserve one original manuscript, he couldnt answer if the author of p72 thought all that he was writing was scripture,well he tried to but it was really a mumbled response. you knew the debate was going the way of ehrmans when mr white tried to corner him about other world scriptures especially the Quran and if he thought they were preserved but that didnt work and you almost imagine the christians in the audience with palms in thier face. i also found it quite funny how he only knew the works of the english speaking nt scholars when bart erhman started naming the german and french ones he had no clue as to who they were. no wonder its took this long to get this debate out,i wonder how long before his disastrous performance against dr robert price comes out. [maratsafin]
Learn from Bart Ehrman’s Opening Presentation
Ehrman goes into describing how the Gospels would have been copied prior to the invention of printing (16th century) – hand copying which was an error-laden process – especially so with the earlier scribes who were non-professionals.
Ehrman essentially goes into his standard presentation on this subject. Nevertheless it is quite a devastating presentation in light of not having the autographs. Ehrman points out he is speaking facts and there is no slight in his information. Ehrman is not interested in exaggerating in order to “win” the debate – his is a scholarly presentation designed to educate but also drive across his point.
There are more differences in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament – probably several hundred thousand. Ehrman does the Christian a favour by mentioning many of the changes were insignificant (i.e. spelling errors and accidental mistakes).
It is a FACT that the scribes DID change the manuscripts – some were intentional changes!
Ehrman cites four serious/intentional changes (forgeries) in the Bible:
Scribal insertion John chapter 7-8; the story of Jesus and the adulteress was not originally in the NT, thus it is a forgery.
Last 12 verses of Mark; these are intentional additions (forgeries) by the scribe
Luke 23:24 – this is not found in some of the oldest manuscripts
Most worryingly, Matthew chapter 24; Jesus denying knowledge of the Day of Judgement is REMOVED by scribes – the obvious reason behind this would have been to push the idea of Jesus being God!
Bart Ehrman on manuscripts
He drives home the point of not having the originals by discussing the gospel of Mark
P45 – is the earliest manuscript of Mark and dates to ca 220AD thus ca 150 years after the original. It is not even a whole copy – it has portions of half of the chapters in Mark.
First complete manuscript of Mark comes in the FOURTH century – thus some 300 years after Mark’s original.
We have roughly 5,500 NT manuscripts – fragmentary as well as complete copies. It is good news we have so many but the bad news is all have mistakes and none are originals. John Mill’s Greek New Testament contained 30,000 places of variation now we have even MORE manuscripts thus there are even more variations – we don’t know how many changes there are as nobody has added the numbers!!!!
However, there are more differences in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament – probably several hundred thousand. Ehrman does the Christian justice by mentioning many of the changes were insignificant (i.e. spelling errors).
I’m glad Bart Ehrman speaks about P52
Christian evangelicals bang on about P52 and exaggerate its significance in order to prop their claims so I’m glad Ehrman discusses P52.
P52 is dated by palaeographers ca. 125 AD. It is a tiny fragment and the earliest manuscript we have and most date nowhere close to this!
“New Testament the best attested book of antiquity” – salesmanship!
Christian missionaries do make this claim but it is somewhat misleading as most of these attestations come many, many centuries AFTER the originals – 94% of the manuscripts date after the 9th century!
The Moody Bible Institute and Biola University seem to be churning folk out who use this misleading argumentation – please stop it folks!
Ehrman’s Conclusion: Do we have a reliable text of the NT? Scholars do NOT know. Some passages are under continuous debate whilst the validity of other passages are just NOT KNOWN.
Essentially, Dr Ehrman puts forward a very embarrassing case for the Christians – the Christians believe in a book which is reconstructed by scholars and is conjecture based.
For those who reflect rationally upon this presentation the idea of the Bible being preserved 100% would be a large jump of faith. It is logical to believe parts of the originals have been lost partly due to scribal errors/forgeries within the flawed copying system and due to the absence of complete originals in the early manuscript tradition (never mind the autographs!)
James White’s presentation
I found it difficult to follow White’s presentation – I’m glad Ehrman confirmed White’s presentation was obscured and convoluted. Ehrman went further by not “buying” White’s claims.
However, White confirms the huge number of variations (estimated at 400,000) and the doubt concerning what constitutes the Bible and what does not!
