”Responding to Sami Zaatari”
Continuing from Part II
More blatant idolatry from the "prophet of monotheism"
In a recent article Zaatari writes that according to the doctrine of tauhid al-uluhiyya a Muslim must take his/her oaths only in the name of Allah:
Now it must be made clear that when we say that all worship belongs to Allah we do not simply mean your salat prayer, rather we mean all acts of obedience in the religion belong to him, worship is not restricted to your salat prayer alone, but worship extends to fear, hope, trust, love, scarifying, and oath making...
Also when you make an oath, which is when you swear, you only swear by Allah, for instance you say I swear by Allah that my repentance is sincere and truthful, you do not say I swear by Muhammad (AS), or by any other person etc. (Tawheed, the core of Islam)
However, Muhammad himself failed to practice this and didn't follow his own rules. He had told his followers that swearing in the name of someone's father was shirk, or the sin of associating partners with Allah:
Narrated 'Umar: The Prophet said, “If anybody has to take an oath, he should swear ONLY by Allah.” The people of Quraish used to swear by their fathers, but the Prophet said, “Do not swear by your fathers.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 177)
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle met 'Umar bin Al-Khattab while the latter was going with a group of camel-riders, and he was swearing by his father. The Prophet said, “Lo! Allah forbids you to swear by your fathers, so whoever has to take an oath, he should swear by Allah or keep quiet.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 78, Number 641)
And yet the prophet of the black stone went ahead and swore in the name of a person's father, thereby committing shirk!
Chapter 4: The Prohibition Of Withholding While Alive, Only To Squander Upon One’s Death
2706. It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: “A man came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, tell me, which of the people has most right to my companionship?’ He said: ‘Yes, BY YOUR FATHER, you will certainly be told.’ He said: ‘Your mother.’ He said, ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your mother.’ He said: ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your mother.’ He said: ‘Then who?’ He said: ‘Then your father.’ He said: ‘Tell me, O Messenger of Allah, about my wealth – how should I give in charity?’ He said: ‘Yes, BY ALLAH, you will certainly be told…’” (Sahih)
… c. An oath can only be taken by the Name of Allah. It is not legal to take an oath over other than Allah’s Name, as in authenticAhadith it has been made clear. The Prophet said: “Verily! Allah forbids you to swear by your fathers. If one has to take an oath he should swear by Allah or keep quite [sic].” (Sahih Al-Bukhari: 6108.) In this Hadith the oath taken by the father is either before the time when it was prohibited, or just part of Arabian culture, as a habitual custom. It was common in
The comments of the translator are problematic for at least three reasons. First, Muslim dawaganists like Zaatari believe that the Meccans are descendants of Ishmael and that both he built the Kaba along with his father Abraham where they both instituted the rites of pilgrimage. This means that the people would have known and been informed that such swearing was forbidden by the God of Abraham since the Holy clearly forbids taking oaths or swearing in anyone else's name:
“Therefore, be very strong to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of Moses, turning aside from it neither to the right hand nor to the left, that you may not mix with these nations remaining among you or make mention of the names of their gods or swear by them or serve them or bow down to them,” Joshua 23:7
“By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.” Isaiah 45:23
“‘If you will return, O
At the very least, Muhammad should have known this in light of his association and contact with both Jews and Christians.
Second, Muslims assert that Allah protected Muhammad from all idolatrous practices even before he allegedly became a prophet. If this were correct then wouldn’t Allah have protected his messenger from committing idolatry by swearing by someone’s father?
Third, Muhammad’s slip occurred after his alleged prophetic ministry began, during the time when Muslims believe that their prophet was receiving inspiration. Again, if this were actually the case wouldn’t Muhammad’s lord have gone out of his way to guard his prophet from committing such a sin after the “revelation” began to descend, during the time where Muhammad always supposedly spoke by revelation? Or does this mean that it was Allah who inspired Muhammad to make this idolatrous oath in the name of somebody’s father since the latter never spoke except by way of inspiration?
