Explanation for the Parental Resemblance Hadith

Yes this Hadith seems to be concerning genetics. The Arabic terms literally mean ‘water/liquid/fluid of the father’ and ‘water/liquid/fluid of the mother’. The immediate audience was not familiar with the concept of genes. In 7th century Arabia, an over-arching term like that is understandable in that it carries the meaning of genes in everyday understandable language.

وَأَمَّا الْوَلَدُ، فَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاءُ الرَّجُلِ مَاءَ الْمَرْأَةِ نَزَعَ الْوَلَدَ، وَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاءُ الْمَرْأَةِ مَاءَ الرَّجُلِ نَزَعَتِ الْوَلَدَ

Above is the part of the Hadith we are focussing on, translated; as for the child, if the fluid of the man SABAQA (beats) the fluid of the woman then the child resembles the man. And if the woman’s fluid SABAQA (beats) the man’s fluid then the child resembles the mother.

If a child is to have a phenotype of one of his/her parents then it means the genes of that parent SABAQA (beat) the other parent as in a competition. Both parents have genes which compete against one another. Remarkably, the word SABAQA does have the connotation of winning a competition.

Gene versions can be dominant, recessive and co-dominant. We must also remember that for most observable physical characteristics there’s more than one set of genes at play (multiple genes) – this is an area in which geneticists have little understanding (such as nose shape).  So for a child to share a trait from the father or mother it’s literally a case of whose genes beat the other.

One thing that is of interest for the seekers of truth, the Prophet (p) made a statement which is in conformity with our modern day understanding of genetics, namely if a child is to share a particular phenotype with the mother it means the mother’s genes ‘beat’ the father’s genes in that instance (the same applies vice versa). Looking at the overall picture, if the child resembles one parent more than the other it means that parent’s genes won or beat the other parents genes.

When the news of the arrival of the Prophet at Medina reached `Abdullah bin Salam, he went to him to ask him about certain things, He said, “I am going to ask you about three things which only a Prophet can answer: What is the first sign of The Hour? What is the first food which the people of Paradise will eat? Why does a child attract the similarity to his father or to his mother?” The Prophet replied, “Gabriel has just now informed me of that.” Ibn Salam said, “He (i.e. Gabriel) is the enemy of the Jews amongst the angels. The Prophet said, “As for the first sign of The Hour, it will be a fire that will collect the people from the East to the West. As for the first meal which the people of Paradise will eat, it will be the caudate (extra) lobe of the fish-liver. As for the child, if the man’s discharge proceeds the woman’s discharge, the child attracts the similarity to the man, and if the woman’s discharge proceeds the man’s, then the child attracts the similarity to the woman.” On this, `Abdullah bin Salam said, “I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and that you are the Apostle of Allah.” and added, “O Allah’s Apostle! Jews invent such lies as make one astonished, so please ask them about me before they know about my conversion to I slam . ” The Jews came, and the Prophet said, “What kind of man is `Abdullah bin Salam among you?” They replied, “The best of us and the son of the best of us and the most superior among us, and the son of the most superior among us. “The Prophet said, “What would you think if `Abdullah bin Salam should embrace Islam?” They said, “May Allah protect him from that.” The Prophet repeated his question and they gave the same answer. Then `Abdullah came out to them and said, “I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah!” On this, the Jews said, “He is the most wicked among us and the son of the most wicked among us.” So they degraded him. On this, he (i.e. `Abdullah bin Salam) said, “It is this that I was afraid of, O Allah’s Apostle.

A response to 33 so called errors in the Quran

A refutation of 45 alleged historical/scientific errors in the Quran

Does the Quran say the Sun orbits the Earth?

AntiMuslim Sun Set Arguments Refuted by That Muslim Guy

Numerical miracle in Quran

British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Conversions to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 

Advertisements

Hamza Suleiman on Genetics and Islam

The western education system is known for claiming discoveries that it did not necessarily make. In this light what is to be realized is that when the western textbook says, founder, father etc, it does not mean the first person worldwide to determine this event but rather only signifies the first person in post-dark ages Europe to discover it.

This is the case with Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) who is thumped as the father of modern day genetics. He is the father of western modern day genetics. Others have defined and described several genetic principles as we proceed to prove.

From the East, prophet Mohammed (P) of Islam and the Islamic faith preceded Mendel in defining core principles of Genetics. Islam first described the particulate nature of inheritance, the chromosomes and how they segregate during meiosis in gamete production.

A Hadith
{Recorded narration of Prophet Muhammad(PBUH)}:

Chromosome

“..The wife of a man from the Ansar bore him a black child. He took her by the hand and went to see the Messenger of Allah. She said: “I swear by the One that sent you with the truth! He married me a virgin and I never seated anyone in his place since!” The Prophet said: “You speak the truth. You have ninety-nine strains and so does he. On the time of conception all those strains shudder and there is none but it asks Allah Most High to determine resemblance through it.” Source

Image source

Quran says it here:
76:2 We created man from a drop containing strains {nutfatin amshajin} to test him.
76:2 Inna khalaqna alinsana min nutfatin amshajin nabtaleehi fajaAAalnahu sameeAAan baseeran

The word ‘amshajin’ can be translated to show it means- ‘genes’. here
This Hadith clearly in simple terms teaches the following genetic principles:
1. Inheritable strains of equal numbers in both sexes.
2. Phenotypes arising due to these gamete contained and contributed strains/genes.
3. The Hadith also clearly describes ‘penetrance’, and the expression of genes/strains as not being absolute but varying (By Gods will) as science also agrees, though science regards this event ‘random’.

Chromosomes

In science they have discovered an equal number- 23 pairs of chromosomes in both men and women, totaling 46, with unique characteristics that randomly combine to determine the phenotypic appearances.

Islam clearly predated George Mendel and western science in figuring this out. I am sure the best way to categorize inheritable strains in cells is 99 classes, which will be preferable to the 46 chromosome groups as figured out so far in science. And this Hadith clearly describes the penetrance process, whereby the chromosomes ’shudder’ and are selected to express themselves by Allah’s (God) command selecting of the 99 inheritable strains to ‘turn on’ to determine the features of the offspring.

