Prophetic Traits of Apostel of Allah

HE WAS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LOVER:

Our prophet had eleven wives (including permanent sex slaves Rehana and Maria Quptia). he was so fair in love making that whenever he had an urge to have sex with one of his lovely teenage wives and made love to her , he considered it his moral obligation to have sex with all of them including those for whom he had zero attraction (like fat fifty something Sauda) , the same day (or night). It did not matter if it took him a whole day or night to accomplish that duty. ( due to his old age it took him longer to recuperate after each encounter)

Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268: “The Prophet used to visit (have sex) with all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.

Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 6: The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night

Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 270: Aisha said, “I scented Allah’s Apostle and he went round (had sexual intercourse with) all his wives.”

HE WAS A PRACTICAL ADVISOR
Abu Hudaifa was an aging arab who had a teenage slave boy (Salim) . and a beautiful young wife . He always harassed his wife if she and the the slave boy did hanky panky behind his back. Finally she got sick and tired of his accusations and went to the prophet to get his prophetic advise. He told her to suckle Salim her breasts so that by sharia he becomes her son making sex between the two haram. She came and told Hudaifa about this. He liked the idea and made Salim suck his wives breasts. After that his mind was put at ease and he could go out of town for days without worrying about them making out. Salim had now become a bonafide son of Hudaifa’s wife and could suckle on his young mom’s bossoms whenever he felt like it. That year Hudaifa’s wife gave birth to a baby boy . Hudaifa’s friends told him that his little son looked very much like his older brother Salim.

Bukhari, Book 008, Number 3425: ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hadhaifa, lived with him and his family in their house. Hudaifas’s wife came to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Salim has attained (purbety) as men attain and he understands what they understand, and he enters our house freely, I, however, perceive that Hudaifa is getting suspicious of Salim and me.Wereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said to her: Suckle him and you would become unlawful for him, and (the rankling) which Abu Hudhaifa feels in his heart will disappear. She returned and said: So I suckled him, and what (was there) in the heart of Abu Hudhaifa disappeared.

HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY TO MEET HIS WIVE’S BIOLOGICAL NEEDS

During a woman’s periods , Islam considers a woman dirty and sick. She is not allowed to touch Quran, observe fast, offer obligatory pray, or even enter a mosque. Her husband is not allowed to make love to her or even touch her during her menses. However Prophet realized that the sexual urge to have sex in a woman is at it’s peak during her periods and he wanted to help them out. He therefore went out of his way and gave those dirty menstruating women sexual gratification and fulfillment by fonding them, instead of going and and having fun with those who were clean . However he made sure that when fondling them intimately he made them cover their private parts with their izars (underclothing) to avoid touching their skins not to violate sharia requirements.

Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 6, Number 299: Narrated ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Aswad: (on the authority of his father) ‘Aisha said: “Whenever Allah’s Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her.” ‘Aisha added, “None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could.”

Bukhar, iVolume 1, Book 6, Number 300:Narrated Maimuna:When ever Allah’s Apostle wanted to fondle any of his wives during the periods (menses), he used to ask her to wear an Izar.

HE HAD TIMELY COMMUNICATIONS WITH ALLAH

Quran 33.26,27: “Many ye slew, and many ye made prisoners”

During beheadings of Quraiza jews a big problem came. All males above the age of 13 were announced to be beheaded. To avoid beheadings many older males were lying about their ages and were claiming to be 11or 12 when they were actually much older . The problem was brought to our prophet who was supervising the Quraiza Massacre . He asked Allah to send him a wahi (revelation) regarding this problem . A wahi then promptly arrived that any boy who had pubic hair was to be beheaded; one who had none was to be spared.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4390: Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:“I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.”

Some boys just 7 or 8 who had pubics were beheaded and some others who looked like 17 or 18 but had sneakily clean shaved their pubics were spared. The divine law had to be followed. to the letter .

HE WAS A MERCIFUL AND JUST

During the Khaibar Jihad, Prophet let Dihya choose a sex slave of his own choice from a group of enslaved women. He chose 17 year old gorgeous Safia and took her away to a lonely spot to enjoy her …Some jihadis saw him making out with her behind a bush . They were so impressed by her beauty and sexy figure that they went to the prophet and described her to him. Prophet was aroused by the description and immediately canceled Dihya’s booty and ordered Safia to be brought back.

Sahih Muslim 8:3329: Anas, (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Safiyah (Allah be pleased with her) fell to the lot of Dihya in the spoils of war, and they praised her in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: We have not seen the like of her among the captives of war.

Dihya was rudely interrupted in his love making and Safia was brought back with Dihya in tow. He told Dihya to choose another slave girl in exchange of Safia. Dihya, who was already furious refused to part with Safia , cried foul and and protested loudly. Any other Chief would have been pissed off and punished him severely for insubordination. But our prophet came as a mercy for all. He instead treated him with kindness and haggled with him. Dihya demanded seven women including two younger cousins of Safia in exchange for Safia. Prophet most graciously accepted his unreasonable demand and gave him what he wanted. Safia had a very traumatic day.. Her brothers and father were killed and her husband was tortured and beheaded in front of her. On top of that Dihya had publicly disrobed her and was trying to make out behind a bush . Prohet covered her with his own robe , took her inside his tent and made love to her tenderly to relax and sooth her. Next day he further honored her by covering her in a burqa and making her a part of his harem..Hadiths say that Safia loved prophet dearly for his kinness and affection…

Sahih Muslim 8-3328: There fell to the lot of Dihya a beautiful girl, and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) got her in exchange of seven heads.

