Refuting the Weak Hadith Canard

 Muslims will often pull out the “weak hadith” card in order to avoid having to deal with any incriminating evidence that exposes Muhammad for the charlatan that he was.

However, those Muslims who raise this objection are either exposing their dishonesty or ignorance of the consensus of Islamic scholarly opinion concerning the use of so-called “weak” narrations (called daif in Arabic).

In the first place, a narrative classified as weak means that it actually passed the test, being deemed reliable enough to be included within the Islamic corpus. For a more detailed discussion we recommend viewing the following discussion by noted Muslim scholar Hamza Yusuf, “The hadith is weak (daief) brother!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COrxzfd5d2k.

Secondly, the majority of Muslim scholars agreed that weak narrations could be employed to encourage good deeds and good behavior, but not to establish legal rulings (though not all hadith scholars accepted this last point). Pay attention to all the authorities that the following Muslim scholar lists in confirmation of this view:

1. a) From the Epilogue of hafiz al-Sakhawi’s

“al-Qawl al-badi` fi al-salat `ala al-habib al-shafi`”

[The Admirable Doctrine Concerning the Invocation upon the Beloved Intercessor]

Shaykh al-Islam Abu Zakariyya al-Nawawi (rad.ia-LLahu `anhu) said in the ‘Adhkar’:

“The ulama among the experts in hadith and the experts in law and others have said: it is permissible and (also) recommended that the religious practice (al-`amal) concerning good deeds and good character (al-fadâ’il), encouragement to good and discouragement from evil (al-targhib wa al-tarhib) be based (even) on weak hadith (bi al-hadith al- da`îf) as long as it is not forged (mawdu`)…

As for legal rulings (ahkâm) such as what is permitted and what is forbidden, or the modalities of trade, marriage, divorce and other than that: one’s practice is not based upon anything other than sound (sahih) or fair (hasan) hadith, except as a precaution in some matter related to one of the above, for example, if a weak hadith was cited about the reprehensibility (karahat) of certain kinds of sales or marriages. In such cases what is recommended (al-mustahabb) is to avoid such sales and marriages, but it is not obligatory (la yajib).”

I say: It has been reported from Imam Ahmad that one may practice on the basis of the weak hadith if there is no other hadith to that effect and also if there is no hadith that contradicts it. In one narration he is reported to say: “I like weak hadith better than men’s opinions.”

Ibn Hazm has similarly mentioned that all Hanafi scholars unanimously agree that the school of Abu Hanifah (rad.ia-LLahu `anhu) holds that weak hadith is preferable to opinion (ra’y) and analogy (qiyâs). Ahmad was asked about someone finding himself in a country with, on the one hand, a memorizer of hadith (sâhib hadîth) who does not know the sound from the unsound, and, on the other, an authority in opinion (sâhib ra’y): who should he consult? He replied: “Let him consult the memorizer of hadith sâhib hadîth and not the authority in opinion (sâhib ra’y).”…

Abu `Abd Allah Ibn Mandah reported from Abu Dawud, the author of the ‘Sunan’ and a student of Imam Ahmad, that Abu Dawud used to cite the chain of transmission of a weak hadith if he did not find other than it under that particular heading (bâb), and that he considered it stronger evidence than authorized opinion (ra’y al-rijâl).

What emerges from this is that there are three diverging views:

– No practice is based on weak hadith whatsoever (mutlaqan);

– Practice is categorically (mutlaqan) based upon it if no other evidence is found under the same heading;

– The majority of the scholars (al-jumhur) hold that it can be used as basis for practicing good deeds and achieving good character (yu`malu bihi fi al-fadâ’il) but not for legal rulings (dûna al-ahkâm). And God is the Granter of success.

2. b) Translated from Muhammad Zaki Ibrahim in “Usul al-wusul”

(Cairo: Azhar, 1984):

If not proven to be forged, in which case there is absolutely no truth in it, the hadith da`îf (weak), although the pillars of veracity in it are not complete, nevertheless retains a part of truth.

Imam Nawawi said:

“The ulama among the muhaddithun…” [as quoted by Sakhawi above].

I say: This is the principle adopted by the hadith master (hafiz) Ibn al-Salah, as well as what we know of the imams of hadith science among the early generations (salaf) such as Sufyan al-Thawri, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ibn `Uyaynah, Ibn al- Mubarak, Ibn Mahdi, and Ibn Ma`în… Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi devoted a chapter to that topic in his ‘Kifayah’.

