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 

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)}:

“..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 deformed. Hadith 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

Sun sets in a pool? A Muslim Response

Learn Quranic Arabic Schools Islamophobe David Wood (Does the Quran teach the sun sets in a murky pool of water? No)

This is getting absolutely ridiculous; the huge number of internet critics of Islam just latching onto old, tired and refuted allegations against Islam.

The Islamophobes blindly follow the material on their anti-muslim websites and claim the Quran (18:86) teaches the sun sets in a pool of muddy water. This is untrue; these Islamophobes don’t know Arabic and nor do they even bother to check to see if this claim has already been answered – it’s been answered many, many times over by Muslims (they make themselves look even more foolish due to the plethora of refutations of this specific claim available free on the net).

Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allâh) said (by inspiration): “O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness.” [18:86 English translation of the meanings by Dr Mohsin]

Here we see an internet charlatan (who makes a living out of this) rehashing this claim and making himself look ignorant and foolish in the process – not to mention misleading his Christian audience.

Does the Sun set in murky water? David Wood vs LQA

If the video does not play, please see:

This David Wood fella actually gets donations ($1000s) for regurgitating material he has seen on anti-Muslim websites despite not knowing Arabic nor being educated in Islam. The David Wood section focusses on rebuking, refuting and ridiculing this charlatan:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/David%20Wood

Note: The ignoramus mentions Alexander the Great as Dhul Qarnain in the video. The Quran does not specify who Dhul Qarnain is.

Learn about or convert to Islam:
http://www.thedeenshow.com/

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

Acts 17 Apologetics: David Wood and Another Dangerous Lie

Christian Missionaries and the 4 Witnesses for Rape Misconception

OK, it seems more and more people are realising it is a MISCONCEPTION to claim Muslim women require four witnesses to convict rapists.

Sadly, this misconception is being kept alive by Christian missionaries. We have just caught a Christian apologist (David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics) propagating such falsehoods at Chris Arnzen’s (from Iron Sharpens Iron) conference for pastors.

Correcting this Christian’s falsehoods on rape, rapists and Islam

http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/5938282/David_Wood_Misinforms_Chris_Arnzen_of_Iron_sharpens_iron.swf

If this video does not play, please view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0gUTNApF8Q

Christian leaders being misled

Sadly Christian leaders were being taught this misconception as a fact by their speaker. Sadder still, they even thought their speaker was an expert on Islam. Quite why there are so many self-proclaimed “experts” out there in evangelical communities is beyond me.

Advice to Chris Arnzen: If you decide to hold another conference please hire qualified folk, a Muslim imam would be a good start – at least he will know a thing or two about Islam!

Advice to David Wood: Dave, please remove this misconception from your repertoire. Please gain knowledge from reputable sources rather than second rate websites/books. Please educate yourself via the link below. An apology to Chris Arnzen and the pastors at the conference would be highly encouraged. Cheers.

Advice to Muslims: Be wary of internet lies and misconceptions. If you hear a strange claim be sure to check it with EXPERTS. Sadly, there are too many non-muslims parading as experts on Islam whilst presenting disinformation.

The facts about Islam and rape

Related:

David Wood and his sex hoax

Learn about Islam

Pastor converts to Islam

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Reply to Negeen Mayel

Negeen Mayel’s Inconsistent Attack on Lauren Booth’s Conversion

Who is Negeen Mayel?

Negeen Mayel is a Christian convert and has blogged about Lauren Booth’s conversion. Negeen operates in an inconsistent fashion in attempting to suggest further study of Islam will deflate Lauren Booth’s feelings of “absolute bliss and joy”.

Aside from Negeen’s misunderstanding with regards to the Islamic source material she quotes, Negeen operates a double standard as the Bible contains teachings which would have to be a concern for Negeen if she was consistent with her standard of judgement.

Predictably, Negeen writes:

Ms.Booth said she had so far only read up to page 60 in the Quran, which makes sense since if she had gone any further she would have hit Surah Al-Nisa, at which point her “absolute bliss and joy” feelings towards her recently accepted beliefs would undoubtedly be confronted with Surah 4:34.

Beating Wives “Surah 4:34”

I’m pretty confident Negeen is already aware of the explanation with regards to this Verse but just in case she has not had it explained to her (o heard/read an explanation) I will point her to Yusuf Estes’ explanation. I hope Negeen stops using this as a hit piece as it is inconsistent and she has now had it clarified for her. Yusuf Estes explaining this issue:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/01/wife-beating.html

Bible-believing Ladies are not easily shocked

Negeen feels this Verse to be “deflating” and perhaps even shocking. However, Negeen must remember she is a “Bible-believing Christian” so a Verse which allows the beating of wives is hardly going to be shocking for a “Bible-believing lady”.

Has Negeen Mayel Read the Bible?

It appears Negeen has not read the Bible and thus operates from a secular standpoint. If Negeen has read the Bible then she is operating in a deliberately inconsistent fashion. Nothing in Islamic teachings should shock Negeen Mayel if she uses the Bible as her standard. If Negeen uses American (secular) law as her standard then both Christianity and Islam will be incompatible with her worldview.

Forget About Beating Women…how About KILLING women, Negeen?

Was Negeen not shocked to realise her biblical and Christian teachings show God (according to Christianity this includes the Holy Spirit, Jesus and the Father) supporting the killing of WOMEN and CHILDREN as well as taking the virgin girls as slaves.