HE WON FREEDOM OF SLAVES

In the Mustaleq raid pretty teenager Juavaria whose husband (Mustaleq Chief) was killed in the attack, fell to the lot of a jihadi Thabit Ibn Qais a gay jihadi who was more interested in making money than making love. He said he could free her for seven oaks of gold, an outrageus amount which no one could pay..

Our Prophet’s generosity had no bounds when buying freedom of an unfortunate young widow whose husband was killed in front of her…. He not only paid her outrageous price to the greedy jihadi to win r her freedom but he gave the teenage widow a warm place to sleep next to him in his arms and made love to her all night..

Source: http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/satire/prophetic-traits-of-apostle-of-allah/

IHS

To the Believers Is He Most Kind and Merciful

A Case Study in Shirk

By Anthony Rogers

The words “kind(ness)” (raoofun) and “merciful” (raheemum) are used for Allah in the Qur’an. Examples of this include the following verses:

“… Allah is full of kindness (raoofun) to (His) devotees.” (Surah 2:207)
“… And Allah is full of kindness (raoofun) to those that serve Him.” (Surah 3:30)
“… For my Lord is indeed full of mercy (raheemun)…” (Surah 11:90)
“… For Allah is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful (raheemun).” (Surah 49:12)

In fact, the word raoofun, which is used eleven times in the Qur’an, is only used for Allah. The same is true for the word raheemun, which appears fifty-nine times.

Most significantly for the sake of the present study, when these two adjectives, raoofun and raheemun, are paired together, they are only used for Allah, as in the following passages:

“… For Allah is to all people most surely full of kindness, Most Merciful (laraoofun raheemun).” 2:143

“… but He [Allah] turned to them (also): for He is unto them Most Kind, Most Merciful (raoofun raheemun).” 9:117

“… for our Lord is indeed Most Kind, Most Merciful (laraoofun raheemun).” 16:7

“… For thy Lord is indeed full of kindness and mercy (laraoofun raheemun).” 16:47

“… For Allah is Most Kind and Most Merciful (laraoofun raheemun) to man.” 22:65

“Were it not for the grace and mercy of Allah on you, and that Allah is full of kindness and mercy (raoofun raheemun), (ye would be ruined indeed).” 24:20

“… And verily, Allah is to you Most Kind and Merciful (raoofun raheemun).” 57:9

“… Our Lord! Thou art indeed Full of Kindness, Most Merciful (raoofun raheemun).” 59:10

The sole exception to the above appears in Surah 9:128, which reads:

“… to the believers is he most kind and merciful (raoofun raheemun).”

In light of what has been said above, there is little doubt that anyone who only read these words from Surah 9:128 would think they are being used for Allah just as they are everywhere else. However, in context this is actually being said about Muhammad:

“Now hath come unto you a Messenger from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye should perish; ardently anxious is he over you: to the believers is he most kind and merciful.”

Muslim authorities are even in agreement that this is spoken about Muhammad, which can be seen from the fact that Yusuf Ali and other translators do not capitalize these words in Surah 9:128 as they usually do when used for Allah (even though they are not distinguished by this method in the Arabic text, which employs no such convention to indicate when words are being used for Allah or for another besides him).

In fact, if it wasn’t already clear from the syntax that this is referring to Muhammad, it is made all the more explicit in the Hilali-Khan version:

“Verily, there has come unto you a Messenger (Muhammad SAW) from amongst yourselves (i.e. whom you know well). It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty. He (Muhammad SAW) is anxious over you (to be rightly guided, to repent to Allah, and beg Him to pardon and forgive your sins, in order that you may enter Paradise and be saved from the punishment of the Hell-fire), for the believers (he SAW is) full of pity, kind, and merciful.”

The following hadith also reports a tradition that Muhammad was given these two names (among others):

Jubair b. Mut'im reported on the authority of his father that he heard Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I have many names: I am Muhammad, I am Ahmad, I am al-Mahi through whom Allah obliterates unbelief, and I am Hashir (the gatherer) at whose feet people will be gathered, and I am 'Aqib (after whom there would be none),and Allah has named him as compassionate and merciful. (Sahih Muslim, Book 30, #5811) (emphasis mine)

Whereas the Qur’an is otherwise careful to never speak of others in the same way it does about Allah, Most Kind and Merciful, it has a falling out with itself in Surah 9:128 when it says the same thing about Muhammad, calling him, and only him in addition to Allah, “Most Kind and Merciful”.

In fact, to reiterate the point from another angle, that which was pointed out above from a systematic standpoint – i.e., approaching the Qur’an as a completed whole, observing that everywhere besides Surah 9:128 these adjectives or divine attributes are always and only predicated of Allah – may be made with equal if not greater force by looking at it from the standpoint of the chronological development of the Qur’an.