End of translated excerpts…

I recapitulate the list of hadith masters who accept the use of hadeeth da`îf at the very least for religious practice related to ethics (fada’il al-a`mal) and in some cases even for legal rulings (Ahmad, Abu Dawud, and the entire Hanafi school), according to the above three sources (Sakhawi, Ibrahim, Keller):

1- Nawawi

2- Ibn al-Salah

3- Sufyan al-Thawri

4- Ahmad Ibn Hanbal

5- Ibn `Uyaynah

6- Ibn al-Mubarak

7- Ibn Mahdi

8- Ibn Ma`een (forgery specialist)

9- al-Khatib al-Baghdadi in ‘al-Kifayah’, chapter entitled:

“strictness with regard to ahadith pertaining to rulings

 and leniency with regard to those pertaining to virtuous actions”

10- Bukhari as proven by his use of them in ‘al-Adab al- mufrad’

11- Ali al-Qari (forgery specialist)

12- Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani.

13- Ibn Abd al-Barr in ‘al-Isaba’.

14- Ibn al-Qayyim in ‘I`lam al-muwaqqi`een’.

15- Sakhawi

16- Abu Sa`eed al-`Ala’i (forgery specialist).

17- Abu Dawud.

18- Hanafi school…

It is the Consensus of the Ulema that weak hadiths can be narrated and put into practice in Islam according to al-Bayhaqî, Ibn `Abd al-Barr, al-Nawawî, Ibn Taymiyya, al-Qârî, and `Alawî ibn `Abbâs al-Mâlikî in his manual al-Manhal al-Lat.îf fî Ma`rifat al-H.adîth, provided certain conditions are met.[4] Ibn al-Sâlah, al-Nawawî and al-`Irâqî’s sole conditions were that

(1) the hadith be related to good deeds (fad.â’il al-a`mâl)

without bearing on legal rulings and doctrine and

(2) the hadith not be forged…

The dissents reported from Imâm Muslim, Ibn Hazm, and Ibn al-`Arabî are inaccurate. The correct position of Imâm Muslim in the introduction to his Sahîh. is that he forbade the use of forgers and other abandoned narrators, not of truthful weak ones, in conformity with the position of Ahmad and the rest of the Salaf.[7]

Muslim also says: “The sound reports from the trustworthy (thiqât) narrators and those whose reliability is convincing are more than that we should be forced to transmit reports from those who are not trustworthy and whose reliability is not convincing.” The difference is clear between saying we are not forced to use weak narrators and saying that one absolutely cannot transmit from them.

A proof of this is his use of the weak narration from `Â’isha: “Treat people according to their ranks” and the fact that his strictness in narrators drops a notch or two in the hadîths of raqâ’iq or fadâ’il al-a`mâl in the Sahîh, as in the case of Shaddâd ibn Sa`îd Abû Talhâ al-Râsibî or al-Walîd ibn Abî Walîd.[8]

The correct position of Ibn al-`Arabî is as he states himself regarding a certain weak hadîth: “Its chain is unknown, but it is preferable to put it into practice…”[9] As for Ibn Hazm’s statement against the use of weak narrations in absolute terms:[10] he elsewhere states preferring the use of weak hadîth over the use of juridical opinion (ra’î), as does Ibn al-`Arabî himself.[11] (GF Haddad and Muhammad Sarkisian, Validity of Weak Hadith http://www.livingislam.org/n/vwh_e.html; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Therefore, don’t be duped by Muhammadan propagandists since one can appeal to weak hadith to prove one’s position, especially when it is corroborated by verses from the Quran and/or other narrations deemed to be sound.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/refuting-the-weak-hadith-canard/ 

IHS

Shabir Ally Proves that Muhammad Was Unreasonable Pt. 2

 We continue our discussion https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/shabir-ally-proves-that-muhammad-was-unreasonable-pt-1/.

Does the Quran Really Deny the Incarnation?

Even though there are texts in the Quran which argue that Jesus is nothing other than a human servant and apostle,

The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! S. 5:75 Pickthall

He [‘Iesa (Jesus)] was not more than a slave. We granted Our Favour to him, and We made him an example to the Children of Israel (i.e. his creation without a father). S. 43:59 Hilali-Khan

There are other passages that contradict this assertion by affirming that Christ is actually an eternally preexistent Being who became human.

Take, for instance, the following verse, which identifies Jesus as a Word from Allah,

When the angels said, ‘Mary, God gives thee good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honoured shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God. S. 3:45 Arberry

As well as this next one, which ends up affirming the very historic Christian view of the Godhead that it censures Christians for  believing in!

