Never Shall He Be Satisfied

Muhammad’s Marriage to Safiyyah: A Case Study in Allah’s Mercy

Muhammad’s Marriage to Safiyyah Revisited

Muhammad and Safiyyah Revisited 3a, 3b

In light of the foregoing, what further evidence does Brown need before he comes to his senses and realizes that Muhammad was not a moral example for anyone to emulate, let alone a true prophet of God. After all, how can a 54-year-old man who married a 9-year-old prepubescent minor that was still playing with her dolls, and then went ahead and permitted other men to wed premature girls as well, who also lusted after and took his adopted son’s wife and then proceeded to abolish adoption because of it in order to save face, and who even gave himself the license to have more wives than what he allowed for others, be God’s inspired emissary for all peoples at all times?

With that said, Brown must come to grips with reality and recognize that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha violates even his own claim that all the surrounding cultures set puberty as the appropriate age for marriage, since all of Islam’s earliest and most reliable records clearly affirm that Aisha hadn’t reached puberty when Muhammad took her to his bed.

Brown must further face the fact that his assertion that no one complained about Muhammad’s marriage to a young girl is not only fallacious, seeing that it is nothing more than an argument from silence, but also totally irrelevant. After all, just because something is deemed to be appropriate by certain cultures doesn’t make it morally justifiable, especially when that practice results in irreparable psychological and physiological damage to children.

Besides, since Muhammad was supposed to be a role model for all times and places then his god would have surely known that marrying a premature minor, and permitting others to do so, would eventually come to be seen as pedophilia, as well as child abuse due to the great physical and emotional harm that such relationships cause to premature minors. Therefore, why didn’t Allah look out for the interests of these young girls, instead of doing what was best for Muhammad and his men? Where is the mercy and compassionate in that?

So much for Brown’s arguments.

Please make sure to read the postscript to this series of rebuttals.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/07/revisiting-the-age-of-aisha-pt-4/ 

IHS

Muhammad’s Visit to a Non-Existent Temple

In this post, I am going to cite various Muslim sources to provide further confirmation that, according to Quran 17:1, Muhammad actually visited the Temple in Jerusalem, which the verse calls masjid al-aqsa. The obvious problem with this assertion is that there was no Temple in Jerusalem at Muhammad’s time, nor was there a mosque by that name since masjid al-aqsa was only built around 691 AD by the caliph Abd al-Malik bin Marwan. For the complete details I recommend reading the following rebuttal to Muslim polemicist Sami Zaatari https://answeringislam.net/authors/shamoun/rebuttals/zaatari/mo-false1.html.

The Islamic literature identifies the farthest Mosque is actually the Temple of Jerusalem, which is called Bayt ul-Muqaddas in Arabic (spelled variously by different translators):

Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar al-Aslami informed us; he said: Usamah Ibn Zayd al-Laythi related to me on the authority of ‘Amr Ibn Shu’ayb, he on the authority of his father, he on the authority of his (‘Amr’s) grand-father; (second chain) he (Ibn Sa’d) said: Musa Ibn Ya’qub al-Zam’i related to me on the authority of his father, he on the authority of his (Musa’s) grandfather, he on the authority of Umm Salamah; (third chain) Musa said: Abu al-Aswad related to me on the authority of ‘Urwah, he on the authority of ‘Ayishah; (fourth chain) Muhammad Ibn ‘Umar said: Ishaq Ibn Hazim related to me on the authority of Wahb Ibn Kaysan, he on the authority of Abu Murrah the mawla of ‘Aqil, he on the authority of Umm Hani daughter of Abu Talib (fifth chain) he (Ibn Sa’d) said: ‘Abd Allah Ibn Ja’far related to me on the authority of Zakariya Ibn ‘Amr, he on the authority of Abu Mulaykah, he on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas and others; their consolidated narrations are: The Apostle of Allah, was taken by night on the seventeenth night of First Rabi’ before Hijrah, and one year before the blockade in the mountain pass of Abu Talib, to Bayt al-Muqaddas. The Apostle of Allah said: I was mounted on a beast whose size was between a donkey and a mule, with two wings in its thighs, which came up to its hoofs and were set in them. When I went near it to ride, it became restive. Thereupon Gabriel placed his hand on its head and said: O Buraq! are you not ashamed of what you are doing? By Allah no servant of Allah has ridden you before Muhammad, more honoured in the sight of Allah. It felt ashamed till it was covered with sweat, and became calm; then I mounted it. It moved its ears, and the earth shrank to such an extent that its hoofs (seemed to touch its surface) at the end of the range of our sight. It had a long back and long ears. Gabriel accompanied me and he never lost touch with me nor did I till we reached Bayt al-Muqaddas; and al-Buraq reached its halting place. It was tied there and it was the place where the beasts… of the Prophets were tied before the Apostle of Allah. He (the Prophet) said: I saw the Prophets who had assembled there for me. I saw Abraham, Moses and Jesus and, I thought there must be some one to lead them (in prayers); Gabriel made me go forward till I offered prayers in front of them and inquired from them (about their mission). They said: We were commissioned with Unity (of Allah).