By all accounts, Muslim or Western, Surah 9 was either the last or at least one of the last Surah’s of the Qur’an to be revealed. According to the classification scheme that traces back to Ibn Abbas by way of Ata as well as the scheme held by Sir William Muir, Surah 9 was the last Surah of the Qur’an to be revealed. Similarly, in the official Egyptian edition of the Qur’an as well as in the scheme advocated by Nöldeke-Schwally, Surah 9 was the second to last Surah to be “revealed”. All other classification schemes also place Surah 9 either last or late. Moreover, various hadith also attest that the last two verses of Surah 9 were both the last verses to be revealed and also the last to be collected into the Qur’an:

On the authority of Ubayy ibn Ka`ab, they were collecting the Qur'an from the volume of Ubayy. Men were writing, while Ubayy ibn Ka`ab was dictating to them. When they reached the end of the verse in surat Bara'a {S. 9 V. 127}: Thus, God has diverted their hearts, for they are people who do not comprehend, they asserted that this verse was the last of what God, the Exalted, revealed of the Qur'an. Then, Ubayy said, "God's messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, had me recite two verses after this: Indeed, a messenger has come to you from among yourselves. Your suffering is hard on him. He is anxious over you, compassionate and merciful to the believers...", to the end of the sura. He said, "So this is the last of what was revealed of the Qur'an." (Ibn Abu Dawud, 2.30)

So, `Uthman ibn `Affan stood up and said, 'Whoever has something from the Book of God, let him bring it to us.' And nothing would be accepted until two witnesses testified to it. Then, Khuzaima ibn Thabit came and said, "I see that you left out two verse that you did not write." They said, "What are they?" He said, "I learned from God's messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, {S. 9 V. 128}: Indeed, a messenger has come to you from among yourselves. Your suffering is hard on him. He is anxious over you, compassionate and merciful to the believers...," to the end of the sura. `Uthman said, "I bear witness that they are from God. So, where do you think you should put them?" He said, "Conclude the last of what was revealed of the Qur'an with them." So Bara'a was concluded with them. (Abu Dawud, 2.31)

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people! of Yamama had been killed (i.e., a number of the Prophet's Companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found 'Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said (to me), "Umar has come to me and said: "Casualties were heavy among the Qurra' of the! Qur'an (i.e. those who knew the Quran by heart) on the day of the Battle of Yalmama, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra' on other battlefields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest, you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected." I said to 'Umar, "How can you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" 'Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project. "Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest for it and I began to realize the good in the idea which 'Umar had realized." Then Abu Bakr said (to me). 'You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle. So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it in one book." By Allah If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?" Abu Bakr replied, "By Allah, it is a good project." Abu Bakr kept on urging me to accept his idea until Allah opened my chest for what He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palmed stalks, thin white stones and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. The Verse is:

'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty...(till the end of Surat-Baraa' (At-Tauba) (9.128-129) Then the complete manuscripts (copy) of the Qur'an remained with Abu Bakr till he died, then with 'Umar till the end of his life, and then with Hafsa, the daughter of 'Umar. (Bukhari, 6.61.509)

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr sent for me and said, "You used to write the Divine Revelations for Allah's Apostle : So you should search for (the Qur'an and collect) it." I started searching for the Qur'an till I found the last two Verses of

Surat At-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and I could not find these Verses with anybody other than him. (They were):

'Verily there has come unto you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves. It grieves him that you should receive any injury or difficulty ...' (9.128-129) (Bukhari, 6.61.511)

Narated By Zaid bin Thabit : Abu Bakr sent for me, so I collected the Qur'an till I found the last part of Surat-at-Tauba with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari and did not find it with anybody else. (The Verses are): 'Verily, there has come to you an Apostle (Muhammad) from amongst yourselves... (till the end of Surat Bara'a) (i.e., At-Tauba).' (9.128-129) (Bukhari, 9.93.521)

This means that Muslims up to the time that Surah 9 was revealed, particularly its last two verses, had repeatedly heard with their ears and recited with their mouths one Surah after another declaring that Allah is raoofun raheemun – Most Kind, Most Merciful. And even if the early Muslims did not self-consciously reflect upon it they most certainly would have been conditioned by all of this to think that these are divine attributes that belong to Allah. It was only after constantly making the association of these attributes with Allah that Surah 9:128 came along and declared that Muhammad in addition to Allah possesses these divine attributes (and that just shortly after saying the same thing about Allah in this very Surah – 9:117). The conclusion that Muhammad is here being given divine names or attributes would have been unavoidable.

In light of all this there can be little wonder why the Muslim translator of the Qur’an Rashad Khalifa considered this verse to be a Satanic addition or interpolation into the Qur’an. This is not only reflected in his version which completely removes this verse (along with the verse that follows), but in the footnote appended to the Surah which explains why the Bismillah in Surah 9 is absent from every version of the Qur’an, and why the two verses at the end of Surah 9 are included in all versions of the Qur’an except for his own:

“… This is the only sura that is not prefixed with the Basmalah. This phenomenon has puzzled the students of the Quran for 14 centuries, and many theories were advanced to explain it. Now we realize that the conspicuous absence of the Basmalah serves three purposes: (1) It represents an advance divine proclamation that the idol worshipers were destined to tamper with the Quran by adding 2 false verses (9:128-129). (2) It demonstrates one of the functions of God's mathematical code in the Quran, namely, to guard the Quran against any alteration. (3) It provides additional miraculous features of the Quran's code.” (Online source; emphasis mine)

Khalifah elaborates on this point somewhat in an appendix (#24) to his translation, where he says:

“Nineteen years after the Prophet Muhammad's death, during the reign of Khalifa `Uthman, a committee of scribes was appointed to make several copies of the Quran to be dispatched to the new Muslim lands. The copies were to be made from the original Quran which was written by Muhammad's hand...