O People of the Book! Go not beyond the limits in your way of life and say not about God but The Truth: That the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was a Messenger of God and His Word that He cast to Mary and a Spirit from Him (wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu). So believe in God and His Messengers. And say not: Three. To refrain yourselves from it is better for you. There is only One God. Glory be to Him that He have a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in and on the earth and God sufficed as a Trustee. S. 4:171 Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/4/st46.htm

In identifying Jesus as the Word of Allah that was cast down to Mary and a Spirit that came forth from him, the Quran has essentially confirmed the divine prehuman existence of Christ!

The Islamic scripture has basically described Jesus as en eternal Person who came forth from Allah as a Spirit for the express purpose of becoming a flesh and blood human being!

In the words of the following Christian author:

(1) The Word of God: This honourable name cannot apply to an ordinary creature; it designates Christ alone. He is distinguished by this name among all the angels and men. It occurs twice in the Qur’an, in Suras Al Imran 3:45 and al-Nisa’ 4:171: “Mary, God gives thee good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honoured shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God.… The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him.” This is a biblical name of Christ, since the Bible says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:1,2). The word of a man proceeds from him and is a manifestation of his character. It is an audible representation of his mind and thought. It is his means of expressing himself and putting his authority and power into effect. Christ is called the very Word of God. This proves His deity because, just as the word of a man proceeds from him, the Word of God proceeds from God and is in God from eternity. Could it be that God existed for a certain period of time apart from His Word?

(2) The Spirit of God: We read in Sura al-Nisa’ 4:171: “The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him.” This verse goes beyond the statement of Jesus’ apostleship, testifying that He is the Word of God. And to make sure that we do not misunderstand the expression “the Word of God”, the Qur’an follows it up with “and a Spirit from Him”, which clears all doubt concerning Christ’s extraordinary apostleship. It definitely points to the fact that He is a Son sent from His Father to our world, as the rays of the sun that are emitted from it to the earth. There is no difference between the Christian creed, which maintains that Christ is “light of light, true God of true God, begotten, and not made, of one being with the Father”, and the statement of the Qur’an that He is the Spirit of God, or a Spirit from Him. Do not all these statements indicate that He is of the same essence and substance as God? (‘Abdallah ‘Abd al-Fadi, Is the Qur’an Infallible? [Light of Life, Villach, Austria 1982], Part Four: Theological Objections, 14. Christ Is Like Adam?, pp. 143-144; bold emphasis ours)

It is therefore ironic that this passage warns Christians from going too far in their views about Jesus seeing that it actually confirms Christ’s essential Deity and glorious Incarnation.

Christian apologist John Gilchrist shows why the attempts by Muslims to explain away these unique titles and descriptions of Jesus are rather desperate and disingenuous:

Muslim scholars have done everything in their power to avoid conceding that there is anything unique about the title. As they did with the title ‘Messiah,’ so here too they downplay and minimise the title ‘a Word from Allah’ in every way they can. An example is that all that is being said here is that Jesus was brought into being simply by the creative ‘word from Allah,’ namely kun – ‘Be!’ (so Rida, who thought it was simply the same means by which everything came into existence). But then why would Jesus be specifically called ‘a Word from Allah’ in contrast to every other prophet, human or living creature who is not so described? Another example is that this is no more than a description of a ‘prophetic word’ from Allah by which he came into the world (Muhammad Ali). Many others argue that Adam was also created by the same unique Word from Allah, kun – ‘Be!’ (Surah 3:59), and that this is all the title means. But, once again, Jesus alone is actually called a Word from Allah in the Qur’an. No such title or anything like it is given to Adam…

Jesus was given a unique title, a Word from God, because he himself is unique. He is the Saviour of the world (John 4:42). He – and he alone – is the door that opens the way to the kingdom of heaven (John 10:9). The title in the Qur’an is nothing other than a literal equivalent of John’s logos, the Word who came from God because he is divine and descended from the very throne of God himself whence he later returned. The Qur’an does not use the word kalima to describe a fiat, a unique creative action by which Jesus came into being, it defines the very essence of Jesus himself. He is the Word who came ‘from him’ (min-hu), from Allah himself.