Islam also predates science in recognizing and describing genetic linkages and inheritable traits from the first man(Adam) through all generations.

Hadith:

Rabah ibn Qasir relates the Prophet said to him – upon him blessings and peace: “What child did you get?” He replied, “Messenger of Allah, what else? Either a boy or a girl.” The Prophet said: “Who does he resemble?” He replied, “Who else? Either his mother or his father!” The Prophet said: “None of you should say that. Truly, when the sperm-and-ovum drop settles in the uterus, Allah brings it every lineage between it and Adam. Have you not recited this verse? {Into whatsoever form He will, He casts you (rakkabak)}(82:8). Meaning, ‘threads you’ (salakak).”
———

This Hadith describes confidently the fact that in every new being there are genes that can be traced to the first man/Adam. And that phenotypic characters and genes in this individual are not only linked to the immediate parents but all the way to Adam.

———

Islam further predates Mendel in relating human patterns of inheritance to other species.

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 830:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

A bedouin came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “My wife has delivered a black child.” The Prophet said to him, “Have you camels?” He replied, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “What color are they?” He replied, “They are red.” The Prophet further asked, “Are any of them gray in color?” He replied, “Yes.” The Prophet asked him, “Whence did that grayness come?” He said, “I thing it descended from the camel’s ancestors.” Then the Prophet said (to him), “Therefore, this child of yours has most probably inherited the color from his ancestors.” Hadith Source

Islam First Defines Hybrid And Abnormality Sterility

Muslim and Ahmad narrate from Ibn Mas`ud t that when someone asked if the apes and swine of that time were descendants of the apish and swinish disfigurement of the Sabbath-breakers (Q 2:65, 5:60, 7:166) the Prophet MHMD replied: Allah Most High never gave offspring nor posterity to the deformedHadith Source

This is true in science today where it is known that people with chromosomal abnormalities do not reproduce.

Read more: http://newsrescue.com/prophet-mohammedp-not-mendel-is-the-father-of-genetics/#ixzz3odc66Ol7

Tongue Sucking Hadith Explained

It appears Islamophobic rabble-rousers on the internet have been distorting the reason behind Prophet Muhammad allowing his grandchildren (Hassan and Husayn, ra) to suck his tongue. [1]

Sadly, these folk have very little research behind them and even less desire for the truth. They have twisted these actions of genuine devotion and concern for these boys to reflect their debauched minds by accusing the Prophet of homosexuality.

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. [2]

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 always the case for Prophet Muhammad (p) as malicious Islamophobes 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. [3]

The Prophet’s saliva

Prophet even used to spit in the mouths of suckling children in order to satisfy them until nightfall [4]. Further examples of the blessings within the Prophet’s saliva are given in footnotes [5], [6].
Muslim Act of Stoning the Devil During Hajj is Abrahamic

Misconceptions about the Black Stone

Christian accuses Muslims of pagan practices

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk

MUSLIM refutes the homosexual allegation alleged at Prophet Jesus (p)

Christian hater’s immature cross-dressing allegation is refuted

Become a Muslim today

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Footnotes

[1] 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

Also:

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)

[2] Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004 pg 184

[3] 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)]

[4] 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]

[5] 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]

[6] 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]

Dishonest Christian Missionaries Claim Islam to be Racist!

There is a deceptive ploy on the internet which suggests Islam is racist against black people.

Those who propagate such a claim use the two narrations in Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad which highlights the opinion of Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman concerning those who call the Prophet Muhammad (p) black. Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman was of the opinion whoever does so should be put to death [1]

Sadly, these rabble rousers fail to mention this was the opinion of Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman and NOT of the Prophet (p).

Their deception is worse still

However, their deception gets worse as the context of the statement is omitted (though it is in the SAME segment of the book) as this statement would have been made within the back-drop of ANYBODY who alters the description of the Prophet being considered a disbeliever and even liable to execution:

Habib ibn ar-Rabi’ said that it is disbelief to alter his description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent. The one who conceals it is a heretic and is killed without being asked to repent. [2]

So we see the problem was not racism but the problem could have been that of altering the description of the Prophet.

To highlight their deception further we can look at the quote they use:

Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, Sahnun’s companion, said that whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black [1]

However, they do not quote the paragraph immediately below which further shows the issue was not racism but the issue being, stating falsehoods which constitute denial:

Abu ‘Uthman al Haddad said something similar and said that if someone said that the Prophet died before his beard began to grow or that he was in Tahart (Morocco) and not Tihama, he is killed because this constitutes denial. [2]

Let’s be realistic

During such a time there may have been a racist undercurrent amongst the ignorant/hypocrites who used this as a slur (i.e. calling people “black”), thus Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman would have recognised the INTENT was to disparage the Prophet (p) hence his calling for the death of such folk. It is not racist on the part of Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman and it certainly has NO bearing upon Islam!

Sadly, the rabble rousers are not willing to scratch the surface or attempt to be intellectually honest – they work agendas to mud sling at Muslims and Islam.

I feel this attack against Islam is simply a devious design to stem the conversion to Islam amongst our brothers and sisters in African communities as Islam has resonated well amongst Afro-Caribbean communities in the West (and beyond) and many are leaving Christianity for the Truth of Islam.

Obviously Islam is against racism

Islam does not condone racism at all. In fact, the real criteria for judgement (in Islam) is that of conduct, NOT skin colour – this is learned through the holy Quran [3]

Muslims believe there were black Prophets (in fact Prophets of every skin colour) as Allah (God) sent warners to every nation. [4]

Muslims respect and love ALL Prophets (p). In addition, some companions of Prophet Muhammad (p) were indeed black in skin colour (the most well-known is Bilal), thus some of our saintly predecessors are indeed black!

Obviously Islam is not racist.