Some of them (narrators) said: The Prophet had disappeared that night, so the members of family of ‘Abd al-Muttalib went out to search him. Al-‘Abbas went to Dhu Tuwa and began to shout: O Muhammad! O Muhammad! The Apostle of Allah said: I am here. He said: O my brother’s son! You have worried the people since the (beginning of the) night, where had you been? He said: I am coming from Bayt al-Muqaddas. He said: In one night? He said: Yes. He said: Did you experience anything which was not good? He said: I did not experience anything but good. Umm Hani said: He was taken on this journey from our house. He slept that night with us; he offered al-‘Isha prayers, and then he slept. When it was pre-dawn we awoke him (to offer) morning (prayers). He got up and when he offered morning prayers he said: O Umm Hani! I offered al’Isha prayers with you as you witnessed, then I reached Bayt Al-Muqaddas and offered prayers there; then I offered morning prayers before you. After this he got up to go out; I said to him: Do not relate this to the people because they will belie you and harm you. He said: By Allah I shall relate to them and inform them. They wondered at it and said: We have never heard a thing like this. The Apostle of Allah said to Gabriel; O Gabriel! my people will not confirm it. He said: Abu Bakr will testify to it; and he is al-Siddiq. The narrator added: Many people who had embraced Islam and offered prayers went astray. (The Prophet continued,) I stood at al-Hijr, visualised Bayt al-Muqaddas and described its signs. Some of them said: HOW MANY DOORS ARE THERE IN THAT MOSQUE? I HAD NOT COUNTED THEM SO I BEGAN TO LOOK AT IT AND COUNTED THEM ONE BY ONE AND GAVE THEM INFORMATION CONCERNING THEM. I also gave information about their caravan which was on the way and its signs. They found them as I had related. Allah, the Almighty, the Great, revealed: “We appointed the vision which We showed thee as an ordeal for mankind”. He (Ibn Sa’d) said: It refers to the vision of the eye which he saw with the eye. (Ibn Sa’ad, Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India], Volume I, pp. 246-248; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Ziyad b. ‘Abdullah al-Bakka’i from Muhammad b. Ishaq told me the following: Then the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa WHICH IS THE TEMPLE OF AELIA, when Islam had spread in Mecca among the Quraysh and all the tribes… His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, UNTIL HE CAME TO JERUSALEM’S TEMPLE… In his story al-Hasan said: “The apostle and Gabriel went their way until they arrived AT THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM”… (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], pp. 181, 182; bold and capital emphasis ours)

<from Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa> means the Sacred House which is in Jerusalem, the origin of the Prophets from the time of Ibraham Al-Khalil. The Prophets all gathered there, and he (Muhammad) led them in prayer in their own homeland. This indicates that he is the greatest leader of all, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him and upon them. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 17:1 http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2865&Itemid=72; bold emphasis ours)

Ibn Kathir narrates some hadiths to confirm this point:

The Report of Jabir bin `Abdullah

Imam Ahmad recorded that Jabir bin `Abdullah said that he heard the Messenger of Allah say…

<<(When Quraysh did not believe that I had been taken on the Night Journey to Bayt Al-Maqdis, I stood up in Al-Hijr and Allah displayed Bayt Al-Maqdis before me, so I told them about its features while I was looking at it.>> This was also reported in the Two Sahihs with different chains of narration. According to Al-Bayhaqi, Ibn Shihab said: Abu Salamah bin `Abdur-Rahman said: Some people from Quraish went to Abu Bakr and said, “Have you heard what your companion is saying He is claiming that he went to Bayt Al-Maqdis and came back to Makkah in one night!” Abu Bakr said, “Did he say that?” They said, “Yes.” Abu Bakr said, “Then I bear witness that if he said that, he is speaking the truth.” They said, “You believe that he went to Ash-Sham [Greater Syria] in one night and came back to Makkah before morning” He said, “Yes, I believe him with regard to something even more than that. I believe him with regard to the revelation that comes to him from heaven.” Abu Salamah said, from then on Abu Bakr was known as As-Siddiq (the true believer). (Source http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2861&Itemid=72)

And:

I remember being in Al-Hijr, and the Quraysh were asking me about my Night Journey. They asked me things about Bayt Al-Maqdis that I was not sure of, and I felt more anxious and stressed then than I have ever felt. Then Allah raised up Bayt Al-Maqdis for me to see, and there was nothing they asked me about but I told them about it. And I remember being in a gathering of the Prophets. Musa was standing there praying, and he was a man with curly hair, as if he were one of the men of Shanu’ah. I saw ‘Isa ibn Maryam standing there praying, and the one who most resembles him is ‘Urwah bin Mas’ud Ath-Thaqafi. And I saw Ibrahim standing there praying, and for the one who most resembles him is your companion (meaning himself). Then the time for prayer came, and I led them in prayer. When I finished, a voice said, ‘O Muhammad, this is Malik, the keeper of Hell,’ so I turned to him, and he greeted me first. (Source http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2858&Itemid=72; bold emphasis ours)

Finally,

“… The truth is that the Prophet was taken on the Night Journey when he was awake, not in a dream, and he went from Makkah to Bayt Al-Maqdis riding on Al-Buraq. When he reached THE DOOR OF THE SANCTUARY, he tied up his animal by THE DOOR AND ENTERED, where he prayed two Rakahs to ‘greet the Masjid‘…

“Then he came back down to Bayt Al-Maqdis, and the Prophets came down with him and he led them in prayer there when the time for prayer came. Some claim that he led them in prayer in heaven, but the reports seem to say that it was in Bayt Al-Maqdis. In some reports it says that it happened when he first ENTERED…

“Then he came OUT OF BAYT AL-MAQDIS and rode on Al-Buraq back to Makkah in the darkness of the night. As for his being presented with the vessels containing milk and honey, or milk and wine, or milk and water, or all of these, some reports say that this happened in Bayt Al-Maqdis, and others say that it happened in the heavens. It is possible that it happened in BOTH places, because it is like offering food or drink to a guest when he arrives, and Allah knows best.” (Source http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2857&Itemid=72; bold and capital emphasis ours)

There’s more:

Glory be to Him — an affirmation of God’s transcendence — Who carried His servant Muhammad by night laylan is in the accusative as an adverbial qualification; isrā’ means ‘to travel by night’; what is instructive about this mention of laylan ‘by night’ is that through its being indefinite there is an indication of the brevity of its duration from the Sacred Mosque that is Mecca to the Farthest Mosque THE HOLY HOUSE OF JERUSALEM so called because of its distance from the former; the environs of which We have blessed with fruits and rivers that We might show him some of Our signs the marvels of Our power. Indeed He is the Hearing the Seeing that is to say the Knower of the Prophet’s sayings and deeds. Thus He God was gracious to him by way of carrying him on the night journey which comprised his encountering the other prophets his ascension to heaven and the sight of the marvels of the Divine Realm and His communion exalted be He with him. For he the Prophet said ‘I was brought al-Burāq a white animal larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule; it was able to place its hoof back towards its extremity and so I mounted it. It set off carrying me until I reached THE HOLY HOUSE OF JERUSALEM. There I fastened the animal to the ring where the prophets fasten their animals. I then WENT IN and prayed two units INSIDE IT. As I CAME OUT Gabriel came to me with a jug of wine and a jug of milk and so I chose the milk. Gabriel said to me “You have made the right choice by choosing the primordial nature fitra”.’ He the Prophet continued the narration ‘We then ascended to the heaven of this world whereat Gabriel asked to be let in. Someone asked “Who are you?”. He replied “Gabriel” “And who is with you?” “Muhammad” he said. “Has he been sent for?”. “Yes he has been sent for”. Then it was opened for us and lo! Adam stood before me; he greeted me and prayed for well-being for me. We then ascended to the second heaven and Gabriel asked to be let in. Someone asked “Who are you?”. He replied “Gabriel” “And who is with you?” “Muhammad” he said. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn, Q. 17:1 https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; capital emphasis mine)

And from his own narration on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that he said regarding the interpretation of Allah’s saying (Glorified be): ‘(Glorified be) He says: He is far exalted above and exonerated from having a son or partner (He Who carried His servant) He Who took His servant Muhammad (by night) at the beginning of the night (from the Inviolable Place of Worship) from the Sacred Precinct, from the house of Umm Hani’ the daughter of Abu Talib (to the Far Distant Place of Worship) far in distance, but close to heaven, i.e. THE MOSQUE OF JERUSALEM (the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed) with water, trees and fruits, (that We might show him) that We might show Muhammad (of Our tokens!) of Our marvels, for all the things He saw that night were marvels of Allah. (Lo! He, only He, is the Nearer) of what the Quraysh say, (the Seer) He sees them just as He sees His servant Muhammad. (Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=17&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2; capital emphasis ours)