Jesus held a title distinguishing him from any other prophet of God, the Word of God. It is a definition of his own divine subsistence, not of something given to him or of a manner of his creation. The Qur’an merely echoes the glorious meaning of the title in the Christian scriptures. Muslim scholars cannot explain its uniqueness, so they evade and sidestep it, falling back on the usual Islamic dogmatics: ‘Jesus was only a messenger of God, he was created by the word of God, he was not divine, he was not the Son of God.’…

Just as Jesus is described in the Qur’an as a Word from Allah, so here he is also described as ‘a spirit from him.’ But this does not mean that he is a spiritual person given the title ‘spirit of Allah’ in the same way other prophets are called the friend or representative of Allah. Jesus is not only a Word from Allah, he is also a Spirit from Allah. The same Arabic words are used – min-hu – ‘from him’. No other prophet is given this title in the Qur’an or is said to have come from Allah…

One of the ironies of the Qur’an is that it three times makes dogmatic assertions in Surah 4:171 denying the divinity of Jesus. Firstly, ‘the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah;’ then ‘Do not say “three” – Allah is only one God;’ and finally ‘Glorified be he from having a son.’ But in the very same verse it attributes three titles to Jesus that clearly distinguish him from all the other messengers of God, making him unique in his person, that elevate him to being the very thing the Qur’an denies, the Son of God. The titles are ‘the Messiah,’ God’s anointed Saviour and Deliverer, ‘his Word,’ the logos who was with God and is God and who became flesh and dwelt among us, and ‘a spirit from him,’ one who came as a spirit from the throne of God himself to become a man, and who returned there after his ascension to heaven. There you have the divinity of Jesus in the Qur’an – thrice denied, and thrice confirmed, all in the same verse!…

The Qur’an defines Jesus very simply – he was a prophet of Allah no different to those who went before him. He was an obedient servant, but no more than that. Yet, as we have seen, it attributes titles to him and unique features in his life that leave so much about him unsaid and undefined. He came into the world in a very unique way – he was born of a virgin-woman. He left the world in an equally distinctive way – he ascended to heaven. He was sinless throughout his life. He was the Messiah and was also a Word from Allah and a Spirit from him. The Holy Spirit in the Qur’an is named solely in conjunction with him. (Gilchrist, The Quran and the Historical Jesus, Chapter 9: The Word and the Spirit; bold emphasis ours)

And here is what Gilchrist writes elsewhere:

At this stage we are constrained to say that we Christians do not really see where we are exaggerating in our religion as the Qur’an suggests in the passage under review (Surah 4:171). Because we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, we are supposedly exaggerating in our belief in him and yet, in that very same passage, the Qur’an calls Jesus the Messiah which implies fundamentally that he is the Son of God. But now we come across the title Word of God which, to all intents and purposes, is really more emphatic and suggestive of deity than the title Son of God.

The latter title at least implies some limitation and submission on the part of its bearer – a son is subject to his father – but the title Word of God implies no such limitation. By itself it clearly implies that its bearer is the express image of the invisible God and only the latter, title Son of God implies some submission on his part to the Father. The Qur’an denounces Christians for believing that Jesus is the Son of God and yet, in the very same breath, gives him the title Word of God which is as indicative of deity on the title Son of God. There is really no meaningful difference between the titles. Quite where we are exaggerating in our religion is not at all clear to us! So we see that the first two titles in Surah 4:171 that we have considered, i.e. Messiah and Word of God far from supporting the suggestion that Jesus is “only a messenger”, in fact heavily reinforce the Christian belief that Jesus is the Word and Son of God incarnate. But let us press on now to the third title in Surah 4:171…

This third title is very little different from the second one for once again the title belongs to Jesus alone and God again is the source of the Spirit as he was the source of the Word. (It is sometimes said of Adam that God breathed something of his spirit into him but this must be carefully distinguished from the title Spirit of God which is given to Jesus alone.) Jesus is his Word and his Spirit. This title is also not explained in the Qur’an but frankly supports the Christian belief that Jesus was not a creature made out of dust but an eternal spirit who took on human form… Jesus, however, is now called “a Spirit from him” (ruhun-minhu) from which he has received the title in Islamic traditions “Spirit of God” (Ruhullah). The expression in Surah 4:171, ruhun-minhu (“a spirit from him”) is used in exactly the same form in Surah 58:22 where it is said that God strengthens true believers with “a spirit from him”. Very significantly Yusuf Ali, commenting on this latter verse in his translation of the Qur’an states that here the “phrase used is stronger” than that for the Holy Spirit (Ruhul Quds). He implies that the Spirit from God is greater than the Holy Spirit and says that it is “the divine spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God” (note 5365).

This is a remarkable comment which is clearly a veiled implication that the ruhun-minhu is the very Spirit of the living God, uncreated and eternal in essence. Yusuf Ali says it is “the divine spirit” and that it is as incomprehensible as God himself. This language is unambiguous – the Spirit from God is clearly believed by him to be from the realm of deity and not from the created order. He is, according to this interpretation, practically synonymous with the Holy Spirit in the Christian Bible.