The Prophet considered racism as “ignorance”

When his Arab Companion Abu Dharr called Bilal ‘son of the black woman’, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) got angry and told him: ‘You are a man who has ignorance in him.’ Abu Dharr felt such a great remorse that he put his cheek on the ground and asked Bilal to tread on his other cheek if he’d like to. [5]

Imam Shabir Ally on racism

Discover Islam

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

[1] The citations Islamophobic rabble rousers are using:
Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun, said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed.” (p. 375)

Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, Sahnun’s companion, said that whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black. (p 387)

[Both from Muhammad Messenger of Allah, Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad, Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press Inverness, Scotland, 2004]

[2] Muhammad Messenger of Allah, Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad, Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press Inverness, Scotland, 2004 p387.

[3] O mankind! Lo! We have created you from male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware. [Pikthal’s English translation of Quran, 49:13]

[4] Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes:

Allah has mentioned in the Qur’an that He sent Messengers and guides among all people. Allah Almighty says: “ And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods. Then some of them (there were) whom Allah guided, and some of them (there were) upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for the deniers!.” (An-Nahl: 36) He Almighty also says, There was not any community except a Warner who lived among them.” (Fatir :24).

In his Musnad, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal has stated that Allah sent 124, 000 Prophets, and from among them 315 were Messengers.

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543348#ixzz1CzTlNmhX

[5] In his famous Farewell Pilgrimage sermon, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) declared: “O people! You are all to Adam and Adam was made of dust. No Arab is to be preferred over a non-Arab except by virtue of his piety.” In another hadith, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Allah does not look at your images or your colors but He looks at your hearts (intentions) and your deeds. Creatures are the dependants of Allah and the closest among them to Allah are indeed the most useful to His dependants.”

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543240#ixzz1CzbfZQdL

David Wood Shames ABN Sat with Pornographic Lies

Pornographic Lies on ABN by David Wood

ABN employ David Wood and the “Sex Secret” to Demonize Muslims

People have been suggesting/thinking David Wood is a hate-monger and the ABN (Aramaic Broadcasting Network) is infiltrated by nefarious individuals.

Recently we showcased the two infamous and frenzied verbal onslaughts by an ABN employee, Sam Shamoun.

Today we present the debauched David Wood purveying Googled hate-material to his “Christian” audience on the ABN show called “Jesus or Muhammad”. Guess what? The hate-material he presents to his baying audience in order to demonize Muslims is none other than the well-known “thighing” HOAX.

There is video evidence of David Wood misguiding his “Christian” audience by using a well-known anti-Muslim LIE. Our friend, David, even presents it as a FACT and PROOF for his debauched claims!

Make No Mistake

Make no mistake; David Wood was presenting this material to demonize Islam and Muslims. Quite how he can claim he was doing it for any other purpose is beyond me as a simple Google search would have led him to material DENOUCING his “fatwas” as hoax, fabrication and stuff of ill-repute and outright dishonesty.

Our pal, David Wood, has no regard for honesty, scholarship or responsibility and presents the material as fact and subsequently misleads thousands of Christians and non-Christians alike. Sad, but true.

Here is the awful truth of David Wood on an ABN show demonizing Muslims. Please note; David Wood presents a very disturbing sexual hoax – those who are offended easily please do not play the video. It is very insulting to Islam too.

[blip.tv http://blip.tv/play/AYKLxGoA%5D

(PS: I know of the spelling mistakes, it should be “addressed” and “Christian”)
See here if the video does not play:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGp0ke4j3mk

If you are struggling to read the text in time, please pause the video and read the text before moving on. Did David Wood really expect us to believe he was keeping this a secret because he “does not like talking about it”?

Please note, we have already denounced this “sexual hoax”, previously, here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/search/label/Thighing%3F

David Wood’s “Sex Secret” Shame

Aside form David Wood’s sick sexual hoax we also note another key feature of the video; that is David Wood’s hesitation and floundering upon being pressed for evidence and source material for his hoax. He knew he had NOTHING to give as tangible and credible evidence so he responds with a lame misdirection which goes as “I don’t like talking about the thighing issue because it is gross”. How enigmatic is David Wood ?

What type of search words did David Wood employ to find such a “gross” hoax on the net?

“Gross” or not – it CAME from YOU, David Wood

Well David, yes it is gross but YOU brought it up and described it in DETAIL in front of your Christian audience; many of whom would have been elderly and young alike. Do you expect us to believe you don’t want to talk about it? Are you for real?

Furthermore, David Wood and his chums regularly churn out crazed sex-related fabrication and level it at Islam. Therefore, one would expect Wood to have NO hesitation in talking about the “thighing issue”. It is gross – it was MADE up by your “co-religionists” (more apt; co-haters), perhaps that’s why you are so reluctant in talking about it.

David Wood’s “best material” is NOT presented on ABN, why?

For David to expect us to believe he sits on ALL this copious “evidence” (fabrications) without showcasing it because it is “gross” is implausible to say the least. In fact it was a ridiculous and obvious cop-out. David KNEW he was busted on Christian TV by his COLLEAGUE (Pastor Joseph Najm) hence his squirming.

David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics; clearly intent on hatred and vilification

David, we are ALL dying to see your fabricated “fatwas”. I have already blogged about these fabrications here and Iqraproductions have a revealing video on the said matter. There is NO excuse for you not to know it is a hoax especially considering your counterpart, Osama Abdallah, has publicly denounced the whole affair (that’s to say your caboodle of “fatwas”) as fraudulent.

So if David Wood pleads ignorance we shall find it vey difficult to swallow as this material would have been the mainstay of the argumentation espoused by Wood and his colleagues along time ago (if it was genuinely believed to be accurate).

Yahya Snow Addressed on ABN Sat by David Wood

Many of you will be unaware of this fact; the snip I have presented was extracted from David Wood’s address to me (Yahya Snow) in a debate on whether Islam allows sex with prepubescent girls. You can view ALL the debate material (including what he presented) here:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/07/debate-does-islam-allow-sex-with.html

However, the more observant will realise this snip of “thighing” was not presented in the debate. Why? Because David Wood did NOT feature it on his YouTube channel – he OMITTED this clip (of him presenting hoax as fact). He KNEW I (and other YouTube users) would have had an absolute field day over this subject as he KNEW it was a hoax.