This committee was supervised by `Uthman Ibn `Affaan, `Ali Ibn Abi Taaleb, Zeid Ibn Thaabet, Ubayy Ibn Ka`ab, `Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubair, Sa`eed Ibn Al-`Aas, and `Abdul Rahman Ibn Al-Haareth Ibn Heshaam. The Prophet, of course, had written the Quran in its chronological order of revelation…, together with the necessary instructions to place every piece in its proper position. The last sura revealed in Medina was Sura 9. Only Sura 110, a very short sura, was revealed after Sura 9, in Mina.

The committee of scribes finally came to Sura 9, and put it in its proper place. One of the scribes suggested adding a couple of verses to honor the Prophet. The majority of scribes agreed. `Ali was outraged. He vehemently maintained that the word of God, written down by the hand of His final prophet, must never be altered.

Ali's protest is documented in many references, but I cite and reproduce here the classic reference AL ITQAAN FEE 'ULUM AL QURAN by Jalaluddin Al-Suyuty, Al-Azhareyyah Press, Cairo, Egypt, 1318 AH, Page 59 [see Insert 1].

Khalifah elaborates on this point somewhat in an appendix (#24) to his translation, where he says:

“Nineteen years after the Prophet Muhammad's death, during the reign of Khalifa `Uthman, a committee of scribes was appointed to make several copies of the Quran to be dispatched to the new Muslim lands. The copies were to be made from the original Quran which was written by Muhammad's hand...

This committee was supervised by `Uthman Ibn `Affaan, `Ali Ibn Abi Taaleb, Zeid Ibn Thaabet, Ubayy Ibn Ka`ab, `Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubair, Sa`eed Ibn Al-`Aas, and `Abdul Rahman Ibn Al-Haareth Ibn Heshaam. The Prophet, of course, had written the Quran in its chronological order of revelation…, together with the necessary instructions to place every piece in its proper position. The last sura revealed in Medina was Sura 9. Only Sura 110, a very short sura, was revealed after Sura 9, in Mina.

The committee of scribes finally came to Sura 9, and put it in its proper place. One of the scribes suggested adding a couple of verses to honor the Prophet. The majority of scribes agreed. `Ali was outraged. He vehemently maintained that the word of God, written down by the hand of His final prophet, must never be altered.

Ali's protest is documented in many references, but I cite and reproduce here the classic reference AL ITQAAN FEE 'ULUM AL QURAN by Jalaluddin Al-Suyuty, Al-Azhareyyah Press, Cairo, Egypt, 1318 AH, Page 59 [see Insert 1].

Translation: `Ali was asked: "Why are you staying home?" He said, "Something has been added to the Quran, and I have pledged never to put on my street clothes, except for the prayer, until the Quran is restored." [ Insert 1 ]

The horrendous dimensions of this crime can be realized once we look at the consequences:
 
 (1) `Uthman was assassinated, and `Ali was installed as the fourth Khalifa.

(2) A 50-year war erupted between the new Khalifa and his supporters on one side, and the Mohammedan distorters of the Quran on the other side.
 
 (3) `Ali was martyred, and eventually his family, the prophet Muhammad's family, except for some women and children, were killed.
 
 (4) The disaster culminated in the infamous Battle of Karbala, where `Ali's son, Hussein, and his family were massacred.
 
 (5) The Muslims were deprived of the pure, unaltered, Quran for 1400 years.

The distorters of the Quran finally won the war, and the "official" history that came to us represented the victors' point of view. This apparent victory for God's enemies was, of course, in accordance with God's will. In just two decades after the Prophet's death, the idol worshipers who were defeated by the Prophet in the conquest of Mecca (632 AD) reverted to idolatry. Ironically, this time around their idol was the Prophet himself. Such idol worshipers obviously did not deserve to possess the pure Quran. Hence the blessed martyrdom of the true believers who tried to restore the Quran, and the apparent victory for the distorters of God's word.” (Online source; emphasis mine)

For the point being made here it doesn’t matter if orthodox Muslims believe that Khalifah was wrong about these verses being added to Surah 9. The point is that Khalifah recognized and was (appropriately) repulsed by the obvious example of shirk contained in them – as all Muslims should be.

Some Muslims may try to get around this problem by pointing out that the definite forms of these names are not used for Muhammad. While it is certainly true that shirk is immediately obvious and recognizable when the definite forms of attributive words for Allah are being used for creatures, something the Qur’an also does in various places, the fact is that since the specific phrase in question, raoofun raheemun, is established by Quranic usage to be specifically for Allah, it also constitutes shirk to associate anyone with Allah in this way. In addition to this, since the Qur'an never pairs these words together in their definite forms when speaking of Allah, it is hardly any objection to say that it does not speak of Muhammad after this fashion. The one and only way the words raoofun and raheemun are used together where they uniformly refer to Allah is the very way they are used in Surah 9:128 for Muhammad.

Muslims may also try to turn this on its head and say that this verse, Surah 9:128, proves that others besides Allah may appropriately be called “Most Kind, Most Merciful”, and that because of this it is not shirk to call Muhammad “Most Kind, Most Merciful”, but the fact is the Qur’an nowhere refers to others in this way and Muhammad alone is singled out and ascribed these divine attributes. It is logically fallacious to reason from the fact that Muhammad is called “Most Kind, Most Merciful” to the fact that others may be so called in order then to go back and say, “It is not shirk to call Muhammad ‘Most Kind, Most Merciful’ because others may also be called ‘Most Kind, Most Merciful’”.