5 Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! 6 Kill them all—old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. 7 “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with corpses. Go!” So they went and began killing throughout the city. (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

As a Muslim; we do not know whether this story is accurate. However, we go by God’s standard so IF God did order something of this nature then we as BELIEVERS are not going to criticise it.

Negeen should NOT have been presenting Surah 4:34 for shock effect based on her BIBLICAL standards as she believes God ordered the KILLING of women and children. Be consistent, Negeen!

[Negeen should also Read Numbers 31:7-18 as Moses commands the killing of women and boys. Our Negeen has no problem believing Moses to be a Prophet despite this Biblical passage. Be consistent, Negeen!]

The NIV and Rape

Did Negeen Read the NIV translation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version – UK)?
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Now Negeen may say other translations don’t use the word “rape”; the MSG uses the word “rape” and other translations suggest rape too!

Was Negeen Mayel not shocked by Deuteronomy?

Negeen Mayel’s book does not support sex before marriage either. We see true Bible-believing Christians will not have criticism for the stoning of girls who are found out to be non-virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

Killing or beating?

Non-virgin girls are killed but Negeen Mayel is more shocked by Surah 4:24? This is inconsistent to an extreme. If Negeen is really this champion of women’s rights then what in the world is she doing claiming to be a Bible believing Christian whilst using secular standards to have a dig at Islam? Has she even read the whole Bible? Really?

Surely, if she was consistent she would have rejected the god of the Bible based on the standard she uses to shock and discourage Lauren Booth.

God does not love all

Sadly, Negeen is very much in the clutches of the extremist brigade. Perhaps they sold “Christianity” to her based on the misappropriated claim that “Jesus loves everyone”. Anybody who is intellectually honest and seriously informed with regards to Christianity will certainly tell you this is unbiblical rhetoric that “preachers” use as a sound bite. The Bible does not support their sound bite.

Therefore, the proud may not stand in your presence, for you hate all who do evil. Psalm 5:5 (New Living Translation)

Negeen Mayel’s Cabal

Recently we caught Negeen’s mentor, David Wood, presenting the most sick sex lie I have ever come across. He presented it as a fact despite knowing it was untrue. The latest development in this sorry saga gives it an even more desperate twist; a colleague of mine has pointed me to evidence David Wood’s mentor (the infamous Mr Shamoun) used the SAME sick sex hoax in 2008. This, my friends, is the type of sheer nastiness are up against. Have a re-read of Psalm 5:5 (above); rest assured we are opposing evil designs!

We are opposing extremist Christians who want to demonise Muslims, the Prophet (p) and Islam for their own ends under the guise of the “church”.

Negeen Mayel has decisions to make

I have personally communicated with Negeen and she did reassure me she does not hate Muslims. I actually believe her and I believe her when she says she is an ex-Muslim (despite some discrepancies being pointed out on YT vis-à-vis her conversion video).

Mr Shamoun as a mentor?

The problem Negeen faces is that she has thrown her lot in with a rag-tag group of bigots/haters and charlatans. Their group is very much in league with the charlatan Sam “Islam allows sex with animals” Shamoun. This is a man who has left a trail of vile all over the net spanning years. Recently we captured Shamoun’s unedifying assault on a Muslim imam in a pal talk chat room:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/sam-shamoun-obsessed-with-shabir-ally.html

Mr Wood as an example?

Then there is Mr Wood; his bag of tricks includes sick sex lies. Quite how Negeen can tandem with somebody with such a mindset is beyond me. Rest assured, our David was indeed motivated by hatred when he presented the infamous sex hoax. It sends shudders down my being when thinking about it. Yuck!
Absolutely disgusting! See here for Mr Wood’s despicable sex hoax:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/pornographic-lies-on-abn-by-david-wood.html

Mr Wood should hang his head in shame, instead he moves on without a care in the world and his latest post is him bashing Michelle Obama for wearing a hijab! I guess Mr Wood is tearing down all those hijabified picture of Mary on church walls…I guess he is also wrenching 1 Corinthians from the Bible as we speak.

Don’t forget Mr Qureshi

There is Mr Qureshi, well he seems to be the less outspoken and controversial. However, do not let this befool you into believing Mr Qureshi (the self-styled “exMuslim”) is intellectually honest. He is STILL featuring material which he KNOWS to be inaccurate and subsequently is misleading people. See here to learn more:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/09/bassam-zawadi-rebukes-nabeel-qureshi.html

Does Negeen Believe Jesus Supported the Killing of Females Found Out to be Non-Virgins?

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (New International Version)
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death…

Perhaps Negeen was just playing “sensitive” in order to have a dig at Lauren Booth’s conversion. Others could use the same “sensitivities” and apply them in an attack against Negeen’s conversion with GREATER force using the BIBLE. Negeen, be consistent!

Calling Negeen Mayel to Drop her Failed Argument

So Negeen, which is more shocking; God allowing the killing of kids and women or the allowance of beating of wives (see explanation above)? Negeen, we ALL know the answer and we ALL call you to consistency as inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Negeen using the words of a Prophet (p) for shock purposes

Negeen writes: For starters here are the words of Muhammad himself:

[Muhammad said]: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense. (Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, tr., Number 142)

Are women the majority in Hell?