If he genuinely felt it was credible evidence he would have presented it on his channel in an attempt to “win” the debate. He didn’t; that speaks volumes in telling us David Wood KNEW what he was doing!

David Wood DECEIVES Christian audiences

Wood was presenting a hit-piece to a less challenging audience (the Christians on ABN) whilst omitting it from the YouTube video as there are a number of people (Muslims, Atheists and Christians) who would have demanded EVIDENCE. The YT audience is one of the most demanding audiences on the internet – if not the most demanding audience. Simply put; Wood KNEW he would have been found out on YT!

In fact; in my concluding comments (see the debate material) you will realise I warned David Wood from replying to me with the internet hoax. I was totally unaware of this footage of David actually USING the hoax. In fact a YouTube friend of mine emailed me the footage and timeline of the FULL SHOW (from ABNsat’s website).

If he did not inform me of this matter I and the rest of us would have been clueless to David Wood’s deceptive and hate-filled episode!
Kudos to this YouTube user who has helped us to expose the misleading manner of David Wood further. I wonder what ABN’s Bassim Gorial will think of this unpleasant episode.

It is Hate

Let’s not kid ourselves here. It is all about hatred of Muslims and attempting to smear malign and traduce the reputation of Muslims. Quite simply put – they are trying to demonise Islam and Muslims. You may recall I have featured a video of one of David Wood’s colleagues (Usama Dakdok) calling ALL Muslims “demons” and a FRIEND of David Wood’s (Sam Shamoun) calling us a “cancer”.

This, my friends, is all about hatred!

Did David Wood spend time in a mental institute (and prison) for trying to kill a man?

Yes. I bring this up as people (essentially David Wood and his pals) are continually misunderstanding this issue – the “Christian” fanatics on the internet, including Wood, think this issue was brought up by Paul Williams for no other reason than to traduce David Wood. That is not the case.

Many of you may not know this; I was aware of David Wood’s violent and criminal past prior to it being a genuine issue on the internet. However, the reason why people are bringing it up now is because David Wood has become a certified hate-monger, thus people are trying to ascertain why an individual who claims to be “Christian” is resorting to hatred.

The Reason behind David Wood’s Hatred and Dehumanization of Muslims (Islamophobia)

The answer people are giving is that it is linked to David Wood’s violent past; that is to say David Wood has never been able to shake off his demons and has just transferred the manifestations of his deep-routed hatred from physical violence to cyber hatred of Muslims and a prolonged campaign of smear and demonizing.

His association with the shamed missionary, Sam Shamoun, was brought up on this blog many moons ago, in fact, I suggested Wood’s behaviour began to become more troublesome after his association with Sam Shamoun became stronger.

Please do not be fooled; the reason why Paul brought up this episode in Wood’s life is simply because of his aberrant behaviour on the internet etc. David Wood is NO victim; the Muslims on the end of his hate-filled sieges are indeed victims.

It is abnormal for a grown man to be spending so much time and energy on hatred, yet alone a grown man who acts under the guise of the “Church””. It just goes to show people do abuse religion for their own ends, therefore we should judge a faith based on its teachings rather than its alleged adherents.

Responsibility and Rationality

David Wood should quit his lame attempt to present himself as a victim; nobody will buy it except a few fundamentalist “Christian” haters on the internet. In fact, he would do well to realise his demonizing of Muslims could well increase the level of Islamophobia (hatred for Islam and Muslims) on the internet and in real life.

Certainly, presenting sick hoaxes such as the “thighing” canard only serves to demonize and dehumanize Muslims. Is that what you want to do, David Wood?

David, your mission at Acts 17 Apologetics has come in for controversy based on deceptive and hate-mongering actions by yourself and your affiliates. Are you bent on doing the same to the ABN?

The lunatic asylum is NO place to garner support

David, you have already been denounced on the ominously titled “loon watch” website. Please realise your actions do nothing but repel the rational and responsible folk. If you want to attract and appeal to a bunch of loons on the net then continue to do what you are currently doing.

Your support base includes a bloke who names his dog “Muhammad” in order to insult Muslims in an immature and disgusting fashion. This is the same bloke who undertakes a 100 mile round trip in order to collect court documents on an internet Muslim who you happen to have a beef with.

Your friend and colleague (Shamoun) has a prolonged campaign of hatred which spans years. You are so much in league with your friend that you bought this hate-monger a 2000 dollar computer (paid through DONATIONS from CHRISTIANS). A computer which he puts in to use for his hate-filled activities, here he is putting that computer to full use:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/sam-shamoun-obsessed-with-shabir-ally.html

Here he is again putting the computer, paid for by DONATIONS, to full use:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/07/sam-shamouns-foul-mouth-continues-with.html

Perhaps you would like to reimburse the CHRISTIANS who donated cash for your pal’s computer whilst under the impression it would be used to further the church rather than debase the church. Did you forewarn them that the computer would be used for hate purposes? I did not think so.

I shall not go through a catalogue of misdemeanours, we all get the point.

David Wood featured on Loon Watch:
Part 1: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/06/exposing-david-wood-of-mosques-and-men-pt-1/
Part 2: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/07/exposing-david-wood-of-mosques-and-men-pt-2/

Scholarship: David, Racist Thugs and Criminals Use the “Thighing” Hoax

David, you maybe unaware, I am sitting on footage of an EDL thug (who has a criminal conviction for his hatred) using the SAME hoax as you in order to gee-up his “troops” in their attempt to wreak havoc in a northern city in my country (the UK).

God-willing I will disclose such footage in a future blog post. For those who are unaware, the EDL are an Islamophobic outfit infiltrated by many NAZIS. ABN may as well employ one of the EDL thugs in the stead of Shamoun/Wood etc as the level of scholarship will certainly not diminish.

Muslims and Christians SHOULD work together

The much respected imam (Shabir Ally) has an emphasis on greater understanding and cooperation between Muslims and Christians. I think this imam is an excellent representative of the Muslims and there are representatives who real Christians will be proud of (with regards to their community). The Christians mentioned in this post are certainly nothing to be proud of.