The amazing thing is White AGREES with Ehrman’s information but White goes into damage control – he claims the more manuscripts you have the more variants you will have – this is correct.
He makes the claim the original readings are within all the manuscripts BUT does NOT give a valid reason why he believes the originals are somewhere within the 5,700 manuscripts. This seems to be a faith conviction on the part of White – it is not convincing at all.
White starts talking about the Quran in a discussion with a BIBLE EXPERT!!!
White mentions Uthman’s role in the preservation of the Quran and seems to espouse the misconception this was an act carried out by Uthman alone – it was not – it was done as an act unanimously agreed upon by the living companions of the Prophet and the believing community at large. If White had a similar type of event for the Bible he would have used it to prop up the claim of the Bible!
Unimpressed: White’s hollow argumentation
White misdirects us into thinking the fact there was no uniformed textual transmission with regards to the NT is something to be proud of – he seems to prop up his argumentation by this misdirection. Who cares whether the Bible was copied in a controlled environment or not?
What matters is whether we have the text today!!!
White admits his embarrassing problem
White believes the Bible is somewhere within all those manuscripts – but he does not know what exactly constitutes the Bible. When he comes across the viable and meaningful variations (1100-1400 according to Wallace) he has to say he does NOT KNOW which ones comprise the Bible and which ones are the forgeries/errors!
This is all rather faith shattering for the thoughtful Christian – why would God leave us with this type of book? A book which Christian theologians and scholars are unsure as to what comprises it due to scribal errors and forgeries!
White presents nothing to challenge Ehrman’s facts but simply brings forward a faith conviction dressed up with irrelevancies and erudition in order to reassure the Christian audience.
Bart Ehrman grilling James White
Embedded from the YouTube user kidcudder11
Bart Ehrman cuts to the chase
This is the MOST CRUCIAL part of the debate.
Ehrman challenges White by asking White how he knows he has the Bible preserved and why does he not know where the original text is, i.e. what comprises the Bible? In my view White simply holds this illogical belief based on his conservative Christian faith conviction.
Ehrman exposes White’s belief and makes him look silly
White answers by claiming authorities support his view. To be fair to James White; he does claim his own studies back up the claims of these authorities.
However, White is found not to be familiar with authorities in Germany nor France – White does not know some of the biggest names in the field. This is a blow to White’s appeal to authority. It gets worse for White…
Ehrman crushes White further
Ehrman crushes White by announcing the leading authorities do NOT agree with his claim of the Bible being preserved within the manuscript tradition – the only authorities who do agree with White are those who share a similar faith conviction to White. Virtually every authority DISAGREES with White except evangelical scholars!
This is a crushing point and further strengthens the view that White simply believes the Bible is preserved in the tradition due to a FAITH conviction – thus it is not a logical conviction and nor is his conviction supported by evidence.
Bart Ehrman lampoons James White
How much do the differences matter?
A major point of contention between the two is as to how much the differences matter. White hangs himself on this by confirming Dan Wallace cites numerous viable and meaningful variations. So obviously there are many, many meaningful variations!
Ehrman confirms the clear teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity is dependent upon which manuscripts you read – this is a major points score by Ehrman as it shows variations are very significant. Earlier he mentioned the scribal omission of Jesus not knowing the hour – obviously the scribe did this to push the idea of Jesus being God. Again, further showing the variations do matter!
Bart Ehrman exposes James White’s bogus argumentation
P75 (late 2nd /early third century) and codex Vaticanus are very similar so White claims there was no primitive corruptions. Ehrman tells us this is a bogus argument!
Ehrman tells us the fuller picture; there are manuscripts of similar dates as P75 which differ significantly from codex Vaticanus!
Aren’t you glad Ehrman tries to present a more complete picture? Many Christian apologists are like salesmen in not telling the whole picture – Ehrman does not allow James White to get away with this bogus and misleading argument.
James White caught not telling the full picture – AGAIN!
White claimed P52 is similar to later manuscripts BUT Ehrman highlights a SIGNIFICANT textual variant even within this credit-card sized manuscript.
Most variants we have are from the earliest manuscripts – the early copyists were the least skilled thus there were even more variations between earlier manuscripts.
James White – 95% agreement?