These women are NOT simply sent to Hell based on gender. Sadly, missionaries like to leave it there so people are misdirected into thinking this way.. There is a context and explanation! This is explained here:
http://www.islamicsearchcenter.com/archive/2010/05/why-women-majority-in-the-hell/#comment-3371

Common Sense

Furthermore, the issue of women lacking in common sense is not as shocking as Negeen believes it to be. Muslim women can hold the position of scholars and have held positions of narrators of ahadith; thus the hadith is not claiming women to be half-wits. It refers to women being more naturally guided by emotion and the failing in religion refers to them praying and fasting less due to natural reasons [see pg 340 of Moustafa Zayed’s book response to Robert Spencer]

Now we have explained this issue we can concentrate on Negeen Mayel’s double standards.

Does Negeen not know the Bible teaches men are in charge of women?

Ephesians 5

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior (Ephesians 5:23 NIV)

Does Negeen Support the Kojak look?

Forced to wear a hijab? I wonder if Negeen and other Christian ladies follow the example of Mary and other Muslim ladies by wearing the head covering or whether Negeen supports the Kojak look.

If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head (1 Corinthians 11:6 NIV)

I believe Britney Spears and the lady in the Alien movies went down the “Kojak” route. Sinead O Connor too? However, none of them sheared their locks for Biblical reasons as far as I am aware.

If I was a woman faced with those choices I would just wear the hijab as it is something Mary wore (can’t be a bad thing then) and I would want to safeguard my locks Negeen, be consistent!

Quoting Prophets

Negeen quotes the Prophet Muhammad (p) (see above) and we shall quote another Prophet, Moses (p). According to her Bible, Moses orders the killing of women and children. For some reason Negeen finds the above statement by Prophet Muhammad (p) shocking but has nothing to say about this passage in the Bible; perhaps she has not read Numbers 31

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man (Numbers 31:17)

I take it Negeen is off to tell her Christian pals she has renounced Christianity. She will have to do this IF she wants to maintain consistency. Either that or she will have to apologise for the shoddy shock-seeking article she produced. I call Negeen Mayel to public repentance and a public apology to Lauren Booth.

Liberal Christians?

I’m not entirely sure if Negeen is a liberal Christian who believes in homosexuality, dating and women church leaders. If she is I really wonder how she circumnavigates the anti-gay stance her book takes.

[Leviticus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 22:20-21 teach against homosexuality and sex before marriage respectively]

Of course fornication and homosexuality is allowed in America. I guess, if Negeen is a liberal Christian, this is all rather shocking to her too.

Negeen, what do you think of burning people alive?

This must be extremely shocking for Negeen if she is really taking issue with Surah 4:34.

“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.. (Leviticus 21:9 NIV)

I guess the stuff about Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit loving everybody is simply sales pitch rhetoric especially in light of Psalm 5:5-6 and some of the verse we have showcased within this rebuke

Negeen: god of the Bible does not love everybody

Do you still believe Jesus, Father and the Holy Spirit love everybody? You see, in Islam we do not have an issue with God not loving the evil-doers. Why should God love the evil-doers? In Christianity it is clear god does not love the bad folk BUT for some reason Christians try to sell Christianity to us by telling us “Jesus loves everyone”.

The truth is; your Christian teachings teach non-Christians are doomed. St Augustine condemned non-baptised babies to Hell.

I guess it is easier to market Christianity in liberal America by changing its teachings; some have allowed gay marriages in order to appeal to liberal America.

After all we do find many women in church leadership positions nowadays. It would never have happened in the days of Paul. Changing your faith to a form of liberalism is up to you but to malign Islam because it stands firm to the teachings of God is problematic for Muslims. That is why I stepped in, just to make sure it does not happen again.

If you are intellectually honest you will make certain we do not see a repeat of this episode. Furthermore, I call you to holiness and righteousness and ask you to review your associations with your current company.

Conclusion

Negeen argues against Islam without a standard of consistency. She is either ill-informed with regards to the Bible or she is being deliberately inconsistent in order to wrack up the anti-Islamic sentiment her superiors expect of her.

Whatever happened to those peace loving Christians? Those Christians who try to be consistent, balanced and erudite?

The answer; some converted to Islam, some to secularism, and the rest have been drowned out by the fundamentalists who spend day and night traducing others and their respective faiths.

Christians: If Michelle Obama wants to wear a hijab, let her as it is BIBLICAL! There is no reason to go ballistic. Mary is certainly thought to have worn a head covering. Calm down with this ridiculous anti-Muslim rhetoric and you may just be taken seriously for a change and if you stop making sick sex hoaxes up about our faith we may just give you a tub of ice cream!

Negeen, if you cannot argue against Islam from a CONSISTENT standpoint then why leave Islam? I call you to the worship of the God which Jesus prayed to. Now, if Jesus is praying it is telling us he has a god. If that god is good enough for Jesus it is certainly good enough for you. Negeen, that god is none other than the One who created Jesus.

I invite Negeen Mayel to come to Islam by putting aside her inconsistencies and misconceptions.

Would you like to know more about the God of Jesus? If yes come to Islam today:
http://www.ediscoverislam.com/

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Thighing in Islam: The Truth about Mufa’khathat :)

The Mufakhathat (Thighing) Claim is a Deceptionyahyasnow@hotmail.com

It is wise to make people aware of a fabrication (falsification) traversing the internet which states Islam allows Muslim men to gratify themselves sexually with pre-pubescent girls (even as young as 3 years of age) via a method known as mufakhafat (thighing).