“It is narrated on the authority of Anas b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah said: I was brought al-Buraq who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of version. I mounted it and came to THE TEMPLE (Bait Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. I ENTERED THE MOSQUE and prayed two rak’ahs IN IT, and then CAME OUT and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. I chose the milk, and Gabriel said: You have chosen the natural thing…” (Sahih Muslim, Book 001, Number 0309 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=001&translator=2&start=0&number=0309)

Sunan an-Nasa’i

5 The Book of Salah

(1) Chapter: Enjoining As-Salah And Mentioning The Differences Reported by The Narrators In The Chain Of The Hadith Of Anas Bin Malik, And The Different Wordings In It

Anas bin Malik narrated that the Messenger of Allah said:

“I was brought an animal that was larger than a donkey and smaller than a mule, whose stride could reach as far as it could see. I mounted it, and Jibril was with me, and I set off. Then he said: ‘Dismount and pray,’ so I did that. He said: ‘Do you know where you have prayed? You have prayed in Taibah, which will be the place of the emigration.’ Then he said: ‘Dismount and pray,’ so I prayed. He said: ‘Do you know where you have prayed? You have prayed in Mount Sinai, where Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, spoke to Musa, peace be upon him.’ So I dismounted and prayed, and he said: ‘Do you know where you have prayed? You have prayed in Bethlehem, where ‘Eisa, peace be upon him, was born.’ Then I ENTERED BAIT AL-MAQDIS (Jerusalem) where the Prophets, peace be upon them, were assembled for me, and Jibril brought me forward to lead them in prayer…”

Grade: Hasan (Darussalam)

Reference: Sunan an-Nasa’i 450

In-book reference: Book 5, Hadith 3

English translation: Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 451 (sunnah.com https://sunnah.com/nasai/5/3; capital emphasis ours)

Qaza’ah reported: I heard a hadith from Abu Sa’id and it impressed me (very much), so I said to him: Did you hear it (yourself) from Allah’s Messenger? Thereupon he said: (Can) I speak of anything about Allah’s Messenger (which I did not bear? He said: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying: Do not set out on a journey (for religious devotion) but for THE THREE MOSQUES-for this mosque of mine (at Medina) the Sacred Mosque (at Mecca), AND THE MOSQUE AL-AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis), and I heard him saying also: A woman should not travel for two days duration, but only when there is a Mahram with her or her husband. (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3099 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=007&translator=2&start=0&number=3038)

Abu Huraira reported it directly from Allah’s Apostle that he said: Do not undertake journey but to THREE MOSQUES: this mosque of mine, the Mosque of al-Haram AND THE MOSQUE OF AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3218 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=007&translator=2&start=0&number=3139)

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: One should undertake journey to THREE MOSQUES: the mosque of the Ka’ba, my mosque, AND THE MOSQUE OF ELIA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3220 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=007&translator=2&start=0&number=3141)

Since the mosques in Mecca and Medina refer to actual physical buildings, then the mosque al-aqsa must also be an actual building as well. Not even the most ardent Muhammadan polemicist  will be able to get around the plain and obvious meaning of these narrations, all of which clearly expose Muhammad as a false prophet.

Jami` at-Tirmidhi

Chapters on Tafsir

Narrated Zirr bin Hubaish:

“I said to Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman: ‘Did the Messenger of Allah perform Salat IN BAIT AL-MAQDIS?’ He said: ‘No.’ I said: ‘But he did.’ He said: ‘You say that, O bald one! Based upon what do you say that?’ I said: ‘BASED UPON THE QUR’AN, (the Judge) between you and I is the Qur’an.’ So Hudhaifah said: ‘Whoever argues using the Qur’an, then he has indeed succeeded.’” (One of the narrators) Sufyan said: “He means: ‘He has indeed proven’” – and perhaps he (Sufyan) said: “He triumphed.” He (Zirr) said: “Glorified is He Who took His slave for a journey by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haram to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa (17:1).’ He (Hudhaifah) said: ‘DO YOU SEE (this proves that) HE PERFORMED SALAT IN IT?’ I said: ‘No.’ He said: ‘If he had performed Salat in it, then it would have been required upon you that you perform Salat in it, just as it is required that you perform Salat in Al-Masjid Al-Haram.’ Hudhaifah said: ‘The Messenger of Allah was brought a beast with a long back – stretching out like this – one stride of it, is as far as his vision. So, the two of them remained upon the back of Al-Buraq until they saw Paradise and the Fire, and all of what has been prepared for the Hereafter, then they returned back to where they began.’ He said: ‘They say that he was fettered, but for what? Because he might flee? The Knower of the unseen and the witness subdued him.’”

Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)

English reference: Vol. 5, Book 44, Hadith 3147

Arabic reference: Book 47, Hadith 3440 (sunna.com https://sunnah.com/urn/641660)

Here we have Muslims using Q. 17:1 to prove that Muhammad entered in bait al-maqdis to perform prayer. The disputant doesn’t deny that Muhammad visited and/or entered an actual building. He simply rejects the notion of Muhammad praying inside there.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/04/15/muhammads-visit-to-a-non-existent-temple/

IHS

Refuting a Muslim Greenhorn on Q. 17:1

This is my response to the following post: https://bloggingtheology2.com/2019/04/14/feature-article-al-isra-and-the-temple-in-the-islamic-sources-a-response-to-sam-shamoun/. I will leave this reply here unless and until Paul Williams’ allows my rebuttal to be posted in the comments section.

Time for me to expose quranbibleblog’s utter dishonesty and shameless perversion of his own sources. Let’s start with the following:

BEGIN
Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat

As shown above, Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat states that the Prophet went to the “temple” in Jerusalem. But how could this be when the temple had been destroyed more than 500 years before?

To answer this question, it should be noted that Surah Al-Isra, 17:1, states that the Prophet was taken from the “al-Masjid al-Haram” (in Mecca) to “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” (in Jerusalem). Ibn Ishaq’s narration from Ziyad bin Abdullah also states this:

“…the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa, which is the temple of Aelia…”

This is despite the fact that the “masjid” in Mecca (the Kaaba) was still under the control of the pagans and was full of idols. Not only that, but even when Muhammad (peace be upon him) conquered Mecca, the “masjid” was still not the elaborate building we know of in modern times. Rather, it was just the Kaaba itself. So where was the “masjid”? This illustrates the confusion some people have about what constitutes a “masjid”. As shown above, a “masjid” does not have to be a literal building, since the whole earth has been made into a “masjid” (i.e. a place of prostration). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers prayed in Mecca, in the direction of the Kaaba (although originally, they prayed in the direction of Jerusalem), even though there was no literal “mosque” there yet. In the same way, when Ibn Ishaq’s narration mentioned the Prophet traveling to “Masjid al-Aqsa” (i.e. the “temple”), it does not mean that there was a literal building there. The reference to the “temple” simply refers to the site, not an actual building. As we will see later (see the Addendum), even to the Jews living under Persian rule (during the brief period in the early 7th century when the Sassanid Persians conquered Jerusalem from the Byzantines), to whom rebuilding the temple was of paramount importance, the sacred status of the site itself was all that was needed for the temple sacrifices to restart.
END

I have rarely met a Muslim who could so disgracefully pervert what his own citations say, especially one who thinks he can get away with it. Even though Ibn Ishaq CLEARLY IDENTIFIES masjid al-haram AS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, namely the Kabah, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIES masjid al-aqsa AS THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM, the neophyte shamelessly claims that Ibn Ishaq’s statements do not prove that he was referring to an actual temple or masjid, but may have been speaking of the site where the temple once stood! This is why this greenhorn will never debate me in a live exchange, but chooses to hide behind comments sections or articles where he can get away with writing 50,000 word posts full of lies, distortions and nonsense like this.

What makes this all the more laughable is that the neophyte argues that the word masjid has a complex range of meaning in order to argue that Q. 17:1 is referring to the site of the Temple, but not the actual building. And yet here he changes this tactic and argues for a more nuanced meaning, namely, mosque. Notice how he argues that, since masjid al-aqsa refers to the Kabah, the word masjid cannot mean mosque since there was no literal mosque in Mecca at the time! Talk about question begging and wanting to have your cake and eat it too! If we keep in mind that the word masjid refers to ANY BUILDING that is taken as a place of worship, this means that the Kabah can be called a masjid since Muhammadans took that building as their prayer direction and the place to visit in order to perform their pagan rituals. This again highlights the neophyte’s circular reasoning, as well as the post hoc nature of his rebuttal, since he erroneously assumes that the Kabah does not qualify as a masjid since it isn’t a mosque, even though a mosque is nothing more than a building erected for the worship of Allah, which is exactly what Muslims claim the Kabah was!