With that said it is rather obvious that this is another time where Muhammad failed to practice what he preached and was guilty of idolatry. So much for the claim that Muhammad came to restore pure monotheism.
Prostration and Worship in Islam
Zaatari again splits hairs by arguing that there are only two individuals in the Qur’an that receive prostration, namely, Adam and Joseph. He again denies (not surprisingly) that these are cases where creatures are being worshiped and challenges me to prove that the prostration shown to these two individuals are in fact acts of worship.
However, I don’t need to prove that these were blatant acts of worship since Zaatari does that for me in his very own article. Zaatari admits that all acts of worship belong to God alone,
Now what is Tawhid of Worship? Tawheed of Worship is to believe THAT ALL ACTS OF WORSHIP BELONG TO GOD ALONE, this goes from YOUR PRAYERS, your sacrificing, your vows, your hope, your fear, your trust, and so forth and so forth, all of this belongs to God.
And since the Qur’an connects bowing down or prostrating to Allah with service or worship:
Surely those who are with thy Lord wax not too proud to serve Him (‘ibadatihi); they chant His praise, and to Him they bow (yasjudoona). S. 7:206 Arberry
And of His signs are the night and the day, the sun and the moon. Bow not yourselves (la tasjudoo) to the sun and moon, but bow yourselves (wa-osjudoo) to God who created them, if Him you serve (ta-abudoona). S. 41:37
Rather prostrate yourselves (fa-osjudoo) before Allah and serve (wa-oabudoo) Him. S. 53:62 Pickthall
This means that the angels and Joseph’s family were guilty of worshiping the creation instead of the creator! As one Christian author put it in regards to the angels prostrating themselves to Adam:
“The story, as a whole, involves a difficult issue. Why did God order all His angels to fall prostrate before a being inferior to them in nature? The manner of prostration is reserved for the worship of God. It was not proper, therefore, to employ it in showing respect to creatures, including Adam. Realizing the problem involved in the use of the term 'Sajda' (prostration) in the passage under discussion, Jalal al-Din made the following observation:
The original word signifies properly, to prostrate one self till the forehead touches the ground, which is the humblest posture of adoration and strictly due to God only; but it is sometimes used to express civil worship or homage which may be paid to creatures. (W.T. Wherry, A Comprehensive Commentary on the Qur’an, Vol. I, p. 301 [read Wherry's note online; see comments on ])
“Despite Jalal al-Din's apology, strictly speaking, 'Sajda' (prostration) is due only to God. That is why the commentator did not support adequately the exception he has made to the rule, from the Koran. The 'Wahhabis,' who consider themselves strict Muslims and true Monotheists, forbid worship of any creature. God alone deserves to be worshipped, according to them. They would not allow 'Sajda' to a civil authority - the kind of prostration which is meant to be used in prayers to God… Moreover, it is true that strictly speaking prostration before any being other than God is a practice against monotheism and spirit of the Koran, as Wahhabis would say.” (Abdiyah Akbar Abdul Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim [Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN 1980], p. 78)
In fact, you will occasionally catch a Wahhabi Muslim slipping and forgetting that Allah, in the Qur’an, commanded his servants to bow and prostrate before other creatures. When this happens you will find that these Salafi anthropomorphists basically agree that, from a purely Islamic perspective, prostrating before a creature is nothing less than idolatry even if the intention is not to worship the person. Note, for instance, the candid admission of the following Salafi website:
Question: I would like to know what to do. Someone told me that when reciting dhuwa, that i have to prostrate seven times for the prophet, but i just don't know how, would you…Undoubtedly this action is a kind of worship, and the Prophet warned us against following the Jews and Christians in that. He said during his final illness: "May the curse of Allaah be upon the Jews and Christians, for they took the graves of their Prophets as places of worship." He was warning against doing what they did. (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, al-Salaah, 417)
…Prostration is one of the most exclusive acts of worship, TO BE DONE ONLY FOR ALLAAH. Allaah has commanded us to prostrate TO HIM ALONE AND NONE OTHER, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
"Prostrate yourselves not to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allaah Who created them, if you (really) worship Him" [Fussilat 41:37]
"So fall you down in prostration to Allaah and worship Him (Alone)" [al-Najm 53:62]
… As for what is mentioned in the question about prostrating for the Prophet, this is haraam (forbidden) and is major shirk, because prostration MAY ONLY BE DONE FOR ALLAAH. So the Muslim must learn about the matters of his religion from the Qur’aan and Sunnah and from trustworthy scholars; he should ask about everything that he does not understand, so that he will not fall into shirk, Allaah forbid…
Islam Q&A (www.islam-qa.com) (Question #13769: Prostrating to the Prophet constitutes disbelief in Allaah (kufr)
And: Question: Is it permisible [sic] to bow while greeting a respectable/elder person/parent Other than saying "As-salam Alaykum Wa-rahmatullahi Wa-barakatuh".