This claim of theirs is errant nonsense. The early classical scholar, Hasan al-Basri (642 – 728 or 737 AD), has already made it known Islam does NOT allow Muslim men to approach prepubescent girls in a sexual fashion. [1]

As for the fabrication (falsified fatwa) on the internet; Ebrahim Saifuddin confirms the thighing claims are erroneous (“a fabricated lie”) and points out Christian missionaries made this malicious, untrue and vile allegation up. [2] Moreover Muhaddith.org inform us the falsified fatwa has ALREADY been commented upon by Saudi scholars and they have denounced it as a lie as well as informing us Islam does not allow such a sick practice. The Saudi scholars also confirm the Prophet Muhammad NEVER took part in such a practice, thus further denouncing and disproving the Christian missionary lies. [1]

I have appended a typical sample of the false claim to this article (see appendix 1).

Looking Stupid

I have recently come across two people parroting the false claims and using these fabrications in order to satisfy their anti-Muslim agenda – one of these individuals is a Christian tele-evangelist of ill-repute whilst the other is a member (Kevin Carroll) of a far right group named “English Defence League” (EDL). These people do not realise how unscholarly and silly they look when repeating such nonsense even though it does not take much in the way of research to realise the material they use is a fabrication (false).

Another Fabrication?

Alongside the “fatwa” fabrication there seems to be another fabrication of this nature attributed to Khomeini which is being circulated on the internet. I would like to state Khomeini is NOT seen as an authority and is seen as a deviant by recognised scholarly authorities. Nevertheless the quotes attributed to Khomeini are thought to be fabrications too.

The “book” where the alleged Komeini’s quotes were taken from (“Tahrirolvasyleh” fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990) does not seem to even exist! [3]. Alongside the alleged quotes of approving child-sex there are alleged quotes approving sex with animals [4]. Both are outrageously false allegations; Islam does not allow these depraved actions

Summary

Essentially, somebody/group of bodies made a malicious lie up about Islam and other Islamophobes have been propagating (spreading) it without checking for accuracy and truth.

The fact remains, Islam does not allow thighing (mufakhafat) of prepubescent girls. There are forgeries on the internet which are being used in a smear campaign against Muslims – be alert to these false and nasty claims.

Any feedback: send it to Yahya Snow at

Referenceshttp://www.muhaddith.org/islam_answers/earlymarriage-part2.doc

[1]

[2] http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/mufakhathat-or-thighing/

[3] http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?/topic/22934-kohmeinis-alleged-pedophile-qoute/

[4] https://yahyasnow.wordpress.com/2010/06/18/is-sex-with-animals-allowed-in-islam/

Appendix 1

See appendix section here, for a a sample claim of thighing etc:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/08/truth-about-thighing-mufakhathat-canard.html

Appendix 2

Ebrahim Saifuddin of IqraProductions exposes the thighing (mufa’khathat) lie:

More info can be obtained here:

http://ebrahimsaifuddin.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/mufakhathat-or-thighing/

More crazy lies about Islam discussed here:

http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/

 

Quran: Kill the Disbelievers? (Surah 9:5)

Shabir Ally explains a misunderstood Verse (9:5) from the Koran.

Dr James White Endorses Sam Shamoun’s Shoddy Scholarship?

Video by Yahya Snow.

Questions for Dr James White:

Do you endorse Sam Shamoun?

Do you approve of making your own translations of the Quran up (and not informing anybody of such a doing)?

Do you approve of Shamoun’s dubious use of Palmer’s translation?

Do you think Shamoun acted in a Christian way? A scholarly way?

Why did you approve of Shamoun’s article and label it as “excellent Quranic insights”?

Are you going to rebuke shamoun and distance your ministry from him and his shoddy work?

Do you feel this has impacted on your reputation?

For me it is clear Shamoun was being dishonest, what are your views?

White can still recover from this embarrassing saga by acting in an honest fashion (and nota fashion which tries to protect his friend). In my view YouTube Muslims will not let this slide (look at the Ergun Caner issue for an example of YouTube Muslim action) so White’s silence is deafening. We await White’s video response..

Initial video featuring Shamoun’s comments and a refutation, directed at Dr White:

Article highlighting Sam Shamoun’s unscholarly and shocking methodology:
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2010/05/response-to-who-does-allah-pray-to.html

Surah al Fatiha for Dr White and his friend(Arabic tutor Issam):

Who Does Allah Worship? (Question asked by a Christian Missionary)

Some Christian critics who know basic Arabic are claiming the Quran teaches us that Allah prays. They normally use this argument in an attempt to counter and pacify the Muslim use of the Bible which points to Jesus praying (Matthew 26:39).

Rather than focussing on Christianity let us look at the issue in hand; does Allah pray according to the Quran?

The claimants claim the Arabic translation (2:157, 33:43, 33:56) means Allah prays. However, once we consult the EXPERT translators, the lexicon, the commentaries and early Muslim clarification we realise the claimants are completely ignorant of word usage and thus incorrect.

