Tuesday, 10 November 2009

Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism; Part II

Continues from Part I

Chapter 4: The Prohibition Of Withholding While Alive, Only To Squander Upon One’s Death

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)


. 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 authentic Ahadit 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 Arabia that during conversation some additional words or phrases without any particular intention were added. (English Translation of Sunan Ibn Majah - Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith No. 1783 to 2718, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA) [Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 3, pp. 553-554)

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 he built the Kaba along with his father Abraham and that both of them 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 Bible 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 Israel, return to me,’ declares the LORD. ‘If you put your detestable idols out of my sight and no longer go astray, and if in a truthful, just and righteous way you swear, “As surely as the LORD lives,” then the nations will be blessed by him and in him they will glory.’” Jeremiah 4:1-2; cf. 12:16

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 2:34])
“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 Qur’an. 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 Qur’an, 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:


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 haram (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))



Is it permisible [sic] to bow while greeting a respectable/elder person/parent Other than saying "As-salam Alaykum Wa-rahmatullahi Wa-barakatuh".


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.


The polemicist has produced a series of "replies" to my rebuttal of his failed defense of Zawadi's position. In one of the articles the propagandist claims that I argued that Allah has taken certain creatures such as Muhammad and the wombs as his equal partners by using the Arabic word wa since it is the conjunction of partnership and equality. I need to correct Zaatari at this point since I didn't come with the idea that wa is the conjunction used to denote equality and partnership, his own Muslim scholars did. I simply took that information and used it to prove that Allah violated his own instructions concerning
tauhid by taking coequal partners from among his creation.

The dawagandist then writes:

Where in the above does it say ANYTHING about equality?

Zaatari is either ignorant, and therefore is dealing with issues that are well beyond his ability to adequately comprehend and address, or he is simply being dishonest and deceptive. The latter seems to be more likely as we shall shortly see.

In the first place didn't Zaatari bother to read the following?

Al-Khattabi said, "The Prophet has guided you to correct behaviour in putting the will of Allah before the will of others. He chose ‘THEN’ (thumma) which implies sequence and deference as opposed to ‘AND’ (wa) WHICH IMPLIES PARTNERSHIP."

Something similar is mentioned in another hadith. Someone was speaking in the presence of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, "Whoever obeys Allah AND His Messenger has been rightly guided, and whoever rebels against them both (joining them together by using the dual form) …" The Prophet said to him, "What a bad speaker you are! Get up! [Or he said: Get out!]"

Abu Sulayman said, "He disliked the two names being joined together in that way BECAUSE IT IMPLIES EQUALITY." … (Qadi Iyad, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta'rif huquq al-Mustafa (Healing by the recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K., third reprint 1991, paperback], Part One. Allah’s great estimation of the worth of His Prophet expressed both in word and action, Chapter One: Allah’s praise of him and his great esteem for him, Section 1. Concerning praise of him and his numerous excellent qualities, pp. 7-8)

Notice that within the context partnership is defined as equality. Besides, what greater sin is there in Islam if not the sin of assigning partners with Allah, known as shirk?

Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin. S. 4:48 Hilali-Khan - cf. 116

It is obvious that Zaatari is splitting hairs since he knows he cannot deal with the issues and so seeks to divert attention away from my main argument.

Here is the reason why we say that Zaatari is being dishonest and deceptive. He claims that the quotation I provided from Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab wasn't dealing specifically with the conjunction wa but with the issue of of the will, i.e. it is wrong to say if Allah wills and if someone else such as Muhammad wills. Zaatari is obviously trying to pull a fast one over his readers since the point of the citation is not simply over the issue of the will but of conjoining Allah's will with another's by the use of the conjunction wa! That is why the same source advises Muslims to say if Allah wills, THEN if so-and-so wills, using the conjunction thumma instead. This shows that it is wrong to use wa in speaking of Allah and someone together since this implies that whoever is mentioned alongside Allah is Allah's partner and therefore a violation of tauhid.

To prove that this is the main concern of the quotation in question, namely to warn Muslims from employing the conjunction wa in joining Allah with anyone else, here is what some of the very chapters which I linked to state concerning the issue of setting up rivals or partners with Allah:

Important issues of the Chapter

1) The Jews were aware of the consequences of minor Shirk.
2) Man's understanding of the Shirk if he wishes to.
3) The statement of the Prophet "Have you made me an associate with Allah." How condemnable is the poet who said: "O noblest of the creatures, there is none for me but you to seek refuge in distress."
4) This is not the major Shirk as the Prophet said: "I was prevented from doing so for such and such ..." (CHAPTER No: 44. How it is to say "What Allah may will and you may will")

Notice that, despite Zaatari's spin and smokescreen, the Muslim translator of this particular English translation of Kitab al-Tawheed asserts that this specific chapter is not about the will but about shirk!