The greenhorn’s woes are far from over. Notice his next butchering job:

BEGIN
Finally, Shamoun quoted Ibn Kathir to show that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) “entered the Sanctuary” to pray and later “came out of” Bayt-Maqdis:

“The truth is that the Prophet was taken on the Night Journey when he was awake, not in a dream, and he went from Makkah to Bayt Al-Maqdis riding on Al-Buraq. When he reached the door of the sanctuary, he tied up his animal by the door and entered, where he prayed two Rak`ahs to `greet the Masjid’. […]

Some people claim that he led them [the prophets] in prayer in heaven, but the reports seem to say that it was in Bayt Al-Maqdis. In some reports it says that it happened when he first entered (i.e., before ascending into the heavens)…” […]

Then he came out of Bayt Al-Maqdis and rode on Al-Buraq back to Makkah in the darkness of the night. And Allah knows best. As for his being presented with the vessels containing milk and honey, or milk and wine, or milk and water, or all of these, some reports say that this happened in Bayt Al-Maqdis, and others say that it happened in the heavens. It is possible that it happened in both places…”[45]

But as we have already seen, “Bayt al-Maqdis” could refer to the land of Palestine or Jerusalem or the Temple Mount (depending on the context). Later on, it was also used interchangeably with “Ilia” to refer to Jerusalem itself. In addition, once again, Shamoun shoots himself in the foot with his own so-called “proof”. Notice that Ibn Kathir specifically referred to the Prophet “entering” the “sanctuary”, and not Bayt al-Maqdis. He then says that the Prophet “came out of” the latter. In other words, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon) “entered” the Temple Mount sanctuary (Haram Al-Shareef), not the temple, and then exited the holy land afterward. This proves that Bayt al-Maqdis was the city of Jerusalem itself.
END

I am starting to get embarrassed for the greenhorn. Notice the blatant dishonesty, “… Notice that Ibn Kathir specifically referred to the Prophet “entering” the “sanctuary”, and not Bayt al-Maqdis…”

All I can say here is, WOW! The dishonesty is appalling to say the least since it is clear that Ibn Kathir WAS IDENTIFYING THE SANCTUARY AS BAYT AL-MAQDIS!

In other words, it is evident to any honest person that the sanctuary that Muhammad entered IS THE SAME BAYT AL-MAQDIS THAT HE IS SAID TO HAVE COME OUT FROM, a fact that even the greenhorn sees since he writes, “Finally, Shamoun quoted Ibn Kathir to show that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) “entered the Sanctuary” to pray and later “came out of” Bayt-Maqdis:” Only someone robbed of any honesty would try to distinguish the two, and we know why he has to do this. The plain reading of the Islamic sources expose Muhammad as a fraud who lied about visiting a non-existent temple, which has now come back to expose him for the fraud that he truly was.

This also refutes his desperate and pathetic attempt of identifying the door of the sanctuary with the gates of the city, since it is clear from Ibn Kathir’s citation that the door Muhammad entered into was the one leading inside the building itself.

Now for the final example of this man’s blatant dishonest:

BEGIN
entered the sanctuary.[49]

Yusuf Ali’s Commentary

To finish off his “victory”, Shamoun quoted the Muslim exegete Yusuf Ali:

“The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock, called also the Mosque of Hadhrat ‘Umar. This and the Mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) were completed by the Amir ‘Abd-ul-Malik in A.H. 68. Farthest because it was the place of worship farthest west which was known to the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet: it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians, but the Christians then had the upper hand, as it was included the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, which maintained a Patriarch at Jerusalem. The chief dates in connection with the Temple are: it was finished by Solomon about BC. 1004; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C.; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 B.C.; turned into a heathen idol-temple by one of Alexander’s successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 B.C.; restored by Herod, B.C. 17 to A.D. 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. These ups and downs are among the greater Signs in religious history.”

Yet Shamoun once again shot himself in the foot. Notice that Ali clearly stated that the “Farthest Mosque” (emphasis ours):

“…must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon…”

So, it is referring to the “site”, not the temple itself. Moreover, Shamoun ignored what Ali stated just before mentioning the “Farthest Mosque”, in reference to the definition of the word masjid. Referring to the “Sacred Mosque” (al-Masjid al-Haram) in Mecca, Ali explained that:

“[m]asjid is a place of prayer: here it refers to the Ka’bah at Makkah. It had not yet been cleared of its idols and rededicated exclusively to the One True God.”[50]

Just as the Kaaba was referred to as a “masjid”, so to was “al-Masjid al-Aqsa”, since both are sacred places for worshipping Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He). So once again, there is nothing here to prove any so-called “gross historical blunder”, as Shamoun claims.
END

Does this guy really think he can get away with such a shameless misrepresentation of why I quoted Ali? The reason why I quoted Ali WAS TO PROVE THAT EVEN THIS SCHOLAR ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO TEMPLE DURING MUHAMMAD’S SUPPOSED JOURNEY THERE, AND THAT THE BUILDING WHICH WAS LATER CALLED MASJID AL-AQSA DIDN’T EXIST AT THAT TIME EITHER! Here’s what I actually wrote for all to see:

BEGIN
The problem with these fables is that the first Temple was built by Solomon and subsequently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylonian armies in 586 BC. Furthermore, general Titus and his Roman soldiers leveled the Second Temple in AD. 70, more than five centuries before this alleged night journey to Jerusalem took place. Moreover, the place that was eventually called Masjid al-Aqsa did not come into existence until AD. 690-691 when ‘Abd al-Malik bin Marwan built it (or, as some believe, reconstructed and expanded it). As the late Muslim translator and commentator Abdullah Yusuf Ali states in his footnote 2168,

The Farthest Mosque must refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem on the hill of Moriah, at or near which stands the Dome of the Rock, called also the Mosque of Hadhrat ‘Umar. This and the Mosque known as the Farthest Mosque (Masjid-ul-Aqsa) were completed by the Amir ‘Abd-ul-Malik in A.H. 68. Farthest because it was the place of worship farthest west which was known to the Arabs in the time of the Holy Prophet: it was a sacred place to both Jews and Christians, but the Christians then had the upper hand, as it was included the Byzantine (Roman) Empire, which maintained a Patriarch at Jerusalem. The chief dates in connection with the Temple are: it was finished by Solomon about BC. 1004; destroyed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C.; rebuilt under Ezra and Nehemiah about 515 B.C.; turned into a heathen idol-temple by one of Alexander’s successors, Antiochus Epiphanes, 167 B.C.; restored by Herod, B.C. 17 to A.D. 29; and completely razed to the ground by the Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. These ups and downs are among the greater Signs in religious history. (Ali, The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary (English and Arabic Edition) [Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Elmhurst NY: Hardcover Edition, January, 1987] p. 693)

In other words, THERE WAS NO TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM WHEN THIS ALLEGED JOURNEY TOOK PLACE!
END

This explains why Ali had to argue that masjid here refers to the site, and not a building, since he knew that no such building existed during Muhammad’s time. Note his circular reasoning when he claims that masjid al-aqsa, “… MUST refer to the site of the Temple of Solomon…” MUST mean the site? Why must this be the case? Because of his circular reasoning that Muhammad was a true prophet who could not make such a foolish blunder!

Unfortunately for this greenhorn and Ali, Muhammad didn’t know that no temple or mosque existed in Jerusalem, which is why he made the mistake of claiming to have visited a temple that did not exist, resulting in the embarrassment of Muslims having to explain away his huge blunder, but to no avail.

Moreover, Ali’s citation actually refutes the neophyte and confirms my point since he candidly admits that masjid al-haram does refer to AN ACTUAL BUILDING, namely the Kabah, and not merely to a site or place. Therefore, since the word masjid in its first occurrence clearly refers to A PHYSICAL BUILDING, then this means that its second occurrence in the same passage must also refer to a physical building, and not merely a site or place. It is only the circular reasoning of this neophyte that leads him to assume otherwise.

And this is the guy who keeps shooting blanks while claiming that I’m shooting myself in the foot!

Lord Jesus willing, I shall have a lot more to share here exposing this charlatan for all to see. For now I will see how the greenhorn attempts to get around all his egregious errors and blatant lies.

POSTSCRIPT

In an act of cowardice, Paul Williams has refused to publish my replies. This leaves me no choice but to add any further refutations to specific comments made by the greenhorn here in this post. Here’s my recent reply.

The greenhorn’s reply here shows why he needs to return to selling cars for a living. Note what he says to my assertion to his confused and contradictory position where he tries to prove that masjid doesn’t have to refer to building, but merely a place of prostration, while then arguing that Q. 17:1 may in fact be referencing an actual building, albeit a partially built one:

“It has been sufficiently proven that the word “masjid” refers to ANY ‘place of prostration’, whether a building or not. You seem to be very confused about. It’s not a ‘one or the other’ issue. A masjid can be a building or it can refer to the land. Discussing the attempted rebuilding of the temple by the Jews after the Persian conquest is simply to add another possibility. But as I said, the Islamic sources are sufficient to prove that a literal building was not necessary.”

If anyone is confused it’s the neophyte due to the incoherent babble he produced. In the first place, either masjid in Q. 17:1 refers to a building or it doesn’t. The greenhorn still wants to have his cake and eat it too, but it ain’t going to happen.

Second, here are all the Quranic references to masjid: 2:114, 2:144, 2:149-150, 2:187, 2:191, 2:196, 2:217; 5:2; 7:29, 7:31, 8:34, 9:7, 9:17-19, 9:28, 9:107-108; 17:1, 17:7; 18:21, 22:25; 22:40; 48:25; 48:27; 72:18.