Answer: Praise be to Allaah. The usual greeting is "Assalaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmat-Allaahi wa barakaatuhu" (Peace be upon you, and the Mercy of Allaah and His Blessings), because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "greet one another with a greeting from Allaah (i.e. say: As-Salaamu ‘Alaykum — peace be on you), blessed and good" [al-Noor 24:61]
The ahaadeeth explain this greeting clearly. But bowing is not permitted, unless the person being greeted is old and is unable to stand up, or is one of your parents and you do not want to make him or her stand up to shake your hand or embrace you. So if you bow and kiss his head or forehead out of respect for the rights that he has over you, then this is not the kind of bowing that constitutes an act of worship. Undoubtedly bowing is an act of worship towards Allaah, as in rukoo’ (the bowing in prayer), so if that is done without shaking hands or kissing, it is an act of veneration towards that person and is therefore shirk.
Shaykh ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Jibreen. (www.islam-qa.com) (Question #10428: Bowing to anyone other than Allaah is haram)
Thus, when they are not careful even Wahhabis end up admitting that prostration to any one besides Allah is outright shirk no matter the intention!
Therefore, Allah is guilty for promoting shirk since he commanded his angels to prostrate before Adam, a mere creature, and for allowing Jacob and his family to bow before Joseph.
It is now time for Zaatari to shut down his website and leave the false religion of Islam, since this is what he said he would do if I proved to him that Adam and Joseph received worship by Allah’s express command and approval.
For more on this issue we recommend this rebuttal.
Allah’s names and Zaatari’s desperate defense
Zawadi then tries to tackle the mistake of the author(s) of the Qur’an in attributing Allah’s exclusive names to creatures such as the Potiphar and Moses. Zaatari argues that al-aziz is not a personal name but a title, which is nothing more than a straw man since we never claimed that this was a personal name. Zaatari is confused since he erroneously assumed that when we challenged Muslims to show us that al-aziz was Potiphar’s actual name we meant his personal name.
As if he couldn’t make it any more obvious that he is incapable of providing a meaningful response, Zaatari says that the Qur’an is simply quoting what the people said, not what Allah said about their names! We already refuted this in our initial discussion by saying that these individuals didn’t speak Arabic and so there was no need for Allah to ascribe his own titles and qualities to them in their definite forms in his Arabic Qur’an. Allah could have mentioned these names in Arabic without attaching the definite article to them, just like he did in the examples which we provided. Besides, Allah could have inspired Muhammad to transliterate the original titles into the Arabic language much like he did with other Biblical names and words such as Torah, Injil etc. If he had done this he would have avoided all of these gross problems. (This assumes that the Allah of Islam truly exists and that the Qur’an is a divine revelation, all of which we deny since the evidence conclusively proves that Muhammad’s deity is a false god and the Muslim scripture wasn’t revealed by the true God of Abraham).
So much for Zaatari’s defense of both his and Zawadi’s un-Islamic conception of monotheism, as well as his desperate attempt of justifying and explaining away his god’s direct violation of his own rules and commandments.
Lord Jesus willing, more rebuttals to Zaatari’s bluster and smokescreens will appear shortly.