Now this is the very title that the Qur’an gives to Jesus in Surah 4:171. The exact same words are used – he is the ruhun-minhu, “a Spirit from God”. If we merely apply Yusuf Ali’s interpretation of the expression in Surah 58:22 to the very same expression given as a title to Jesus in Surah 4:171, we can only conclude that Jesus is the “divine spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature and attributes of God”. He is, therefore, God in essence and nature. Because of the simultaneous denial in 4:171 that Jesus is the Son of God, Yusuf Ali is constrained to deny that the title ruhun-minhu when applied to Jesus implies deity, but he is hardly consistent in his exposition of the Qur’an when he teaches in another place that ruhun-minhu is indeed a divine spirit possessing the nature and attributes of God and is as incomprehensible as God as well.

For our part we believe that, as with the titles Messiah and Word of God, this title Spirit of God also strongly supports the Christian belief that Jesus is indeed the Son of God and that, not in any metaphorical sense, but in an eternal one which is based on the fact that he is very deity himself. The only way Yusuf Ali could avoid this admission when commenting on Surah 4:171 was to frankly contradict what he said in his commentary on Surah 58:22. (Christianity and Islam Series No. 5. The titles of Jesus in the Qur’an and the Bible http://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/titles.html; bold emphasis ours)

Therefore, since the Quran itself affirms the Incarnation (while also denying it at the same time) Ally is left with no other choice but to accept the fact that his own prophet was unreasonable for teaching such a doctrine.

What makes this all the more ironic and rather embarrassing for Ally is that in several of his debates with Christians, he attacks John’s Gospel for describing Jesus as the Word of God that became flesh. For example, notice what he said in his debate with Dr. David Wood:

“Where did John get this from? Did Jesus ever say ‘I am the Word of God’? Did he say these words anywhere in the Bible? Even in John’s Gospel Jesus doesn’t say it; John is saying this about Jesus. So now how does John know this, if Jesus didn’t actually say it?” (Does Muhammad give us the truth about Jesus? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiKKeKmQf9g)

Seeing that Muhammad himself affirmed that Jesus is the Word of God this means that he must have come under the influence of John’s Christology due to his interactions with Christians. As such, the real source and inspiration for Muhammad’s belief in Jesus’ being the Word of God wasn’t God Almighty but John’s Gospel, which Ally believes went through at least five stages of editing!

What this means is that Muhammad derived his info concerning Jesus from a source that Ally claims is anonymous and pseudonymous, and is therefore unreliable. It had nothing to do with God inspiring Muhammad.

Thus, instead of proving that Muhammad was a true prophet Ally basically ended up condemning Muhammad as an irrational false prophet and antichrist (which he certainly was) for teaching the very doctrines that Ally claims are unreasonable.

Talk about a huge embarrassment!

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/shabir-ally-proves-that-muhammad-was-unreasonable-pt-2/

IHS

Shabir Ally Proves that Muhammad Was Unreasonable Pt. 1

Shabir Ally recently engaged Christian theologian and apologist Tony Costa Jr. in two debates for the Trinity channel on October 17 2016. Their first debate focused on whether Muhammad was a true prophet (Was Muhammad A Prophet of God? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMD4lcUDKDM).

In that debate Ally claimed that Muhammad made it reasonable to believe in Jesus by rejecting the unreasonable doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the need for blood atonement and Jesus’ vicarious death for forgiveness of sins.

In light of this assertion I am going to show how Muhammad himself taught doctrines similar to the ones that Ally deems unreasonable in order to show that, if he is consistent and honest, then he has no choice but to condemn Muhammad as a false prophet and antichrist (which he certainly was).

1. The Doctrine of the Trinity

Contrary to Islamic belief, Allah is not the only divine being mentioned in the Quran since the Muslim scripture also identifies the Spirit of Allah or the Holy Spirit as being fully divine as well.