Through the course of this article you will realise it really is a case of the Christian critic against the experts in the field, the experts do NOT agree with the Christian critics!
The structure of the article is thus, there will be a presentation of evidence against their claim based on different authorities:

*Expert Translators
*The Lexicon (Authoritative Arabic Dictionary)
*Expert Commentators
*Early Muslim views

After this evidence is passed over there will be a specific address (refutation) to a vocal critic’s (Sam Shamoun) written work in the interest of thoroughness. I chose Shamoun’s work as he seems to be the most vociferous in claiming Allah prays and is a source material for any subsequent claimant.

The Expert Translators (Masters in the Arabic language) disagree with the Christian critics

There are three Quranic verses which the claimant uses to make their claim. These three verses are translated below by THREE DIFFERENT translators; do these experts in the Arabic language think the Quran teaches us that Allah prays? No, you can see for yourself:

Quran 2:157

Dr. Mohsin : They are those on whom are the Salawât (i.e. who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided-ones.

Pickthal : Such are they on whom are blessings from their Lord, and mercy. Such are the rightly guided.

Yusuf Ali : They are those on whom (descend) blessings from their Lord and Mercy and they are the ones that receive guidance.

Quran 33:43

Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you, and His angels too (ask Allâh to bless and forgive you), that He may bring you out from darkness (of disbelief and polytheism) into light (of Belief and Islâmic Monotheism). And He is Ever Most Merciful to the believers.

Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you, and His angels (bless you), that He may bring you forth from darkness unto light; and He is Merciful to the believers.

Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers

Quran 33:56

Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW) and also His angels (ask Allâh to bless and forgive him). O you who believe! Send your Salât[] on (ask Allâh to bless) him (Muhammad SAW), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islâmic way of greeting (salutation i.e. As¬Salâmu ‘Alaikum).

Pickthal : Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.

Yusuf Ali : Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet: O ye that believe! send ye blessings on him and salute him, with all respect.

The stubborn Christian critic, upon seeing these translations, will say these translations are produced by Muslims so we do not trust them. This is all rather silly but we shall indulge their argument further.

Well let us look at how the Christian missionary JM Rodwell translated the verses in question. Let us look at how AJ Arberry translated the verses in question, AJ Arberry is endorsed by the Christian MISSIONARY Robert Morey [1].

To further highlight the expert opinion we can bring the opinion of the CHRISTIAN missionary Rodwell (who is a translator of the Quran), does he think the Quran teaches Allah prays? No!

Rodwell agrees with the expert (Muslim) translators above. The same applies to AJ Arberry, he too agrees with the translations above and the same applies to George Sale:

Quran 33:56

George Sale 33:56
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet: O true believers, do ye also bless him, and salute him with a respectful salutation.

John Medows Rodwell 33:56
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet! Bless ye Him, O Believers, and salute Him with salutations of Peace.

Arthur John Arberry 33:56
God and His angels bless the Prophet. O believers, do you also bless him, and pray him peace.

Quran 33:43

Arthur John Arberry 33:43
It is He who blesses you,  and His angels, to bring you forth from the shadows into the light. He is All-compassionate to the believers.

George Sale 33:43
It is He who is  gracious unto you, and his angels intercede for you, that He may lead you forth from darkness into light; and He is merciful towards the true believers.

John Medows Rodwell 33:43
He blesseth you, and His angels intercede for you, that He may bring you forth out of darkness into light: and Merciful is He to the Believers.

Quran 2:157

AJ Arberry 2:157
Upon the rest blessings and mercy from their Lord and those—they are the truly guided

JM Rodwell 2:157
On them shall be blessings from their Lord, also mercy: and these! They are rightly guided

George Sale 2:157
Upon them shall be blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they are rightly directed.

So there they have it. It is NOT a Muslim conspiracy theory. The Christian critics should base their arguments on facts rather than conspiracy theories. Furthermore, if they are still in doubt why don’t they consult Lane’s Lexicon?

The Lexicon: Does the authoritative dictionary agree with the Christian missionaries? No.

Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.

Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)

From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].

Nowhere does Lane agree with the critic’s claims but Lane agrees with the expert translators (mentioned above). So the Christian critic is quite simply bringing stuff of conjecture to the table and has no in depth knowledge of Arabic word usage.

Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”

Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too. So lane the expert is agreeing with the Muslim translators but disagreeing with the critic’s unauthorized claims

So the experts in the field of Arabic disagree with the Christian critic’s bizarre claim. Thus it is clear Allah does not pray and the Muslim expert translators are correct. If there is still a stubborn critic holding onto his/her claim then they can view the commentary material.

Do the Expert Commentators Agree with the Christian critics? No.

If the critic was serious about their claim they would have consulted the commentaries as these reflect the early Arab (Muslim and non-Muslim Arabs) opinion related to word usage.

Let us open up Al-Tustari’s commentary (2:157), in fact al-Tustari explains all three verses in question and DISAGREES with the Christian critic.

Al-Tustari explains the word used in 2:157 (“al-salawat”):

“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord”

So we realise the verses in question does not refer to God (Allah) praying. Thus the translators are backed up by the early Muslim expert(Al Tustari). Al-Tustari goes further and explains the word used in the two other references (33:43 and 33:56) as blessings referring to forgiveness:

“As for its meaning of ‘forgiveness’, it is referred to in His words, Exalted is He, He it is who blesses you [33:43], meaning: ‘He forgives you’, and [again in His words]: as do His angels… [33:43], by which is meant: ‘They seek forgiveness for you’. In the same vein are His words: Indeed God and His angels bless the Prophet [33:56], which mean: ‘Truly God forgives the Prophet, and the angels seek forgiveness for him.’” [3]

So Al-Tustari explained these verses and the related word usage hundreds of years prior to the Christian critics coming on the scene with their broken Arabic looking to re-interpret sources according to their missionary agendas. The fact remains, Al-Tustari (the expert) does NOT agree with the critics; he did NOT believe any of the three verses (2:157, 33:43, and 33:56) taught Allah prays. Who are these critics to disagree with the early Muslim commentator?