Furthermore, any attempt to circumvent this by saying it is not shirk because Allah himself is calling Muhammad after his own names, would simply beg the question. If Allah condemns and abominates shirk, part and parcel of which means not associating anyone or anything with Allah in his divinity, such as by ascribing to someone else attributes and titles that belong to Allah alone, then why does Allah say of Muhammad in the Qur’an that which is otherwise only said about himself? Why is shirk not shirk when it is committed by Allah? In addition, if shirk is a valid criterion for determining if something is the truth from God, then the fact that Allah in the Qur’an supposedly endorses what can honestly only be called shirk is proof positive that the Allah of the Qur’an is not the true God and that the Qur’an is not the Word of God.

When Muslims accuse Christians of being guilty of shirk for their belief that Jesus is God, they do so because they believe Christians are guilty of worshipping a creature alongside of God, i.e. that Christians are guilty of ascribing to a creature the nature, names, attributes, prerogatives, honors and works that belong exclusively to deity. Ironically, since Christians do not believe they are applying such titles to a mere creature when they, following the Scriptures, apply such things to the Lord Jesus Christ, whom they believe to be the divine Word of God who became flesh (not a human being who became a god), it is actually Muslims who are guilty of this very thing. In calling Muhammad, whom the Qur’an elsewhere declares to be merely and only a man, by divine titles that are otherwise only used of Allah, i.e. titles that are used exclusively for him in derogation of all others, they are in fact guilty of deifying Muhammad, a creature.

As much as contemporary Muslims, contrary to Muslims of the past, may dislike the apostle Paul, his description of the difference between the clearly revealed truth about God that all nature testifies to on every side and all false religion that is rooted in sin-clouded speculation (or even demonic deception), strikingly applies not only to paganism in general but to Islam in particular: for those who adhere to the teachings of the Qur'an have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised. Amen.” (Romans 1:25)

This means the Qur’an is false not only when judged by the Bible but even when judged by its own criteria. In other words, according to the Bible and the Qur’an, Islam is a religion of shirk.

Further Reading: The Deification of Muhammad

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/rogers/most_kind.html

IHS

How many lords do Muslims really have?

More examples of the Quran violating Islamic Tauhid

Sam Shamoun        

According to the Quran, all Muslims (in fact, all creatures) are the slaves of Allah, a point that it repeatedly makes:

Say (O Muhammad) to 'Ibadi (My slaves) who have believed, that they should perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend in charity out of the sustenance We have given them, secretly and openly, before the coming of a Day on which there will be neither mutual bargaining nor befriending. S. 14:31 Hilali-Khan

Say to My servants that they should (only) say those things that are best: for Satan doth sow dissensions among them: For Satan is to man an avowed enemy. S. 17:53 Y. Ali

Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): My servants the righteous, shall inherit the earth. S. 21:105 Y. Ali

They worked for him what he desired, (making) high rooms, images, basins as large as reservoirs, and (cooking) cauldrons fixed (in their places). "Work you, O family of Dawud (David), with thanks!" But few of My slaves are grateful. S. 34:13 Hilali-Khan

They shall have coverings of Fire, above them and covering (of Fire) beneath them; with this Allah does frighten His slaves: "O My slaves, therefore fear Me!" Those who avoid At-Taghut (false deities) by not worshipping them and turn to Allah in repentance, for them are glad tidings; so announce the good news to My slaves,” S. 39:16-17 Hilali-Khan

'O My servants, today no fear is on you, neither do you sorrow' -- S. 43:68 Arberry

The Quran even says that this is the highest relation any one can have with Allah:

And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or offspring or children) [as the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that He has begotten a son ['Iesa (Christ)], and the pagan Arabs say that He has begotten daughters (angels, etc.)]." Indeed you have brought forth (said) a terrible evil thing. Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins, That they ascribe a son (or offspring or children) to the Most Beneficent (Allah). But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent (Allah) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children). There is none in the heavens and the earth but comes unto the Most Beneficent (Allah) as a slave. S. 19:88-93 Hilali-Khan

And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or children)." Glory to Him! They [those whom they call children of Allah i.e. the angels, 'Iesa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), 'Uzair (Ezra), etc.], are but honoured slaves. S. 21:26 Hilali-Khan

The reason why believers are said to be Allah’s slaves is because he is their lord, in fact the only lord there is. In other words, to be a slave of Allah basically means that Allah is a person’s lord, just as the following texts indicate:

How many generations We have destroyed after Noah! Thy Lord suffices as one who is aware of and sees the sins of His servants. S. 17:17 Arberry

There is a party of My servants who said, "Our Lord, we believe; therefore forgive us, and have mercy on us, for Thou art the best of the merciful." S. 23:109 Arberry

If you are unthankful, God is independent of you, yet He approves not unthankfulness in His servants; but if you are thankful, He will approve it in you. And no soul laden bears the load of another. Then to your Lord shall you return, and He will tell you what you have been doing. He knows the thoughts within the breasts. S. 39:7 Arberry – cf. 17:30, 65; 41:46

The Quran also claims that Allah has not permitted a believer to take or call someone other than Allah his/her lord, nor has he allowed them to be the slaves of someone other Allah:

It is not (possible) for any human being unto whom Allah had given the Scripture and wisdom and the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah (‘ibadan lee min dooni Allah); but (what he said was): Be ye faithful servants of the Lord by virtue of your constant teaching of the Scripture and of your constant study thereof. And he commanded you not that ye should take the angels and the prophets for lords. Would he command you to disbelieve after ye had surrendered (to Allah)? S. 3:79-80 Pickthall

As such, if a person is a true believer then s/he cannot be someone else’s slave or own a slave since this would basically entail taking someone other than Allah as one’s lord.