Ehrman thought White claimed there were 95% agreement at different ends of the spectrum. Ehrman tells White it is not that simple. It is rare for manuscripts to have 70 % agreement of their variations. Ehrman confirms the manuscripts are not all alike.
White comes back and explains what he was actually talking about here – nevertheless it was insignificant!
However Ehrman did misunderstand what White was presenting.
James White: Falls away at the seams
As is White’s wont – he seems to be desperate to appear on top in a debate. White starts attacking Ehrman by accusing him of being imbalanced. White bemoans the fact his side are not getting as much media coverage. Who cares about media coverage?
If White had a sound refutation he would have presented it but he starts falling away at the seams whilst frustration sets in.
White seems to have taken umbrage to his presentation being denounced as convoluted – it was! James was not as coherent as Ehrman. I reckon the Christian audience would have agreed too.
White simply offers a load of gusto and irrelevancies but Ehrman presents the better arguments and uses the facts to arrive at more sound conclusions.
White pettily complains Ehrman has not looked at White’s material despite White having studied Ehrman’s work. Who cares? Bart Ehrman is one of the biggest names in the field – he is familiar with the work of the major authorities in the field (White did not even know their names!!!). Why should Ehrman look at White’s work?
In any case, Ehrman had debated Wallace previously – White was reliant on Wallace.
James White: overly reliant on Dan Wallace
Bart Ehrman makes White squirm in the cross examination.
For me White seemed to be heavily reliant on Dan Wallace – the question that begs to be asked is what in the world was White doing debating Ehrman as Wallace had already debated Ehrman – Wallace is a giant in conservative Christian circles. Perhaps White felt his debate experience and ability to use tricks of the trade would undo Ehrman – White failed, he simply served to offend Ehrman.
Rest assured Ehrman would have been grossly unimpressed by White’s style and his argumentation was even less impressive.
White is found to be using Dan Wallace’s opinion on viable and meaningful differences in the manuscript tradition: 1100 – 1400. Ehrman found this numbering odd as it would simply be guess work. Ehrman questions the criteria to judge what is important and what is not.
James White does not know
Apart from White not knowing of authorities in mainland Europe there were other gaps in his knowledge.
White is asked to name the twelve manuscripts he refers to in his presentation – White cannot supply the answer – he waffles but he does not know and again is reliant on Wallace.
White is seems not to know what a collation is.
White is asked as to the level of agreement between a Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscript – White simply waffles and struggles in an uncomfortable cross-examination. White has not collated a Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscript.
Bart Ehrman impresses us further with his knowledge on the subject. I don’t expect White to know more than Ehrman, however I felt White’s knowledge and research should have been a little better and he should not have been afraid of saying “I don’t know” rather than waffling. Pride makes us all look rather silly at times.
White offends Ehrman
White seemed to have an aggressive tone throughout the debate.
Ehrman claims White likened him to a Muslim (White denied this); subsequently Ehrman dressed White down. Ehrman said he knows nothing about the Quran and was thus unwilling to discuss the Quran. Why would White want to talk about the Quran in a debate about the BIBLE with a BIBLE scholar in front of a CHRISTIAN audience?
In my view White was looking to quote mine from Ehrman so he has something to counter Muslim debaters who rely on Ehrman’s work – somewhat disingenuous if that is the case!
White finishes off with a cheap shot by denouncing Ehrman for not correcting misapprehensions others acquire through his work. It had nothing to do with the debate. In any case White should be consistent and address the misapprehensions within his own community as well as the less-reliable stream of information which stems from some of the rabble-rousers who are associated with him.
Ehrman proved his case, White did not. Ehrman was coherent, White was not. Ehrman was classy, White was not.
The most entertaining (and cruel) part may have been Erdmann’s grilling cross-examination of White BUT it should not overshadow the fact Christian evangelicals simply believe what they do out of a faith conviction and espouse shallow and misleading argumentations.
If Ehrman was the nasty sort I’m pretty sure he could have made the cross-examination more uncomfortable for White. I’m surprised the evangelical community sent White into the ring with Ehrman – you would expect them to have their best men tackle Ehrman. Is White really one of their best?
To be fair to White and other evangelicals – they have very little to work with and are impugned by their faith convictions alongside the thousands of manuscripts which militate against their convictions. I guess they are trying to make the “best” out of a bad situation.