If by chance there is STILL a critic espousing their claim then they can view early Arab thought concerning the verses in question.

Do Other Early Arab Experts Agree with the Christian Critics? No.

To be totally comprehensive let us open up another Tafsir master piece. Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir literature also proves the critics are clearly in error as it points to other early Muslim (Arab) experts. When we read Ibn Kathir we note Allah’s Salah is explained:

“Al-Bukhari said: “Abu Al-`Aliyah said: “Allah’s Salah is His praising him before the angels, and the Salah of the angels is their supplication.” “ [4]

So we realise Abu Al-Aliyah did not believe Allah prayed! The same goes for At-Thawri and other scholars, neither At-Thawri or the other scholars thought the Quran taught Allah prays:

“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: “This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. “ [4]

Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.

None of these experts is claiming the references mean Allah prays and these experts knew the language remarkably well. In fact Lane uses these experts as source material for his lexicon! Who are these Christian critics to argue with the early Muslim (Arab) experts in the Arabic language?

Conclusion

The copious evidence presented showing the critics to be wrong is sufficient for anybody of a reasonable disposition to realise the Quran does not teach Allah prays.

Essentially the audience, is asked to choose between the Christian critic’s shoddy scholarship or the Muslim expert translators, the dictionary, the commentators and the early Arabs. It is a no brainer; clearly authority is correct and the agenda based missionaries are mistaken.

A Response to A Christian Critic

In the interest to deliver a comprehensive piece of work to the reader I have appended an article addressing the shoddy scholarship of the chief supporter of the Christian missionary claim. The gentleman, ironically enough, has a history of bringing his own unauthorized Quran translations to the table; previously he was found to have translated a Quranic verse in order to present Islam as a religion which allows bestiality! [5]

Nevertheless, his work shall be quickly combed through in a scholarly fashion, his work is entitled:

Islam and the prayers of Allah An examination of the worship and praise which Allah performs (by Sam Shamoun)

Yahya Snow responds:

Shamoun’s deceptive ways on 2:157

Shamoun wastes no time and immediately claims:
“We are told in the Quran that the Islamic deity prays for his followers, especially Muhammad”

The question is does Shamoun take into account the fact that Y.Ali, Pikthal, Hilali/Khan, Arberry, Rodwell and Sale all disagree with him? No.

Shamoun presents his OWN translation for the 2:157, here it is:

“They are those on whom are the prayers (salawatun) from their Lord and mercy (rahmatun), and it is they who are the guided-ones. S. 2:157”

Why does Shamoun not cite a translator to back him up? It is because all the translators (even Palmer) disagree with him!

Shamoun translates “salawatun” (salawat) as “the prayers”. Shamoun would have saved himself from the embarrassment if he had consulted an EXPERT, Al-Tustari has already (hundreds of years prior to Shamoun) defined the word used in 2:157 (“salawat”):

“What is implied by blessings (al-ṣalawāt) upon them is the bestowal of mercy upon them, that is, a bestowal of mercy from their Lord” [3]

To further pour refutation and authoritative admonishment on Shamoun’s shoddy translation we can look to Palmer and Rodwell (as well as the Y.Ali, Pikthal and Hilali/Khan). None of these translators agree with Shamoun’s shoddy translation.

A.J Arberry translates is as “blessings” whilst E.H PALMER translates is as “blessings” too:

“These on them are blessings from their Lord and mercy, and they it is who are guided.” (EH Palmer 2:157)

There is a real significance to Palmer which highlights the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of Sam Shamoun. This shall be elaborated upon.

However, Shamoun does not even bother to inform his audience he simply made his OWN translation of 2:157. He does not inform them why he did this either! This is a misdirection of the audience but it gets worse. As Shamoun for the other two references (33:34 and 33:56) uses E.H. Palmer’s translation of the Quran.

Why did he not use Palmer’s for 2:157? It is obvious, because Palmer disagrees with Shamoun and translates the verse the same vein as the Muslim translators.

Sam Shamoun is playing games of inconsistency and partial information in order to misdirect the audience. If Shamoun was of a consistent scholarly substance he would have cited many translators (as I have done) or at least stuck with one translator for all three verses. Shamoun does not do this. He employs Palmer for two of the references but not the third as Palmer does not agree with Shamoun on 2:157, hence why Shamoun makes his OWN translation up and does not even announce this to his audience (readers).

Shamoun’s desperation in making his OWN translation of 2:157 highlights no expert translator agrees with him; if he had a translator who agreed with him he would have cited him or her. This is depraved deception and disrespectful to the unwitting reader.