In fact, this is precisely the very reason why Muhammad spoke out against calling a person his/her slave (abd) or lord (rabb):

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "You should not say, ‘Feed your lord (Rabbaka), help your lord in performing ablution, or give water to your lord’, but should say, ‘my master (e.g. Feed your master instead of lord etc.), (Saiyidi),’ or ‘my guardian (Maulai),’ and one should not say, 'my slave (Abdi),’ or ‘my girl-slave (Amati),’ but should say, 'my lad (Fatai), my lass (Fatati),’ and ‘my boy (Ghulami).’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 728)

Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet said: None of you must say: "My slave" (abdi) and "My slave-woman" (amati), and a slave must not say: "My lord" (rabbi or rabbati). The master (of a slave) should say: "My young man" (fataya) and "My young woman" (fatati), and a slave should say "My master" (sayyidi) and "My mistress" (sayyidati), for you are all (Allah’s) slaves and the Lord is Allah, Most High. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4957)

This also accounts for why Muslims are forbidden from adopting names which signify that they are slaves to someone other than Allah, e.g. a Muslim can never call himself “the slave of Muhammad,” “slave of the prophet/messenger,” etc.,

5. Maintaining the unity of Allaah’s names also means that Allaah’s names in the definite form cannot be given to His creation unless preceded by the prefix meaning ‘Abd "slave of" or "servant of". Many of the Divine names in their indefinite form like Ra’oof and Raheem are allowable names for men because Allaah has used some of them in their indefinite forms to refer to the Prophet …

"A messenger has come to you from among yourselves to whom anything which burdens you is grievous. He is full of concern for you and is full of pity (Ra’oof) and full of mercy (Raheem)."

But ar-Ra’oof (the One Most Full of Pity) and ar-Raheem (the Most Merciful) can only be used to refer to men if they are preceded by’Abd as in ‘Abdur-Ra’oof or ‘Abdur-Raheem, since the definite form they represent a level of perfection which only belongs to God. Similarly, names like ‘Abdur-Rasool (slave of the messenger), ‘Abdun-Nabee (slave of the Prophet), ‘Abdul-Husayn (slave of Husayn), etc., where people name themselves slaves to other than Allaah are also forbidden. Based on this principle, the Prophet forbade Muslims from referring to those put under their charge as ‘Abdee (my slave) or Amatee (my slave girl). (Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, The Fundamentals of Tawheed (Islamic Monotheism) [Islamic Book Service, New Delhi, India, Reprint Edition: 2004], 1. Chapter on the Categories of Tawheed, pp. 14-15: see pp. 31-32 of the following online version of Philip’s book)

Moreover, since Allah is the only true lord all his servants/slaves are required to serve him alone:

And serve Allah and do not associate any thing with Him and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbor of (your) kin and the alien neighbor, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess; surely Allah does not love him who is proud, boastful; S. 4:36 Shakir
 
 (Saying): Serve (ta‘buduu) none but Allah. Lo! I am unto you from Him a warner and a bringer of good tidings. S. 11:2 Pickthall

That ye serve (ta‘buduu) none, save Allah. Lo! I fear for you the retribution of a painful Day. S. 11:26 Pickthall

Thy Lord has decreed you shall not serve (ta‘buduu) any but Him, and to be good to parents, whether one or both of them attains old age with thee; say not to them 'Fie' neither chide them, but speak unto them words respectful, S. 17:23 Arberry

O My servants who believe! surely My earth is vast, therefore Me alone should you serve (fa'budun). S. 29:56 Shakir

Say: What! Do you then bid me serve (a‘budu) others than Allah, O ignorant men? … Nay! but serve (fa‘bud) Allah alone and be of the thankful. S. 39:64, 66 Shakir

And when Abraham said to his father and his people, 'Surely I am quit of that you serve (ta’budoona), except Him who originated me; and He will guide me.’ S. 43:26-27

And I have not created the jinn and the men except that they should serve Me (liya‘budun). S. 51:56 Shakir

One of the acts of service that Muslims are required to give to Allah in recognition that he is their only lord and that they are his slaves is prostration:

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,  f Him you serve (ta-abudoona). S. 41:37 Arberry

Rather prostrate yourselves (fa-osjudoo) before Allah and serve (wa-oabudoo). S. 53:62 Pickthall

This is where the problem begins for both the Quran and the Muslims.

Muhammad and his slaves

In light of the above data we would expect that Muhammad would surely have been the first to free his slaves, and all the slaves in the area which were ruled by him. But, on the contrary he kept slaves, and made slaves, and sold people into slavery, etc. In fact, Not only did Muhammad not abolish slavery, Islam incorporates so many laws for the system of slavery, that it is an integral part of sharia and jihad (1, 2, 3, 4).

But be that as it may, there is another element which flies in the face of what has been outlined above.

There are two passages in the Quran where Muhammad is commanded to address Muslims as his own slaves!