For instance, the Spirit is said to be a Divine Person and Messenger of Allah, who is also portrayed as the Creator and Life-giver:

And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East, And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing. HE SAID: I am ONLY A MESSENGER of thy Lord, that I MAY BESTOW ON THEE a faultless son. She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste? HE SAID: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained. S. 19:16-21 Pickthall

Note here how the Spirit is said to have taken human form in order to announce to Mary, the blessed mother of our risen Lord, that he had been sent to give her a faultless son, showing that it is the Spirit who caused Mary to conceive a son. The next verse gives us an indication of how the Spirit did this:

And Mary, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her private parts, so We breathed into it of Our Spirit and she established as true the Words of her Lord and His Books and she had been among the ones who are morally obligated. S. 66:12 Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/66/st46.htm

Allah breathed his Spirit into Mary’s private parts for the obvious purpose of making her pregnant. This is similar to Allah breathing his Spirit into Adam’s lifeless body:

And (remember) when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am creating a mortal out of potter’s clay of black mud altered, So, when I have made him and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him. S. 15:28-29 Pickthall

This shows that the Spirit is the Creator and Agent of life through and by whom Allah gives life to his creatures.

The Spirit is further said to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient:

And We gave to Moses the Book, and after him sent succeeding Messengers; and We gave Jesus son of Mary the clear signs, and confirmed him with the Holy Spirit; and whensoever there came to you a Messenger with that your souls had not desire for, did you become arrogant, and some cry lies to, and some slay? S. 2:87 Arberry

When God said, ‘Jesus Son of Mary, remember My blessing upon thee and upon thy mother, when I confirmed thee with the Holy Spirit, to speak to men in the cradle, and of age; and when I taught thee the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel; and when thou createst out of clay, by My leave, as the likeness of a bird, and thou breathest into it, and it is a bird, by My leave; and thou healest the blind and the leper by My leave, and thou bringest the dead forth by My leave; and when restrained from thee the Children of Israel when thou camest unto them with the clear signs, and the unbelievers among them said, “This is nothing but sorcery manifest.” S. 5:110 Arberry

Thou shalt not find any people who believe in God and the Last Day who are loving to anyone who opposes. God and His Messenger, not though they were their fathers, or their sons, or their brothers, or their clan. Those — He has written faith upon their hearts, and He has confirmed them with a Spirit from Himself; and He shall admit them into gardens underneath which rivers flow, therein to dwell forever, God being well-pleased with them, and they well-pleased with Him. Those are God’s party; why, surely God’s party — they are the prosperers. S. 58:22 Arberry

The foregoing shows that it was/is the Holy Spirit who strengthened Jesus for ministry, and who continues to strengthen all believers in all places and at all times in order for the express purpose of keeping them from falling away from the truth. Now the only way that the Spirit could do all this is if he is all-powerful, ever-present and all-knowing, attributes that belong only to God.

This explains why the following Muslim scholar and Quran translator was forced to acknowledge that the Spirit is an incomprehensible divine being, since even he realized that only God has the ability to do all the things which the Muslim scripture ascribes to the Holy Spirit:

… Cf. ii 87 and 253, where it is said that God strengthened the Prophet Jesus with the holy spirit. Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything, the phrase used here is stronger, ‘a spirit from Himself’. Whenever any one offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that faith on the seeker’s heart, and further fortifies him with the Divine Spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature of God. (Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, p. 1518, fn. 5365; bold emphasis ours)

Yusuf Ali wasn’t the only Muhammadan to admit that the Spirit is divine since the late Ahmadiyya scholar and Quranic translator Maulana Muhammad Ali said something similar in his comments to Q. 15:29:

29a. This shows that man is made complete when the Divine spirit is breathed into him. It should be noted that the Divine spirit (Ar. ruh) does not mean here the animal soul in man, but the Spirit of Allah, that gives him perfection. (The Holy Quran: Arabic Text with English Translation, Commentary and comprehensive Introduction, p. 528 http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/ch015.pdf; bold and underline emphasis ours)

And Q. 32:9:

9a. This verse shows that the spirit of God is breathed into every man. This points to a mystical relation between human nature and Divine nature. The word ruh does not here mean the animal soul, because the animal soul is common to man and the animal kingdom. It is something that distinguishes man from the animal world. It is due to the spirit Divine that he rules creation and its due to the same Divine spirit in him that he receives a new life after death – a life which he lives in God and with God – the meeting with God or liqa Allah, as it is called in v. 10. (Ibid., pp. 818-819 http://www.muslim.org/english-quran/ch032.pdf; bold and underline emphasis ours)

That’s not all. Orthodox Islam upholds the view that the Quran is the uncreated speech of Allah, which is not the same as the Muslim god even though it is not other than him. This brings me to my next point.

2. The Doctrine of Incarnation.

Although Muslims argue that their religion rejects the doctrine of the Incarnation it does, however, affirm a teaching known as Inlibration.

Instead of God’s eternal Word becoming a man, Islam proclaims that the uncreated speech of Allah became a book instead!