Saddening, Apology and Repentance

On a personal note, I live in the UK and grew up near a vicarage; I went to a Christian school and thus have a working-respect for genuine Christians. In the UK, the Christians are generally sincere and the yahoo-merchants who operate under the guise of “Christianity” on the net are a far cry from sincere Christians.

The mode of behaviour Wood and other fanatics on the net exhibit is unedifying and saddening.

I ask David Wood and the fellows at ABN Sat (including Bassm Gorial) to have a rethink. I call David to public repentance and to an apology

Learn Islam from the Muslims NOT from haters on the internet

Jibreel has a good site here (with an “ask the scholar” function):
http://www.islamdunktv.com/

Here is a good resource for those who want to research Islamic beliefs:
http://www.ediscoverislam.com/

May Allah guide us all. Ameen

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Is Sex With Animals Allowed in Islam?


Allegation of Bestiality against Islam is Discussed

Bestiality is not allowed in Islam but some people who are looking to demonise and degrade Muslims (and Islam) erroneously claim it is allowed in Islam.
Expert: Sheikh Ibn Hajar Haytami (1503-1566)

The expert we shall refer to is Ibn Hajar Haytami; he was a classical Muslim scholar who was an expert in Sacred Law (Islamic Law) and a well renowned authority.
This is overwhelming evidence to show the mud-slingers to be wrong.

To be even more thorough we shall offer the reader a chance to browse through (and analyze) the prominent supporting arguments used by those who claim Islam allows sex with animals (bestiality)
The Critics Spin Fiqh (Jurisprudence) Literature

As Muslims have to pray (perform Salah) five times a day whilst being in a state of purification there is a plethora of Fiqh (jurisprudence) literature on what mode of purification (i.e. bath or ablution) is required after a whole range of different occurrences. The critic tries to capitalise on this in order to support his/her malicious claim
So spinning Fiqh literature related to purification is deceptive, especially so if the one spinning the literature knows that the classical scholars considered bestiality to be a sin (i.e. not allowed in Islam)
A Typical Claim Examined

For good measure I have appended a rebuttal, by Bassam Zawadi, to a Christian who was making the argument that Islam allows sex with animals. This Christian’s (Sam Shamoun) work was characterized by the spin of Fiqh which we have touched on in this article and bizarrely enough this Christian was so desperate to see his claim stick he even resorted to making up his OWN translation of a Quranic verse. How debauched can one get! (see appendix 1)
Overall Effects of this Claim

The lack of believability factor in this argument against Islam only serves to counteract the work of the mud-slingers and thus their other claims are further doubted;
as in the case of the boy who cried “wolf”.

Article put together by Yahya Snow

“Bestiality” in this article refers to “Sexual relations between a human and an animal” [1]

Of course, those who have studied religion will find it inconceivable that any religion would allow this practice as religions are forces for conservatism. As a keen student of religion I would disbelieve any religion would allow a sexually depraved practice such as bestiality.

Sadly, Islam is a religion which is being targeted by mud slingers, a worrying side show is that amongst these mud slingers are serious evangelical Christians (see appendix 1)

In an effort to be thorough and treat the claim seriously we shall go through this hateful claim and show it to be false. The quickest way to show a claim to be false is to call in the experts. Let us simply ask an expert on Islam whether sex with animals is allowed or not.

In his list of enormities (sins) he listed bestiality (w52.1, 338-43) as a sin, thus clearly showing sex with animals is not allowed in Islam and is deemed as sinful [2]

That is unequivocally telling us those making this malicious claim against Islam are completely incorrect.

Hadith Literature Denounces Sex with Animals

In fact the experienced apologist, Bassam Zawadi, has already discussed this allegation and brought forward a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (p) which teaches us the prohibition (not allowing) sex with animals:

…Cursed is he who goes in unto (has sex with in other words in Arabic) an animal. Cursed is he who does what the people of Lot did (sodomy; the people of Sodom and Gomorah). (See appendix 1for the full Hadith which is presented by Bassam Zawadi, Sahih Al-Jami’a, page or number 5891)

Thus we see a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) warning against sex with animals and pointing it out to be a sin, thus not allowed in Islam (see appendix 1)

Summary

Here we have the classical expert on Islamic Law who teaches us sex with animals is a sin and we have a saying from the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) teaching us the same thing.

The Accusers Use Anecdotal Stories of Muslims and Falsely Impute this on Islam

You will read/hear the accuser point to stories of Muslim men committing this lewd act in Muslim countries. This will be their basis for claiming Islam allows sex with animals. This type of reasoning by the accusers (mud-slingers) is long on rhetoric but extremely lacking in rational reasoning.

Well, I could give you anecdotal stories of Muslims drinking, eating pork and gambling; would this mean Islam allows such acts?

Of course not, there are many “bad” Muslims who do not practice the religion of Islam in a full capacity and these “bad” Muslims contravene (break) many Islamic rules which a sincere Muslim is meant to observe.

To highlight the fallacious nature of the reasoning on the part of the accuser we can use the examples of Christian sex scandals amongst Christian spiritual leaders or the widespread availability of pornography in “Christian” countries.

Does this mean pornography and extramarital sex is allowed in Christianity? No, certainly not. Thus it would be silly and desperate to claim Islam allows bestiality just because you heard a story of a Muslim committing the depraved act of bestiality.

The fact remains, Islam as a religion disallows this practice.

You may see critics present literature of Fiqh which explains what a man must do in order to purify himself for prayer after committing the act of bestiality and append such material with lurid and sensational claims such as “ISLAMIC LAWS ON HOW TO HAVE SEX WITH ANIMALS”. Of course, this is downright dishonest

As Fiqh is a science which covers all areas of life (and a whole load of possibilities) you will come across some Fiqh literature explaining what a person must do in order to purify himself after sex with an animal.

It is obvious to the reader that the Fiqh literature is not approving the act of bestiality but just giving rulings on purification after certain events.

To highlight a couple of examples we could look at Reliance of the Traveller (A Shafi Fiqh manual); in its purification section (e7.4) we learn a person must perform ablution if he/she touches the private parts of oneself or somebody else’s private parts. [3]

Of course, the Fiqh manual is not saying it is allowed for Muslims to touch other people’s privates but merely gives us rulings on purification if such an instance occurred.