Ehrman finishes by saying “All Bibles misquote Jesus”. Ehrman demonstrates this – White offered very little to counter Ehrman.
Fariq Naik is the son of Dr Naik and here he preaches the Truth of Islam and distances Islam from terrorism. Here is the young Fariq Naik in action:
Muslims are blessed according to the Bible:
Proof the Holy Spirit is NOT guding Christians in Bible study:
Nabeel Qureshi’s latest falsehood is absurd to an extreme
Dr Nabeel Qureshi’s latest whopper of a fabrication (LIE) is a new one to me – I’ve honestly NEVER heard this lie before despite having investigated Christian outreaches to Muslims for some time now. Nabeel Qureshi was alleging Muhammad (p) asked his followers to pray for him in order for him to attain forgiveness and entry into paradise!!!
Now, that is an outrageous lie that the most gullible of Christian audiences would have difficulty swallowing. Nevertheless, our Nabeel presented it having primed the audience with the bog standard Christian missionary trust-me I’m-an-ex-muslim-routine.
Here is Dr Nabeel Qureshi misinforming his Christian audience
If the video does not play it can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_HxKbvraNc
Let the people know of your misinformation…
In my view, Dr Nabeel Qureshi will not even bother to rectify the situation – he will not bother to contact those he peddled this lie to and nor will he bother to apologise, repent or abjure himself – his co-religionists will remain shtum and avoid censuring him. I would love to be proven wrong – Nabeel feel free to do a spot of damage-control with this one via a public correction, apology and repentance.
Nabeel, if you EVER decide to put forward a presentation on Islam in the future PLEASE have it checked by a MUSLIM – email it off to a Muslim scholar or a MUSLIM apologist – Adnan Rashid, Ehteshaam Gulam, Nadir Ahmed, Sami Zaatari, Shadeed Lewis etc.. That way, you will ensure you do not mislead your Christian audience again – you don’t want to mislead them again, or do you?
Nabeel, answer by offering your apologies and repentance.
NOTE: I genuinely believe Nabeel Qureshi has been influenced by the peer pressure of the dishonest rabble-rousers who are associated with him – hence Nabeel Qureshi’s episodes of deception. Nabeel, I reckon you can be a decent bloke, please look into your friendships and revise accordingly. You owe them NOTHING. Friendship is NEVER more worthy than the TRUTH. If you want to help advance the truth please start by disassociating yourself from such folk and admonishing them for their espoused falsehoods.
Lessons to be learned
We should NEVER take advantage of an unchecked platform nor of the innocence of our co-religionists. We should always try to present matters in a truthful fashion.
TAGS: New York donations, events, missionary tricks, distortions, subterfuge, acts 17, answeringmuslims.com, answeringchristianity, debates, salvation, churches, david wood, sam Shamoun, Bassam Zawadi, evangelism, ministries, Jesus, prophets, Bible, ironshaprensiron, abn, Abdullah kunde
None of the Quraish was forced to become Muslim, but Muhammad’s victory convinced some of his most principled opponents, such as Abu Sufyan, that the old religion had failed. 
A quick recap on Abu Sufyan bin Harith bin Abdul Muttalib
He was the cousin of the Prophet (p) as well as his foster brother. He was a poet who antagonized Prophet Muhammad (p) during his Prophetic mission.
His enmity to the Prophet (p) degenerated into full scale war against him on the field of battle. He would also make fun of him with his tongue at public gatherings until light of Iman (faith) entered his heart and his breast became expanded for the acceptance of Islam. 
The expert, Sheikh Al Mubarakpuri, on Abu Sufyan’s conversion
When piecing together actualities from the plethora of early traditions we need EXPERTS to sift through them and analyse and subsequently conclude according to a criterion of reliability, context and a process of harmonization.
Sheikh Safiur Rahman al Mubarakpuri describes the conversion of Abu Sufyan:
After making full preparation, the Prophet (p) proceeded to Makkah at the head of ten thousand soldiers on the 10th of Ramadan 8 AH… 
…At Al-Abwa, the Muslims came across Abu Sufyan bin Al-Harith and Abdullah bin Umaiyah, the Prophet’s cousins, but, on account of the harm they had inflicted, and their satiric language against the believers, they were not welcomed. 