This is the official position of all Sunni Muslims, just as the following Islamic creed attests:

The Creed of al-Ash’ari is representative of the fully-developed creeds of later Islam:

The substance of that on which the Followers of the True Way take their stand is the confession of God [Allah], His Angels, His Script [the Revealed Books], His Apostles [the Messengers sent by God], the Revelation of God and the Tradition [Sunnah] of the trustworthy related on the authority of God’s Apostle; none of these they reject.

God is One, Single, Eternal. There is no other god. Muhammad is His Servant and Apostle.

Paradise is a Fact; and Hell is a Fact. There is no doubt of the Coming Hour [the Day of Judgement]; and God will raise the Dead from their graves. God’s place is upon His Throne, as He has said.

God has two Hands, as He has said – we do not question: in what sense? God has two Eyes, as He has said – we do not question: in what sense? God has a Face, as He has said.

It is not to be said that God’s Names or Attributes are anything other than Himself. The Followers of the True Way confess that God has Knowledge as He has said. They assert the existence of His Hearing and His Sight.

They believe that there is no good and no evil on earth except by the Will of God, and that all things are by the Will of God. They confess that there is no creator save God, and that God creates the works of men, and that they are incapable of creating anything.

God gives True Believers Grace to be obedient to Him; He forsakes Unbelievers. He is well able to act for the salvation of Unbelievers; nevertheless He wills not so to act, nor so to grace them that they Believe. He rather wills them to be Unbelievers in accordance with His knowledge, forsaking and misguiding them and sealing up their hearts.

Good and evil depend on the general and particular Decrees of God. The followers of the Way believe in His Decrees both general and particular, in His good and His evil, His sweet and His bitter.

They believe that they are not their own masters for weal or for woe, save as God wills, for He has said so. Committing their affairs to God, they declare their dependence on Him in all circumstances, their need of Him at all times.

They believe that the Koran is God’s Uncreated Eternal Word.

They believe that God will be seen with sight on the Day of the Raising of the Dead; as the moon is seen on the night of her full shall the Believers see Him; but Unbelievers shall not see Him because they will be veiled from God.

They do not brand any Muslim an Unbeliever for any grave sin he may commit, for fornication or theft or any such grave sin; but hold that such men are Believers inasmuch as they have Faith, grievous though their sins may be. Islam is the testifying that there is no God but God and that Muhammad is God’s Apostle, in accordance with Tradition; and Islam, they hold, is not the same thing as Faith [iman].

They confess the Intercession of God’s Apostle, and believe that it is for the grave sins of his people and against the Punishment of the Tomb. They confess that the Pool [where the Prophet will meet his Companions in the afterlife] of the Hereafter is Fact, and the bridge [over which the dead will cross] is Fact, that God’s reckoning with men is Fact, and that the Standing in the Presence of God is Fact.

They discountenance argument and disputation concerning Islam. They do not inquire: in what sense? or: Why? because such inquiry is Innovation in Islam.

They believe that God does not command evil, but forbids it; that He commands good, and has no pleasure in evil, though He wills it.

They acknowledge the Elders elect of God to be Companions of His Apostle as Fact; they cherish their virtues and eschew discrimination among them, giving priority to Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthman, then ‘Ali, and believing that they are the rightly guided Caliphs, the best of all men after the Prophet.

They approve the Feast and the Friday Congregation and all gatherings for Prayer under the leadership of any Imam, be he pious or be he wicked. They believe in the precept of Holy War against polytheists. They approve Prayer for the welfare of all Imams of the Muslims and agree that they ought not to rebel against them with the sword, nor fight in any civil commotion. (The New Encyclopedia of Islam, edited by Cyril Glasse [Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Fourth edition 2013], Creed (Ar. ‘aqidah), pp. 125-126; bold and underline emphasis ours)

What all this shows is that Islam has its own warped version of the Trinity and Incarnation, teachings that Ally said were unreasonable!

3. The Doctrine of Blood Atonement and the Sacrifice of Jesus for Sins.

Ally’s woes are far from over since both the Quran and sunna attest that the Islamic deity has prescribed blood sacrifices for forgiveness of sins:

Rites of Sacrifice have been prescribed FOR EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD

Allah tells us that sacrifice AND SHEDDING BLOOD in the Name of Allah has been prescribed for all nations. `Ali bin Abi Talhah reported that Ibn `Abbas said…

(And for every nation We have appointed religious ceremonies,) “Festivals.” `Ikrimah said, “Sacrifices.”…

(And for every nation We have appointed religious ceremonies,) Zayd bin Aslam said, “This means Makkah; Allah did not appoint religious ceremonies anywhere else for any nation.” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 22:34 http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2503&Itemid=77; capital and underline emphasis ours)

And:

Sunan Ibn Majah

The Chapters on Sacrifices

It was narrated from ’Aishah that the Prophet said: “The son of Adam does not do any deed on the Day of Sacrifice that is dearer to Allah THAN SHEDDING BLOOD. It will come on the Day of Resurrection with its horns and cloven hoofs and hair. Its blood is accepted by Allah before it reaches the ground. So be content when you do it.”