Say: O my servants who believe! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord; for those who do good in this world is good, and Allah's earth is spacious; only the patient will be paid back their reward in full without measure. Say: I am commanded that I should serve Allah, being sincere to Him in obedience. S. 39:10-11 Shakir

Say: "O 'Ibadi (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." S. 39:53 Hilali-Khan

The word “say” clearly means that it is Muhammad who is speaking the words which follow immediately after. Thus, it is Muhammad who is saying, “O my slaves,” thereby identifying his followers as his very own slaves!

Therefore, since Muslims are the slaves of Muhammad this means that Allah is not the only lord that Muslims have… Muhammad is also their lord!

Please read the article “Another Stray Say: Are Muslims the Slaves of Muhammad?” for further discussion of these specific texts and their implications on the deity of Muhammad.

Adam – The Lord of the angels and jinn

The Quran even mentions that Allah commanded his angels and Satan to prostrate or bow down to Adam:

And when we said to the angels, "Bow down and worship (osjudoo) Adam," then worshipped they all] (fasajadoo), save Eblis. He refused and swelled with pride, and became one of the unbelievers. S. 2:34 Rodwell

Remember] when we said unto the angels, worship (osjudoo) ye Adam: And they [all] worshipped [him] (fasajadoo), except Eblis, [who] was [one] of the genii, and departed from the command of his Lord. Will ye therefore take him and his offspring for [your] patrons besides me, notwithstanding they are your enemies? Miserable [shall such] a change [be] to the ungodly! S. 18:50 Sale

However, as we saw above such bowing or prostration is an act which Muslims are required to render to Allah alone in recognition that he alone is their lord and that they are all his slaves. Therefore, by bowing to Adam the angels were basically acknowledging Adam as their lord!

Here is a quick summary of the problematic teachings of the Quran concerning Allah’s sole, unique sovereignty.

The Quran teaches that all Muslims are the slaves of Allah.

The reason why they are his slaves is because he is their one and only lord.

This implies that to become someone’s slave is to make that person one’s very own lord.

As such, Muslims cannot be the slaves of anyone else since they cannot have any other lord besides Allah.

Being Allah’s slaves means that Muslims are required and expected to serve or worship Allah alone.

Prostration or bowing down is an act which is to be rendered only to Allah in recognition of the fact that he alone is lord.

However, according to the Quran Muslims are also the slaves of Muhammad which makes him their lord!

This means that Muhammad is another lord besides Allah.

The Quran further says that Allah commanded the angels to prostrate before Adam.

Since prostration is an act of service and worship that slaves/servants are supposed to render to their lord, in recognition that the person to whom such service is given is lord over them, this means that the angels were basically worshiping Adam as their lord, or as another lord besides Allah!

Finally, let us not forget that it was Allah who commanded Muhammad to address Muslims as “my slaves,” i.e. Muhammad’s slaves, and ordered the angels to bow down in worship to Adam.

This means that Allah did in fact command his servants to take the prophets as their lords, thereby contradicting Q. 3:80 which says that Allah would never do that!

Related articles
Islam and Monotheism
The Quran’s many Gods and Lords
Revisiting the issue of Jesus’ Lordship in the Quran
The Deification of Muhammad

Source: http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/say_ibadi.html

IHS

Mistake or Blasphemy?

How one word can make a world of a difference ...

Jochen Katz

On the grammatical or syntactical level, this article will make observations on some Qur’an verses that are similar to those I have made in another article published quite some time ago,¹ but the theological implications are far more severe at this time.

Let us consider this text from the Qur’an:

… “O 'Ibadi (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And turn in repentance and in obedience with true Faith (Islamic Monotheism) to your Lord and submit to Him, (in Islam), before the torment comes upon you, then you will not be helped.” S. 39:53-54 Al-Hilali & Khan

The Muslim scripture is brimming with threats of punishment for sins and transgressions against the laws of Allah, both punishment in this life and even more the horrible punishment in the fire of Hell. Somebody who is very conscious of his sins and shortcomings could easily despair that he is not able to fulfil the requirements of Allah and has no chance to go to Paradise.

The above passage has the purpose to inspire hope in Muslims that Allah is gracious and merciful, and, whatever their sins may have been, Allah is willing to forgive them (v. 53) when he sees genuine repentance and submission in the heart and life of a Muslim believer (v. 54). It is a message of consolation or comfort spoken by Allah and addressed to the believers, whom he calls “my slaves”.

Apart from the “minor” quibble that one statement in v. 53 stands in contradiction to some other passages in the Qur’an (cf. the article Does Allah Forgive All Sins or Doesn’t He?), there would not be much of a problem in this text as it is quoted above.

However, the three dots at the beginning indicate that the above given citation was not complete. Let’s now take a look at what this verse really says:

Say: “O 'Ibadi (My slaves) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And turn in repentance and in obedience with true Faith (Islamic Monotheism) to your Lord and submit to Him, (in Islam), before the torment comes upon you, then you will not be helped.” S. 39:53-54 Al-Hilali & Khan

For whatever reason, the author(s) or editor(s) of the Qur’an decided to change the verse from a direct speech of Allah to a command to Muhammad to speak these words by putting the word “Qul” before it, i.e., “Say (O Muhammad, the following words)”.

Muhammad said and/or was supposed to say: “O My Slaves …” Here is the problem: Are Muslim believers the slaves of Muhammad? ‘Ibâd Muhammad? Many Muslims bear the name Abd-Allah (Slave of Allah). Certainly, it would be shirk to call anyone “Abd-Muhammad”?