Perhaps these rulings were initiated by questions from people who were tasked with the job of circumcising, doctors or mothers nursing young children.

From the same section we also note ablution is required (for prayer) if one touches the private parts of a deceased person [4]. Again, this does not mean we (as Muslims) are allowed to touch dead people’s privates.

It simply refers to purification IF such an event happened. You can imagine this ruling may have been initiated by questions from people who were tasked with washing and enshrouding bodies of the deceased.

The same applies for Fiqh literature (on purification) concerning those who commit the sin of bestiality. The Fiqh literature is not endorsing the act but simply giving us the mode of purification if somebody did commit this depraved act. (see appendix 1)

You can imagine purification rulings in Fiqh literature related to the sin of bestiality came about because somebody was caught doing such a deed (or rumours of such deeds were abound at the time of the jurist) and people asked regarding the purification route the one who committed the act must take in order to perform Salah (prayer)

Beware of the Forgeries, Spin and Other Malpractice

The critics bring forward a Shia leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, and claim he allowed this practice. His “quotes” are clouded with doubt.

However, this Shia leader did not approve of sex with animals. He was simply giving his opinion related to purification with regards to the crime of bestiality and has become the victim of the spin we have already discussed.

In any case when he spoke of such an act (hypothetically) he appended the words “Allah protect him from it” thus indicating he did not approve of such an action.

“If a man – Allah protect him from it! – fornicates with an animal and ejaculates, ablution is necessary” [5]

As for many quotes attributed to him, on the internet, there is a huge deal of suspicion surrounding the translations and whether they are forgeries or not. An alleged fourth edition of his Tahrir al Wasilah is being denied to ever exist.

For the record, in the interest of fairness, this man (Khomeini) did not appear to approve of bestiality so it would be unfair to accuse him of allowing such an act.

As a side note: any quotations of Khomeini used as a polemic against Islam should just be shrugged off as most Muslims (roughly 90%) do not view him with any authority whatsoever. This seems to be a common ploy used by insincere types against Islam; they use quotations from people who are unaccepted or on the fringe, all the while being contradicted by accepted authorities.

Bogus Argument: There is No Set Punishment in Islam for Bestiality

The other “supporting” material the accuser will use is the claim that Islam does not have a defined punishment for those who have sex with animals. This is an argument which is built on misconception and thrives on fertile imaginations.

It is spin based on a misconception; “The major myth of many people is that judges in Islamic nations have fixed punishments for all crimes. In reality the judges have much greater flexibility than judges under common law.” [6]

Just because a fixed punishment for this sin is not set it does not mean it is allowed in Islam or that it goes unpunished. In fact, it has been clearly shown the act is not allowed in Islam, thus the judge will decide on the punishment for somebody proven to have committed the degrading act of bestiality.

References

[1] Free dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bestiality

[2] Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] The Little Green Book at the Prophet of Doom, (doubts concerning authenticity of translations).

[6] http://muslim-canada.org/Islam_myths.htm

Appendices

Appendix 1

Bassam Zawadi refutes the “bestiality” argument by a Christian evangelist:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/sexual_ethics.htm

Appendix 2

Interesting reading about Sweden and zoophiles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5140576.ece

Who was the First Muslim in the Quran? No Contradiction/Error!

The Critics allege a contradiction against the Quran and ask; who was the first Muslim?

Secular critics such as the sceptics use this claim as well as Christians though I would imagine it was borne out of the Christian camp; it is used in evangelical Christian work such as GJO Moshay’s evangelism [1].

The critics point to two references from the Quran, 6:14 and 6:161-163, and claim these references show Muhammad as the first Muslim and then the critics turns their attention to another verse of the Quran (7;143) concerning Moses being the first of the believers. Just to further their agenda they may also highlight other Quranic references indicating there were Muslims before Muhammed (pbuh) and Moses namely the first man Adam (S. 2:30, 34-35, 37) and Abraham as well as other Prophets (S. 4:163, S. 6:84) as believers. However they mainly use the Quranic verse about Moses (7:143) and try to put it along side the two concerning Muhammed (6:14 and 6:163) and they then allege contradiction/error

The Refutation

Quite simply, the Quran does not claim Muhammed nor Moses to be the first ever Muslim. The critic imposes a faulty understanding on the Quranic verses and alleges a contradiction when there is no contradiction/error.

Despite this it is still thorough and beneficial to offer explanations in order to clear any confusion as well as help highlight the errors of the critics in the hope they realise their mistakes and abjure themselves and eventually become amongst the guided ones, Insha’Allah

I feel it is logical to begin this simple refutation with analysing the reference concerning Moses and then we shall build upon this in a methodical fashion so the reader can follow with ease. Did the Quran claim Moses to be the first ever believer?

7:143 sees Moses saying he is the first of the believers. However, we do see that this is true as he (Moses) was the first believer amongst his own people.

7:143. And when Mûsa (Moses) came at the time and place appointed by Us, and his Lord spoke to him, he said: “O my Lord! Show me (Yourself), that I may look upon You.” Allâh said: “You cannot see Me, but look upon the mountain if it stands still in its place then you shall see Me.” So when his Lord appeared to the mountain[], He made it collapse to dust, and Mûsa (Moses) fell down unconscious. Then when he recovered his senses he said: “Glory be to You, I turn to You in repentance and I am the first of the believers.” [2]

Moses does not say he is the first believer ‘ever’. He merely claims he is the first of the believers and knowing the context one understands he is not claiming to be the first ever believer from humankind but the first amongst his people to believe, this is apparent as it is a relative term to the “believers” and situational-context tells us that the believers at the time of Moses were essentially the Children of Israel and thus we realise that Moses is referring to himself as the first to believe amongst the Children of Israel.

The critic fails to mention this and tries to present this verse as meaning Moses is the first ever to believe amongst humanity, this is unfair and misleading on the part of the critic especially considering the word “ever” is not in the verse. There is further clarification of the Arabic phrase of the Quran ascribed to Moses (“awwalu almumineena”= “first of the believers”) as there is another reference in the Quran (26:51) where this term comes up and thus explaining the meaning of Moses’ statement of being the “first of the believers (“awwalu almumineena”).