Shamoun’s lack of expertise on 33:43 and 33:56

These two references can be discussed simultaneously as the relevant word in both Verses is derived from the same Arabic word (“salla”)

Shamoun brings E.H Palmer’s translation for both:

He it is who prays (yusallee) for you and His angels too, to bring you forth out of the darkness into the light, for He is merciful to the believers. S. 33:43 Palmer

Verily, God and His angels pray (yusalloona) for the prophet. O ye who believe! pray for him (salloo) and salute him with a salutation! S. 33:56 Palmer

Shamoun does add the transliterated Arabic words (bracketed) to the translation. It would have been responsible to note this was the doing of Sam Shamoun but Shamoun does not do the scholarly thing. However, this is not such a big issue.

Does Shamoun mention to his audience that the other translators (including the Christian missionary Rodwell) all translate these two verses in question differently from Palmer? No.
Is Palmer’s translation of 33:43 and 33:56 convincing?

So effectively it is a case of Palmer translating it as “pray” but the other experts disagree with Palmer and teach it to it refer to “bless” (or “gracious”) and NOT “pray”:

Quran 33:43

Dr. Mohsin : He it is Who sends Salât (His blessings) on you..

Pickthal : He it is Who blesseth you..

Yusuf Ali : He it is Who sends blessings on you..

Arthur John Arberry
It is He who blesses you.. 

John Medows Rodwell
He blesseth you..

George Sale
It is He who is gracious unto you..

Quran 33:56

Dr. Mohsin : Allâh sends His Salât (Graces, Honours, Blessings, Mercy) on the Prophet (Muhammad SAW)…

Pickthal : Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet…

Yusuf Ali : Allah and His angels, send blessings on the Prophet…

Arthur John Arberry
God and His angels bless the Prophet…

John Medows Rodwell
Verily, God and His Angels bless the Prophet..

George Sale
Verily God and his angels bless the prophet..

Now, if Shamoun was scholarly he would have looked into how Palmer translates the related word (“salawat”) in 2:157. Palmer translates the related word as “blessings” and NOT prayers. Thus Palmer is not only isolated and in disagreement with the other translators but is INCONSISTENT in his translation which suggests and error on the part of Palmer.

So it would be unscholarly to use Palmer’s translation in this regard (33:43 and 56) to support a claim. However, our friend (Sam Shamoun) ignores principles of balanced scholarship and proceeds to use Palmer to support his claim.

If Shamoun is still unwilling to accept Palmer’s error then we can take the issue to Lane’s Lexicon.

Edward William Lane is an expert in the Arabic language. Lane explains the word (“salla”) used in the two verses (33:43and 56). Surely Lane will settle it once and for all.

Edward William Lane’s Lexicon is derived from the best and most copious eastern sources; you don’t get much more authoritative than Lane’s Lexicon when it comes to the Arabic
So does this expert (E.W. Lane) agree with the Christian claim? No.

Lane actually explains the word usage for two of the verses in question (33:43 and 33:56). These two verses use the same word (“salla”) and Lane explains what this word means when is refers to Allah (God)

From Lane’s Lexicon we see an in depth analysis of that the word in question “salla”. From Lane we learn the meaning of the word (“salla”) when said of Allah (God); it does not refer to Allah praying but refers to Allah blessing, or having mercy, or magnifying or conferring honour somebody/bodies [2].

Lane goes further and even uses one of the Quranic verses (33:56) in question as an example. He translates the word as “magnification” and states the words mean “Verily God and His angels magnify the Prophet”

Lane also agrees that the word “bless” would be better used in the translation as this rendering implies magnification too [2]. So Lane, the expert, is agreeing with the all the other translators but disagreeing with Palmer.

So we realise Palmer is not only inconsistent but not supported by his fellow translators nor the authoritative lexicon.

This points to Palmer being in error, thus it would be unscholarly of Shamoun or any other critic to use Palmer’s error in order to build their claim.

To further show Palmer is in error we can consult the early Muslim expert Ath-Thawri and other scholars:

“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: “This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. “ [4]

Note: Ath-Thawri is backed by “other scholars” (experts) too. Al-Tustari disagrees with Palmer as well [3]. So it really is a case of a whole host of early experts in the Arabic language disagreeing with the Christian critic’s claim. It just further illustrates the lack of scholarly depth on the part of the Christian critic.

It is also fair to note Palmer is not to blame for this Christian critic claim as the critics manipulate and take advantage of Palmer’s error and inconsistency. As all the other experts and source material disagree with Palmer, I am of the view, if Palmer had a chance to revise his work he would change his translation to agree with the other translators and Lane’s Lexicon.

The more concerning element is the refusal of the Christian critics (including Shamoun) to portray the full picture to their audience. Agendas will be agendas!

Shamoun Brings Irrelevant Hadith Literature to the Table or Misrepresents it Completely

Shamoun, again wastes no time and states:

“The hadith reports also mention Allah praying for people”, he then brings a translation of a Hadith:

“1387. Abu Umama reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “Allah AND His angels AND the people of the heavens AND the earth, EVEN the ants in their rocks AND the fish, PRAY for blessings on those who teach people good.” [at-Tirmidhi] (Aisha Bewley, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), Book of Knowledge, 241. Chapter: the excellence of knowledge; bold, capital and italic emphasis ours)””

Shamoun, is extremely unscholarly here as at-Tirmidhi has ALREADY EXPLAINED the meaning concerning “pray” related to Allah. At-Tirmidhi clearly does not think Allah prays as he explains the term:

Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: “This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness. [4]

Thus the word “pray” is concerning Allah sending Mercy upon the recipient. That is all, it does not refer to Allah literally praying. So Shamoun should cross reference the Arabic phraseology before presenting such material, that way he would not look so unscholarly.