Ali (ra) addressed Abu Sufyan to go and request the Prophet (p) for pardon and confess his ill-behaviour in a manner similar to that of the brothers of Yusuf (the Prophet Joseph, p):
“They said: ‘By Allah! Indeed Allah has preferred you above us, and we have been sinners’” [12:91]
Abu Sufyan followed Ali’s advice , to which the Prophet (p) quoted Allah’s Words:
“He said: No reproach on you this day, may Allah forgive you, and He is the Most Merciful of those who show mercy!’” [12:92]
Abu Sufyan recited some verses paying a generous tribute to the Prophet (p) and professing Islam as his only religion  
So this was the point Abu Sufyan accepted Islam – clearly he was NOT forced to accept Islam, despite there being threats to his life as well as opposition to him due to his past . In fact Abu Sufyan’s wife converted to Islam as well despite having chewed the liver of Hamza (the Prophet’s uncle) 
Abu Sufyan’s conversion described by Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz
Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz also describes Abu Sufyan’s conversion which clearly illustrates Abu Sufyan was intent on gaining the pleasure of Prophet Muhammad (p) – he was not coerced at the point of a sword:
The light of faith shone into the heart of Abu Sufyan while the Messenger of Allah was preparing for the conquest of Makkah. Abu Sufyan and his son, Ja’far left Makkah for Madinah with the sole intention of submitting to the Lord of the worlds. When the Prophet (p) saw him, he turned away from him. He humbled himself before the Prophet (p) imploring him for the pleasure. He would earn his pleasure or else he would hold the hand of his son and both of them would walk in the wilderness until they would die of hunger and thirst.
The Prophet eventually relented toward him and he became a good Muslim afterwards. 
Abu Sufyan’s conversion was sincere
Of course, if a conversion is forced it is not going to be a faithful “conversion”. Abu Sufyan’s conversion was sincere, so much so that he even put his life on the line by standing firm in protecting the Prophet (p) in the Battle of Hunayn 
Abu Sufyan’s sincerity in Islam is highlighted further by his words at the time of his passing away:
Abu Ishaq As-Sibai said: when Abu Sufyan bin Al Harith bin Abdul Muttalib approached his death he said “Do not weep over my death for since I became a Muslim, I have not been tarnished” 
Islamophobes isolate narrations and add their agenda-based spin to such in order to prop up their misguided argumentation. We should always be mindful of learning from those who are privy to more knowledge than folk on Islamophobic forums. The SCHOLARS are people we should be relying upon for Islamic instructions and teachings.
The Quran teaches us there is no compulsion in religion
There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower [Quran 2:256, Pikthal translation]
 Abu Sufyan accepted Islam at this point and thereafter became a good Muslim. The Prophet (p) loved him and even testified that he would be in Paradise. See Zadul-Ma’ad 2/162. 163 (Footnote from page 462 of Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002)
 Islam – A Short History, Karen Armstrong, Phoenix Press, 2001, p20
 Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz, Men and Women around the Messenger (p), Darussalam, 2009, p281- 282
 Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, 461-462
 Before they got near the camp, they met Abbas (ra), the Prophet’s uncle. He informed Abu Sufyan of the situation and advised him to accept Islam and persuade his people to surrender before Muhammad (p); otherwise his head would be struck off.
Under the prevailing compelling circumstances, Abu Sufyan went in the company of Abbas (ra) seeking the chance of meeting the Prophet (p). The Muslims were furious to see Abu Sufyan and wanted to kill him on the spot. But the two men managed, not without difficulties, to see Allah’s Messenger (p) who advised that they see him the following day. The Prophet (p) addressed Abu Sufyan saying “Woe to you! Isn’t it time for you to bear witness to the Oneness of Allah and Prophethood of Muhammad?” Here he began to request the Prophet (p) in the most sincere words that testify to the Prophet’s generosity and mild temper begging for pardon and forgiveness, and professing wholeheartedly the new Faith.
[Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p462-463]
 Upon the conquest of Mecca, the Meccans gathered to pledge loyalty to the Prophet (p), this included the wife of Abu Sufyan:
…Hind bint Utbah, Abu Sufyan’s wife, came in the group of women disguised lest the Prophet (p) should recognize and account for her, having chewed the liver of Hamzah (ra), his uncle.