So we use a basic principle of Tafsir (explaining the Quran) by explaining a verse of the Quran (the verse concerning Moses, 7143) by using another part of the Quran (26:51). So what do we learn about the statement of Moses in 7:143 by looking at 26:51?

26:51. “Verily! We really hope that our Lord will forgive us our sins, as we are the first of the believers [in Mûsa (Moses) and in the Monotheism which he has brought from Allâh].” [3]

The context of this verse is Moses going to Pharaoh and preaching the Message and with the intention of freeing the enslaved Children of Israel.

The verse (26:51) is teaching us what the sorcerers of the pharaoh said when they realised that Moses and Aaron were truthful in their preaching. Thus they became the first to believe amongst the people of Pharaoh and even use the same expression as Moses “awwala almumineena”. It is clear that they are not claiming to be the first ever to believe as Aaron and Moses (two people who were believers before them) were in front of them delivering the Message to Pharaoh and his people and they became believers due to the preaching (miracles) of Moses by the Will of Allah. Therefore we realise the term “awwala almumineena” (first of the believers) in the Quran (7:143) does not mean he is the first ever believer but it is a relative term. Thus we realise that both the sayings of Moses (7:143) and the sorcerers (26:51) are relative to their situations and they are clearly not referring to themselves as the first ever believers but it does mean they are the first believers amongst their own people. We also realise the critics build there argument upon faulty information as well as error. So now we know that Moses was not referring to himself as the first ever believer through the information presented.

However, for thoroughness we can use the same method of Tafsir (i.e. ‘explanation of the Quran by the Quran’ [6]) to realise that Moses was speaking relative to his own time and people. We need look no further than the Quranic references to Adam (2:30-37) and we deduct that Adam came before Moses and was a believer therefore believed before Moses so we realise that the Quran is not presenting Moses as the first ever believer but as the first believer relative to the time and place Moses was in (i.e. the first to believe amongst his people). This is basic Tafsir and logic which the critic avoids.

The critics have no authority (Tafsir writers such as Ibn Kathir etc) to support their claims which are merely erroneous self-imposed understandings based on ignorance of context and Tafsir. Now we realise that the Quran did not put forward Moses (or the sorcerers) as the first ever Muslim (s) we still have the question; did the Quran claim Muhammed as the first ever Muslim? Well let us focus on the references in question.

It is not up for debate whether Muhammad (pbuh) was the first Muslim or not. Quite simply he was the first Muslim in the sense that Muhammad was the first Muslim (i.e. who has submitted to God) amongst his own people (the Quraish) at that particular phase in history. This is completely correct. Hence there is no contradiction as Adam was the first Muslim ever while Muhammad was the first Muslim amongst his own people.

 There are two Quranic references (6:14 and 6:162-163) the critics bring up, so it is appropriate to analyse the two references. The first of the Quranic references the critics cite (6:14) shows that Allah instructs Muhammed to “say” (Qul): “Verily, I am commanded to be the first of those who submit themselves to Allâh (as Muslims).”:

6:14. Say (O Muhammad SAW): “Shall I take as a Walî (helper, protector, etc.) any other than Allâh, the Creator of the heavens and the earth? And it is He Who feeds but is not fed.” Say: “Verily, I am commanded to be the first of those who submit themselves to Allâh (as Muslims).” And be not you (O Muhammad SAW) of the Mushrikûn [polytheists, pagans, idolaters and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh]. [4]

We also note the same applies to the second Quranic reference (6:162-163) in that it also begins with Qul (say) and Mohammed is instructed to say: “… I am the first of the Muslims”:

6: 162. Say (O Muhammad SAW): “Verily, my Salât (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allâh, the Lord of the ‘Alamîn (mankind, jinns and all that exists). 163. “He has no partner. And of this I have been commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims.” [5]

So we see that Muhammed is being instructed to say these words and we can refer to Von Denffer concerning Quranic verses, such as the two cited by the critics (6:14 and 6:162-163), which begin with Qul (say): “More than 200 passages in the Quran open with the word ‘Qul’ (say:), which is an instruction to the Prophet Muhammad to address the words following this introduction to his audience in a particular situation…” [7]

So the natural question is who is Muhammed’s audience for him to say these words to? The audience were the tribe of Quraish. The Quraish were Muhammed’s people (tribe) [8].Thus they were his foremost audience. Indeed Muhammed was the first Muslim amongst the Quraish who were a Pagan tribe.

Also we realise his immediate audience resided in Mecca as these two Quranic references are form the Meccan period, this shows that Muhammed’s audience was the Pagan Arabs of Mecca and the foremost of these Pagans in Mecca was his own people, the Quraish tribe. Thus we realise that Muhammad was to teach the Pagan audience in Mecca that he was the first Muslim. This was the context and we realise it is relative to the Quraish and thus refers to him being the first Muslim from amongst the Pagans of Quraish. Note he was not instructed to say this to Adam or earlier Prophets nor was he instructed to say this to the whole of humanity but he was instructed to say it “to his audience” (pg78) who were primarily the Quraish. How the critic misses this context is not worth too much thought at this juncture, the fact of the matter is that the critics completely miss the context and thus fall into error and onto the thorny path of misleading others with their erroneous claims.

Even not knowing the context one can realise that Quran is not referring to Muhammed as the first ever Muslim as the Quran does not qualify it with the word ‘ever’! However there is further unscholarly work on the part of the critic as the context is again realised through the rest of the verse (6:14): And be not you (O Muhammad SAW) of the Mushrikûn [polytheists, pagans, idolaters and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh]. [4]

This shows that Muhammed was instructed by Allah through the Quran to speak relatively to his people who were idolaters/disbelievers (Quraish) Interestingly enough 6:163 uses a similarly structured term as the verse concerning Moses (7:143, “awwala almumineena”), thus we can deduce that “Awwalul-muslimeen” is not a term used by the Quran referring to the first ever Muslim and thus the context needs to be applied. The context shows that Muhammed is the first Muslim relative to his own time and place i.e. the first Muslim amongst his immediate audience (the Quraish) who were the Mushrikun. It is disheartening to see the critics would overlook scholarship of explaining the Quran in favour of their own shoddy, misleading methodology of imposing their own understanding on the Quranic verses they choose to use. If they had an ounce of scholarship they would realise that their own warped understanding should not be imposed upon the Quran as there is a clear methodology to explain (tafsir) the Quran.