Adding “Qul” before the statement in quotation marks means that the speaker now changes from Allah to Muhammad. Therefore, the statement necessarily needs to be adapted to read, for example:

Say: “O slaves of Allah (‘ibâd Allah) who have transgressed against themselves (by committing evil deeds and sins)! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah, verily Allah forgives all sins. Truly, He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

But whoever made the decision to add “Qul” at the beginning of this verse forgot that with the change of the speaker the first person possessive pronoun needed to be changed to the name of Allah since otherwise the verse would turn into a blasphemous statement.

However, this was overlooked in the composition or editing process and now the Qur’an claims that Muhammad was commanded to address Muslims as “my slaves” instead of “Slaves of Allah”.

Just how strongly this formulation contradicts the central teaching of Islam, Tawhid, and what the Qur’an and hadith say in regard to the use of the words “slave” and “lord” is explained in Sam Shamoun’s companion article “How many Lords do Muslims really have?”

What are the implications of this observation? Basically, I see these alternatives:

A) The text as it stands is original, but the formulation was accidentally erroneous, i.e. we are looking at a human error. This constitutes evidence that the Qur’an comes from a human author since the omniscient and perfect God would not commit such an error. Thus, Muhammad designed the passage but he overlooked that he constructed this verse incorrectly.

B) The text, as it stands, is no longer original. The described problem arose through oversight by a sloppy editor. In other words, the text of the Qur’an has been changed; the Qur’an is corrupted.

C) The wording is intentional. The Qur’an really teaches the blasphemy that Muslims are the slaves of Muhammad. Many Muslim will be outraged at such a charge, but there is actually a considerable amount of evidence that the Qur’an elevates Muhammad to the level of deity in various ways (cf. the section on the Deification of Muhammad).

Is there any other alternative? As I see it, there is the dilemma that this verse is either accidentally erroneous (i.e. originating from a human author) or corrupted (through later tampering) or intentional and blasphemous (because it elevates Muhammad to a status that belongs only to God).²

But the trouble isn’t over yet. Shockingly, this very same error occurs not only once but at least twice!

In an earlier verse in the same chapter we find a similar formulation:

Say (O Muhammad SAW): “O My slaves who believe (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), be afraid of your Lord (Allah) and keep your duty to Him. Good is (the reward) for those who do good in this world, and Allah's earth is spacious (so if you cannot worship Allah at a place, then go to another)! Only those who are patient shall receive their rewards in full, without reckoning.” S. 39:10 Al-Hilali & Khan

Could it be that the translators Al-Hilali and Khan actually recognized the problem (and danger of potential misunderstanding) and therefore added the parenthesis “(Allah)” after “your Lord” in order to prevent the natural reading that “your Lord” refers back to the one who says “my slaves”, i.e. Muhammad?

Even if the translators had a different motivation, and even if the reader doesn’t want to accept that the natural reading of the text – without all the parenthetical remarks added by the translators – makes Muhammad “your Lord”, it still stands that Muhammad is commanded to address Muslims as “my slaves”. Adding the “Say:” in front of this verse is again very problematic, and everything that was outlined above in regard to S. 39:53 applies here as well.

It is instructive to compare the formulation in these two verses with those in S. 14:31 and 17:53 which are very similar but were done in a way which does not give rise to shirk:

Say (O Muhammad SAW) to 'Ibadi (My slaves) who have believed, that they should perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and spend in charity out of the sustenance We have given them, secretly and openly, before the coming of a Day on which there will be neither mutual bargaining nor befriending. S. 14:31 Al-Hilali & Khan

And say to My slaves (i.e. the true believers of Islamic Monotheism) that they should(only) say those words that are the best. (Because) Shaitan (Satan) verily, sows disagreements among them. Surely, Shaitan (Satan) is to man a plain enemy. S. 17:53 Al-Hilali & Khan

Here the author(s) or editor(s) of the Qur’an changed the structure of the sentence correctly by turning the direct speech into indirect speech. Instead of “Say: My slaves …” it is formulated as “Say to my slaves … that they should …”

Thus, the Arabic language clearly has the tools to express this correctly. It is not a lack of grammatical constructions, not a limitation on the Arabic language.

Note that two verses which are correct (14:31; 17:53)³ are not a cover or an excuse for the two that are clearly wrong (39:10,53). On the contrary, the correctly constructed verses expose just how horribly wrong S. 39:10 and 39:53 are.

Muslims who want to believe that the Qur’an is the pure and unadulterated word of a perfect God need to honestly grapple with such problems. What implications do these formulations have for their understanding of the Qur’an and ultimately for the veracity of Islam?

Footnotes

¹ The first article was “The Stray Say: How the author of the Qur'an messed up”. In both cases, I discovered these incoherent formulations accidentally, i.e. during the process of reviewing and editing articles on different topics that quoted these verses for other reasons. In particular, after writing the first article I did not at all expect to find a second instance of this. Since the word “Qul (Say)” is used hundreds of times in the Qur’an, it is very difficult to find such verses quickly by simple searches, and I cannot spend a lot of time on searches which may not even yield any results. However, if any of our readers come across similar features in other verses, please let me know. I am interested to take a good look at such verses, and if I agree that they contain a similarly confused formulation, I am most willing to expand this series with further instalments.
² Actually, the statement is blasphemous, period, no matter whether it is intentional or unintentional.
³ Correct in the sense of “formulated correctly” according to the normal rules of grammar and syntax. It does not mean that I endorse the message of the verses as true.

Source: http://answering-islam.org/qul2.html

IHS