The Prophet (p) accepted their allegiance on condition that they associate none with Allah, to which they immediately agreed. He added that they should not practice theft. Here Hind complained that her husband, Abu Sufyan, was tight-fisted. Her husband interrupted granting all his worldly possessions to her. The Prophet (p) laughed and recognized the woman. She requested him to extend his pardon to her and to forgive all her previous sins. Some other conditions were imposed including the prohibition of adultery, killing of infants or fabricating falsehood. To all these orders, Hind replied positively swearing that she would not have come to take an oath of allegiance if she had had the least seed of disobedience to him. On returning home, she broke her idol admitting her delusion over stone-gods.
[Arraheequl Makhtoum, Safiurrahman Al Mubarakpuri, Darusslam, 2002, p470-471]
 Abu Sufyan was by the side of the Prophet (p) holding the rein of his riding animal fending off attacks against the Prophet (p). When the dust of the intense battle subsided and the Muslims obtained a resounding victory, the Messenger of Allah became even more fond of Abu Sufyan. He was amongst those who were steadfast with him on that day. He demonstrated the sincerity of his Islam. [Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz, Men and Women around the Messenger (p), Darussalam, 2009, p283]
 Sa’d Yusuf Abu Aziz, Men and Women around the Messenger (p), Darussalam, 2009, p284
What is the actual reason behind the tongue-sucking?
The answer lies in Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad. The reason behind the tongue-sucking was to quench their thirst and help settle them down. We must remember this was an arid environment (desert) where water was scarce, thus loving parents/guardians did go to such lengths in caring for children:
He gave al-Hasan and al-Husayn his tongue to suck. They had been weeping from thirst and upon this they became quiet. 
This was a genuine act of devotion; had Jesus (p), Gandi, Guru Nanak or Mother Theresa carried out such an act of devotion to children they would have been praised for it. Sadly, this is not the case for Prophet Muhammad (p) as malicious folk on the internet have dark agendas they are pursuing assiduously.
Outrageous Islamophobic spin on a genuine act of devotion!
Islamophobes who present Ahadith (narrations) of such a nature in order to promote the idea of homosexuality or child abuse should desist immediately as their spin amounts to nothing more than a fallacious and fanciful attempt at character assassination.
May Allah guide these people. Ameen.
Muslims and Non-Muslims should be alert…
If a hater does present a claim where this occurred between the Prophet (p) and his grandchildren or his daughter (Fatima) please realise there is nothing untoward and the action was a genuine act of devotion that any caring person would undertake for the betterment of the infants. Do not be swayed by such hollow and outrageous distortions.
We must also remember homosexuality is forbidden and sinful in Islam. 
The Prophet’s saliva
The Prophet even used to spit in the mouths of suckling children in order to satisfy them until nightfall . Further examples of the blessings within the Prophet’s saliva are given in footnotes , .
MUSLIM refutes the homosexual allegation alleged at Prophet Jesus (p)
 A couple of narrations Islamophobes erroneously “use” in their efforts to degrade and dehumanize the Prophet (p) and Islam:
Bukhari, 1183. It is related that Abu Hurayra said, “I never sae al-Hasan without my eyes overflowing with tears. That is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out one day and I found him in the mosque. He took my hand and I went along with him. He did not speak to me until we reached the market of Banu Qaynuqa’. He walked around it and looked. Then he left and I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, ‘Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.’ Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!’” [Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari by Imam BukhariTranslated by: Ustadha Aisha Bewley] From – http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Hadith/H0003P0046.aspx
Musnad Ahmed Hadith Number 16245, Volume Title: “The Sayings of the Syrians,” Chapter Title: “Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan”: “I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)
 Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004 pg 184
 Imam Dhahabi’s list of enormities (sins), p17.0 he writes, “…There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of other religions that sodomy is an enormity…” [From the list of enormities presented in Nuh Hamim Keller’s translation of Umdat as Salik, Amana Publications, 2008, p17.0 (page 644)]
 He used to spit into the mouths of suckling children and his saliva would satisfy them until nightfall [page 184 in Ash Sifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]
 He spat in a well that was in Anas’ house and there was no water in Madina sweeter than it – Al Bayhaqi [from page 183 in Ash Sifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]
 This narration is unclear as to whether the blessings were within the saliva of the Prophet (p) or not but it is of benefit to mention:
In the hadith of Hanash ibn Uqayl we find, “The Messenger of Allah would give me a drink of sawiq (a kind of mash). He would drink first and I would drink last. I always found that it filled me up when I was hungry and quenched me when I was thirsty and was cool when I was parched”
[from page 184 in Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]
Right, we have already seen an overview of the history of Christian missionary dishonesty concerning Islam so it comes as no surprise to see some modern day “Christian ministries” peddling lies about Muslims.