Allah the Almighty said:

"Do not set up rivals (Al-Andad) unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone has the right to be worshipped)." (2:22)

With reference to the above quoted verse, Ibn Abbas said:

"Al-Andad means Shirk. It is as inconspicuous as a black ant moving (crawling) on a black stone in the darkness of night. It is to swear: 'by Allah AND by your life' and 'by my life'. It is also to say: 'Had there not been this little dog or the duck in the house, the thief would have entered.' Or, like the statement of a man to his companion: 'By Allah's
AND yours will,..' or 'Had it not been Allah AND so-and-so', etc. Do not mention anybody with Allah because all of it is Shirk." [It has been reported by Ibn Abi Hatim] ...

"Do not say 'With the will of Allah
AND with the will of that person' but rather say 'With the will of Allah and then with the will of that person.' " [Abu Dawud reported this Hadith with a Sahih chain]

It is related about Ibrahim Nakhyee that he detested to say: "I seek refuge in Allah
AND in you," but it is permitted to say: "I seek Allah's refuge first and then yours." He said, "Say 'If not Allah and then so-and-so' and do not say 'If not Allah AND so-and-so'"

Important issues of the Chapter ...

5) The difference between the conjunctions
'wa' (and) and 'thumma' (then). (CHAPTER No: 42. ("Do not set up rivals unto Allah..."))

Thus, my argument still stands that Allah has made Muhammad his coequal partner by joining their names together through the use of the conjunction
wa which even Muslim scholars admit is used in relation to partnership and equality.

In another
"reply" Zaatari quotes Ibn Kathir to show that the angels and Joseph's family were not worshiping the creation by bowing to Adam and Joseph respectively since Allah supposedly permitted people to bow down to men of authority from the time of Adam till the advent of Christ until Islam came to prohibit it. Ibn Kathir then claims that:

Islam made prostration exclusively for Allah Alone, the Exalted and Most Honored. The implication of this statement was collected from Qatadah and other scholars.

Zaatari also cites the response of www.islamqa.com to try to refute me without realizing how the site's answer actually proves my point. This Salafi website claims that prostration is of two types, the first being an act performed for the purpose of worship with the other being a kind of greeting and honor. However, Zaatari conveniently failed to understand the implication of the following assertion made by his very own source:

The prostration of Yoosuf's parents and brothers was also a prostration of greeting and honouring, which was permissible according to the law (of Allaah) at that time [sic]. But according to the sharee'ah brought by the Seal of the Prophets, Muhammad, it is not permissible to prostrate to anyone at all except Allaah. Hence the Prophet said: "If I were to have commanded anyone to prostrate to anyone else, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands." The Prophet forbade Mu'aadh to prostrate to him when he (Mu'aadh) said that the People of the Book prostrated to the great ones among them, and he mentioned the hadeeth quoted above. The prohibition in this sharee'ah against prostrating to anyone at all except Allaah is an aspect of its perfection in achieving true Tawheed. It is the perfect sharee'ah whose perfection is manifested in all its rulings...

The questions that Zaatari should have asked himself are the following: If prostration was allowed for the purpose of showing honor and greeting then why did Muhammad prohibit it? And if Islam forbids Muslims from prostrating to anyone other than Allah because it violates tauhid al-ibaadah, i.e. his worship, then why was it allowed in the first place? How could it not be a violation of Allah's worship back then if it violates it now? And if prohibiting Muslims to prostrate before others is an aspect of perfection in achieving true tauhid does this imply that Allah's worship was imperfect at the beginning? Are we to really believe that Allah allowed his prophets and true followers to worship him imperfectly, preventing them from attaining perfection in their worship or tauhid? Does Zaatari seriously want us to believe that his deity actually put up with people honoring him in an imperfect manner? Does that even make sense?

Moreover, how many times do we hear dawagandists like Zaatari claim that the prophets before Muhammad were Muslims and believed in tauhid? If so then why did Allah permit them to violate a crucial aspect of tauhid by allowing them to prostrate to creatures? If as propagandists like Sami keep telling us that the angels and Joseph's family were not worshiping the creation but simply showing honor and respect to great prophets of Allah then why should such honor and respect be prohibited? And seeing that Islam strictly prohibits prostrating to anyone besides Allah irrespective of one's intentions doesn't this refute the oft-repeated assertion that the angels and Joseph's family were simply showing honor? Doesn't this actually prove that their actions were in direct violation of the worship which is supposed to be shown only to Allah? Of course it does and no amount of spinning and mental gymnastics on Zaatari's part will change this fact.

Zaatari has to face reality and admit that the Qur’an contradicts itself, or at least is contradicting what Muslims like Sami have been taught concerning the worship of Allah. He should be honest enough and be a man of his word and close down his site just like he said he would do if shown that the Qur’an permitted the worship of Adam and Joseph. Yet seeing that he follows a god who permits Muslims to lie and break their oaths (*; *; *; *; *; *; *) we are not surprised that Zaatari refuses to keep his word. By trying to make excuses to avoid of having to keep his promise Zaatari is simply being a good Muslim and is faithfully carrying out the example of his own false prophet.

Lord Jesus willing, my thorough refutation of the other part of Zaatari's "response" shall appear soon. And seeing that Zaatari has posted another of Jalal Abualrub's failed attempt of addressing the issue of his false prophet's cross-dressing expect my replies to that as well.

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/tauhid2.html#c2370


No comments:

Post a Comment