As we have seen previously, Lane’s Lexicon, Al-Tustari and the expert translators disagree with Shamoun’s rendering of the word.

Shamoun Butchers Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir Literature

Shamoun swiftly moves onto his translation of Ibn Kathir, he writes:

“The people of Israel said to Moses: “Does your Lord pray?” His Lord called him [saying]: “O Moses, they asked you if your Lord prays. Say [to them] ‘Yes, I do pray, and my angels [pray] upon my prophets and my messengers,’” and Allah then sent down on his messenger: “Allah and His angels pray…” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 33:56; translated from the Arabic online edition; bold emphasis ours)”

Shamoun is unscholarly again, not only has Lane’s Lexicon explained the word in question (“salla” “pray”) but Ibn Kathir in his commentary of the SAME chapter explains the verse via at-Tirmidhi:.

“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: “This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness.” [4]

So it is clear Ibn Kathir did not think “pray” (salla) meant what Shamoun tries to intimate. The real question is why did Shamoun translate his own bit from Ibn Kathir BUT ignore the explanation of Allah’s Salah within the SAME chapter of Ibn Kathir?

It is obvious, Shamoun wanted to misdirect the audience. The fact remains, Ibn Kathir’s EXPLANATION of Allah’s Salah is from the same section as the passage Shamoun translates so there is NO chance Shamoun did not view the explanation, thus it is clear Shamoun is trying to dupe the audience.

Shamoun Opening up the Dictionary

Shamoun then presents a basic translation of the words in question:
“What makes this rather amazing is that according to the Islamic sources the words salawat and salah refer to worship and glorification:

Ibn Al-Atheer in his highly acknowledged dictionary of the Arabic language, ‘Al-Nihaayah fi Ghareeb al-Athar’ has explained “Sala’h” as follows:

‘Al-Sala’h’ and ‘Al-Salawaat’: used for a particular kind of worship. Its literal origin is supplication (prayer). Sometimes, ‘Sala’h’ is referred to by mentioning any one or more of its parts. It is also said that the literal origin of the word is ‘to glorify’ and the particular worship is called ‘Sala’h’, because it entails the glorification of the Lord. (The Meaning of the Word “Sala’h”, May 19, 2001; bold emphasis ours)”

Shamoun simply presents the standard meaning of the words used in everyday situations but does not present the meanings of words in relation to Allah. Thus Shamoun hides the in depth analysis of the word usage.

Al-Tustari has ALREADY taught us “al-Salawat” refers to a bestowal of Mercy when it refers to Allah (as in 2:157) and NOT what Shamoun suggests. Why did Shamoun not give the fuller picture?

As for Salah ,this was explained in IBN KATHIR, it is worthy of note to mention (again) that Shamoun has READ IBN KATHIR’S Tafsir related to Salah, why did Shamoun not present it? It is clear as it scuppers Shamoun’s claims. Thus Shamoun is not after honest scholarship but is after deception.

From Ibn Kathir:
“Abu `Isa At-Tirmidhi said: “This was narrated from Sufyan Ath-Thawri and other scholars, who said: `The Salah of the Lord is mercy, and the Salah of the angels is their seeking forgiveness.” [4]

So Ibn Kathir and the early Muslims KNEW Allah’s Salah did NOT mean Allah prayed! It referred to his Blessing of Mercy ( Al-Tustari: a bestowal of Mercy)

“Salla” and “Salawat” with Sam Shamoun

Shamoun also gives examples of the words “salla” and “salawat” and tries to argue his case BUT FORGETS to mention his examples are not linked to Allah. The experts including Lane all teach that the words in question have a different meaning once linked to Allah. It really is getting repetitive now.

Thereafter Shamoun drifts of topic he starts talking about praises and referring to work of those who counter him. I feel what has been said here is sufficient. If you feel the rest of his article requires attention then please let me know (or alternatively if somebody else has countered Shamoun’s article the let me know as I can link to it, God Willing).You can read Shamoun’s article in full here:http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/allah_worships.html

Conclusion

Shamoun uses slight of hand and audience misdirection by withholding the full picture from the readers. Effectively Shamoun disagrees with the expert translators, Lane’s Lexicon, Tafsir writers and early experts in the Arabic language. Does Shamoun bring any proof to show all these authorities to be wrong? No.

The facts remain Shamoun has no authority and is basing his views on conjecture and wishful thinking. It seems as though Shamoun simply puts this claim out there because he is frustrated with Muslims pointing to the Biblical account of Jesus worshipping as evidence against Jesus being God. So Shamoun seems to be motivated by insincere goals.

If he really believes God worships then that is down to him but in his frustration at Muslim objections to his belief (that God worships in the Bible) Shamoun should not overstep scholarly bounds and make half-hearted attempts to make the same claim against God in the Quran.
Shamoun, seems unscholarly, deceptive immature with his claim.

So does Allah worship? Well, the experts say NO.

References

[1] Robert Morey’s The Islamic Invasion, Christian Scholar Press, 1992 pg 21
[2] An Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, Williams and Norgate, 1872, pg 1720
[3] Tafsir Al-Tustari, (2:157), trans. Annabel Keeler and Ali Keeler
[4] Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Surah 33), Dar as-Salam Publishing
[5] http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=788§ion=family_society&subsection