The lies geared towards converting Muslims to Christianity are one thing but lies which have the potential to demonize Muslims and set Christians (and others) against Muslims endanger communities – especially Muslim minorities in the West.
Here we see an internet Christian ministry (David Wood of Acts 17) peddling the lie that Muslims are commanded to torture and kill Christians who FIX CHURCH ROOFS or WEAR CROSSES!!!
Now, the reasonable amongst you would pass this bloke off as misinformed at the very least – if not completely off his rocker. So why publicize this man’s lies? There are a number of reasons, here are three:
1. There are gullible folk out there who would believe such divisive lies simply because they trust “Christian evangelists” or are insincere in that they really want to believe such deceptions. This reinforces hatred and stereotypes, thus further endangering Muslims minorities
2. We need to make an example of Islamophobes – if they are peddling lies it is always nice to expose them as it makes other Islamophobes think twice – we help to nudge them to honesty and decency!
3. Lies can confuse folk so there needs to be a mopping up process.
“Christian” Missionary (David Wood) presented dangerous lies
If the video does not play, please visit:
Video is made by the “infamous” Yahya Snow
Obvious LIES and Distortions
The Quranic Verse the Islamophobe speaks about (5:33 – see footnote 1) has nothing to do with church roofs or wearing crosses. This is an OBVIOUS LIE presented by Mr Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics.
The Verse was revealed concerning a group of people who had committed the heinous crime of murder and theft – severe highway robbery 
Commentaries are quoted in the comment section
This “missionary” is exposed in more ways than one
Not only do the commentaries tell us this chap is lying through his back teeth but also Islamic jurisprudence tells a similar story as it uses this Verse (5:33) as a guide to punish those who commit the crime of highway robbery 
Jurists may also use this verse as a guide with regards to punishing other serious crimes such as rape at gun or knife point 
Leaky roofs? More like leaky vessels of honesty!
I hope you can see we are talking about serious crimes which have the potential to cause fear and panic amongst communities. We are not talking about fixing leaky roofs – the missionary was simply advancing LIES!!!
So the experts (the commentators and jurists) show us this fella is telling tall tales – that’s to say he is making stuff up. How sad
As we have seen in the video, Muslim societal norms also show this dishonest man to be misleading us. 
The Holy Spirit
Christian evangelists claim to have the Holy Spirit dwelling within yet time and time again we see Christian evangelists embroiled in such outrageous episodes of misinformation such as the one above.
How do you seriously expect Muslims and other Non-Christians to believe you when your missionaries engage in lies? In this case the lies were Islamophobic and contained the potential to lead misguided folk to harass Muslim minorities in the West. Perhaps that was the design for the lie, I don’t know – ask the man who peddled the lie!
I call him to public apology and repentance
Christians PLEASE stop supporting the disingenuous and dishonest “Christian ministries”
May Allah guide us all. Ameen.
Helping to nudge insincere folk amongst evangelist communities to honesty
 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom
[Pikthal translation 5:33]
 Ref Commentaries: Al Wahidi, Jalalayn, Ibn Kahir, ibn Abbas. (See comment section)
 See Shafi fiqh, Reliance of the Traveller, read entire o15 section (Translated by Nuh Hamim Keller – Amana Publications)
 See Sheikh Al-Munajjid’s material on the punishment for rape – the relevant excerpt is quoted in this article – follow the link to see the entire body of work:
 Not only that but Muslim societal norms militate against this man’s nonsense. In fact Muslims have even had the Pope visit wearing a CROSS – nobody tortured him. In the video I could have also shown further Muslim societal evidence. Mentioning the كنيسة القديس الياس دمشق, Saint Elias Church (Damascus-Syria) was sufficient as it was built in 1800 and has been twice renovated since but no tortured Christians could be found!