To further pour humiliation and refutation on the critic’s claims we can refer to the two undisputed modes of explaining the Quran; “Naturally, the explanation of the Quran by the Quran and the explanation of the Quran by the Prophet are two highest sources for tafsir, which cannot be matched nor superseded by any other source”. [6]

So let us use the Quran to explain the Quran as “many of the questions which may arise out of a certain passage of the Quran have their explanation in other parts of the very same book, and often there is no need to turn to any sources other than the word of Allah, which in itself contains tafsir”. [6]

Strangely and worryingly enough we see the critics ignoring the use of the Quran and the Hadith (of the Prophet Muhammed) in favour of their own views. This is intellectual savagery and quite frankly a butchering of the science of tafsir. Now we know the two primary methods of explaining the Quran are the Quran and the Hadith (of the Prophet). So if we use the Quran we realise that Mohammed is not being put forward as the first ever Muslim as the Quran (elsewhere) refers to earlier Prophets who are believers. Hence we realise that the Quranic references (6:163, 6:14) do not teach us that Muhammed is the first ever Muslim.

Now to use the other form of Tafsir we need not look further than these hadith (from the Prophet Muhammed (Sahih Bukhari: Volume 4, Book 52, Number 290, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 555 and Volume 1, Book 5, Number 277) to realise that the Muslims (including Muhammed) never believed Muhammed was the first Muslim ever as he mentions other prophets in the past tense and through the text we realise these prophets are indeed believers who came before Muhammed’s time, and these Prophets ( who were believers) existed before Muhammed on this earth and believed before Muhammed as Muhammed had not even been born at the time. So this highlights that the Quran is not teaching us that the Prophet Muhammed is the first ever Muslim contrary to the fanciful claims of the critics.

To further highlight the misleading vehicle which is the critic’s claim we can look to the authoritative Tafsir (explanations) of the relevant verses by the early Muslim scholars, strikingly enough; none of them hold the belief of the critics! So, in essence, the critic abandons scholarship, reasoning and research in favour of their own clouded, ignorant and embarrassing methodology in order to level an accusation of contradiction/error at the Quran. This leads them to arguing a false point and attributing their own inexact, ignorant and distorted views on the Quran and claiming a non-existent contradiction.

The fact remains the Quran does not put either Muhammed or Moses forward as the first ever Muslim. Nor does the Quran put forward Abraham or anybody after the time of Adam as the first Muslim. The Quran does not explicitly tell us who the first ever Muslim was but we can deduce it was Adam.

Thus it becomes clear that there is no contradiction in the Quran and we realise that the critics essentially show themselves to be unscholarly in omitting the context or not knowing the context and thus rendering their work misleading, confusing and full of error.

It is thoroughness to mention the other references a critic may bring up despite these other references not impacting upon what has been mentioned above, however it is still beneficial to know what the critic may bring up such as 2:132, this Quranic reference does not mention anybody as a first Muslim/believer here but critics would bring this up to show Abraham and Jacob to be Muslims (i.e. Muslims before Muhammed). This still does not impact on anything said earlier as the critic argues a straw man and claim the Quran states something which it does not. I stress again; the Quran does mention Muhammed or Moses as being the first EVER Muslims. The context of the Quran is clear, they (Moses and Muhammad) are the first to believe amongst their people.

The critic also cites Quranic references about Adam (2:30-37). Despite these references not exactly saying Adam was the first Muslim we still know by the way of context and deduction that Adam was the first believer in God amongst mankind. This does not impact on the reference concerning Moses (7:143) who was the first of the believers amongst his own people and nor does it impact on the references about Muhammad (6:14 and 6: 161-163) who was commanded to be and indeed was the first to submit to Allah amongst his own Pagan people (Quraish)

 The other citations (S. 4:163, S. 6:83-87) the critic may bring forth highlight to us that there were a number of guided people (Messengers) before Muhammed. This is the Muslim believe, all Muslims are aware of this so it should be realised by the critic that this is not knew information to the Muslim. It is also important to reiterate; none of this impacts on the fact that Muhammed and Moses were the first to believe amongst their own people and not the first to believe (ever) amongst human kind.

Also the more astute critics may point to the religion of Hanif and followers of the Abrahamic traditions of the past, however the teachings of Abraham (and Ishmael) became diluted with the gradual introduction of innovations, superstitions and idol-worship. Eventually ‘idolatry spread all over Makkah’ and thus the people left the Abrahamic teachings [9]. This was many years prior to Muhammed’s time so this does not impact on what has been said earlier either. There are traditions of four friends who rejected the idol-worshipping of Mecca and went out in search of an alternative, this does not impact on the fact that Muhammed was the first Muslim amongst the Quraish either.

Finally, after showing the critics to be wrong, it is worthy of mention to bring up the concerted efforts of critics in the past in order to find a critical claim of contradiction/error to stick (concerning the Holy Quran) despite their past work and the work of their contemporaries we see that they have failed and not found anything which people can honestly call a contradiction in the Quran, all this despite their best efforts.

 Of course Allah knows best and we ask Allah do guide and help us further. Ameen.

References 1. Anatomy of the Quran by G.J.O Moshay Chick Productions 2007 pg 116

 2. 7:143 Translation and explanation of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan

3. 26:51 Translation and explanation of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan

 4. 6:14 Translation and explanation of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan

 5. 6:162-163 Translation and explanation of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan

6. Ulum al Quran, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran by Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation 2003 pg 124

7. Ulum al Quran, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Quran by Ahmad Von Denffer, The Islamic Foundation 2003 pg 78

 8. Islam A Short History by Karen Armstrong, Phoenix Press, 2001, pg 3

9. Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 45