Grade: Da’if (Darussalam)

English reference: Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3126

Arabic reference: Book 26, Hadith 3246 (Sunnah.com http://sunnah.com/urn/1272290; capital, italicized and underline emphasis ours)

In fact, the Quran often speaks of Allah making atonement for the transgressions of Muslims:

Their Lord therefore answereed them, “I will not suffer the work of him among you who works to be lost, whether he be male, or female: The one of you is from the other. They therefore who have left their country, and have been turned out of their houses, and have suffered for my sake, and have been slain in battle; verily I will MAKE ATONEMENT (laokaffiranna) for their evil deeds, and I will surely bring them into gardens watered by rivers: a reward from Allah: And with Allah is the most excellent reward.” S. 3:195

If you avoid the great sins that are forbidden you, We will MAKE ATONEMENT (nukaffir) for your evil deeds, and admit you by the gate of honour. S. 4:31

O believers, if you fear Allah, he will grant you a distinction, and will MAKE ATONEMENT (wayukaffir) for your sins, and will forgive you; for Allah is indued with great liberality. S. 8:29

This [is] the command of Allah, which he has sent down unto you. And whoever fears Allah, he will MAKE ATONEMENT (yukaffir) for his evil deeds, and will increase his reward. S. 65:5

The ahadith give us an idea of how Allah plans to make atonement for all the crimes and wicked acts that Muhammad and his followers have committed over the centuries:

Superiority of the believers in the Oneness of Allah and the punishment of the Jews and Christians

8) Narrated Abu Musa: Allah’s Messenger said: On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: UNLOAD the sins from them AND PUT THE SAME OVER the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.

(This Hadith IS SOUND and mentioned in Mustadrak of Hakim). (110 Hadith Qudsi (Sacred Hadith), translated by Syed Masood-ul-Hasan, revision and commentaries by Ibrahim m. Kunna [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors], pp. 19-20; capital and underline emphasis ours)

And:

432. Abu Musa al-Ash’ari reported that the Messenger of Allah said, “On the Day of Rising, Allah will hand over a Jew or a Christian to every Muslim and say, ‘HERE IS YOUR REDEMPTION FROM THE FIRE.” [Muslim]

In another variant from him is that the Prophet said, “Some of the Muslims will be brought on the Day of Rising WITH SINS THE SIZE OF MOUNTAINS and Allah will forgive them.” (Al-Imam Abu Zakariya Yahya bin Sharaf An-Nawawi Ad-Dimashqi, Riyad as-Salihin (The Meadows of the Righteous), 51. Chapter: On Hope; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Here is one from the hadith collection of Imam Muslim:

(20) CHAPTER. Disbelievers are sent to Hell as SACRIFICE to the Muslims

1937. Abu Musa narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: “When it is the Day of Resurrection, Allah will deliver every Muslim a Jew or Christian and say: ‘THAT IS YOUR SACRIFICE FROM HELL-FIRE.’” (The Translation of the Meanings of Summarized Sahih Muslim (Arabic–English), Compiled by Al-Hafiz Zakiuddin Abdul-Azim Al-Mundhiri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: February 2000], Volume 2, 62– The Book Of Repentance And Allah’s Great Mercy, pp. 1033-1034; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Allah plans to make atonement by unloading all the evil deeds, wicked acts and crimes of the Muslims upon the Jews and Christians in order to torture them in hell forever as a vicarious sacrifice for Muhammad and his followers! Talk about a travesty and gross perversion of justice and the biblical concept of atonement!

Since these are the doctrines that Ally claimed were unreasonable he therefore has no choice but to condemn Muhammad as a false prophet and antichrist (which he certainly was) for promoting such irrational and morally grotesque doctrines. If Ally refuses to do so then he will only be exposing himself for being the dishonest and deceptive charlatan that he truly is.

We are not through with Ally just yet, so please check out the next part of my response https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/shabir-ally-proves-that-muhammad-was-unreasonable-pt-2/.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/23/shabir-ally-proves-that-muhammad-was-unreasonable-pt-1/

IHS