I challenge the greenhorn to quote a single verse where the Quran employs the term masjid to reference something other than an actual building where people gather to worship his god. The problem is that he can’t show that and the fact that he candidly admitted that masjid al-haram in Q. 17:1 (despite all of his incoherent about the Kabah and the masjid which was built later) means that is merely question begging on his part to argue that the second occurrence of the word masjid in the very same verse doesn’t refer to a building but to a place.

And I hope he isn’t stupid enough to go to the hadiths, since the ahadith prove that masjid al-aqsa in Q. 17:1 IS AN ACTUAL BUILDING, not merely a place or site!

Qaza’ah reported: I heard a hadith from Abu Sa’id and it impressed me (very much), so I said to him: Did you hear it (yourself) from Allah’s Messenger? Thereupon he said: (Can) I speak of anything about Allah’s Messenger (which I did not bear? He said: I heard Allah’s Messenger saying: Do not set out on a journey (for religious devotion) but for THE THREE MOSQUES-for this mosque of mine (at Medina) the Sacred Mosque (at Mecca), AND THE MOSQUE AL-AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis), and I heard him saying also: A woman should not travel for two days duration, but only when there is a Mahram with her or her husband. (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3099)

Abu Huraira reported it directly from Allah’s Apostle that he said: Do not undertake journey but to THREE MOSQUES: this mosque of mine, the Mosque of al-Haram AND THE MOSQUE OF AQSA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3218)

Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: One should undertake journey to THREE MOSQUES: the mosque of the Ka’ba, my mosque, AND THE MOSQUE OF ELIA (Bait al-Maqdis). (Sahih Muslim, Book 007, Number 3220)

Since the mosques in Mecca and Medina refer to actual physical buildings, then the mosque al-aqsa must also be an actual building as well. Not even this greenhorn will be able to get around the plain and obvious meaning of these narrations, all of which clearly expose Muhammad as a false prophet.

As if he couldn’t further illustrate his utter ineptness, the greenhorn proceeds to repeat his incoherent babble regarding the Kabah being different from the elaborately designed masjid of later times:

LOL! Read again what I said: “This is despite the fact that the “masjid” in Mecca (the Kaaba) was still under the control of the pagans and was full of idols. Not only that, but even when Muhammad conquered Mecca, the “masjid” was still not the elaborate building we know of in modern times. Rather, it was just the Kaaba itself. So where was the “masjid”? This illustrates the confusion some people have about what constitutes a “masjid”. As shown above, a “masjid” does not have to be a literal building, since the whole earth has been made into a “masjid” (i.e. a place of prostration). The Prophet Muhammad and his followers prayed in Mecca, in the direction of the Kaaba (although originally, they prayed in the direction of Jerusalem), even though there was no literal “mosque” there yet. In the same way, when Ibn Ishaq’s narration mentioned the Prophet traveling to “Masjid al-Aqsa” (i.e. the “temple”), it does not mean that there was a literal building there. The reference to the “temple” simply refers to the site, not an actual building.” The al-Masjid al-Haram refers to the Kaaba, even though the Kaaba was under the control of the pagans and there was no actual “mosque” there. It was just the Kaaba. Did Muslims pray inside the Kaaba? Does anyone actually go inside to pray? No, they pray in the compound facing the Kaaba. So, it is a “masjid” in that regard.

Either the Muhammadan didn’t get my point, or is doing all he can to hide his inability to actually refute my argument. Let me repeat it again. Since he admits that masjid al-haram is a reference to the Kabah, and since the Kabah is an actual physical budiling, this means that the word masjid does not refer to a place, BUT TO A PHYSICAL BUILDING WHICH MUSLIMS TOOK AS A HOUSE OF WORSHIP!

Moreover, since the word “mosque” is nothing more than the English rendering of masjid, and since masjid refers to a physical building which Muslims congregate at in order to worship their god, then this shows the utter futility of this Muhammadan from trying to disassociate the Kabah from being a mosque since the Kabah is indeed a mosque!

He again ends up shooting himself in the foot by candidly admitting that the term al-aqsa is the name for THE BUILDING!

WOW!! Are you really paying attention? The source clearly states that the ENTIRE COMPOUND is the mosque! “‘Al-Aqsa’ is a name for THE WHOLE MOSQUE WHICH IS SURROUNDED BY THE WALL…for THE BUILDING that exists in the southern part of the Mosque, and the other ones such as the Dome of the Rock and the corridors and other [buildings] are novel…” He specifically said that the two mosques known as “Al-Aqsa” and “Dome of the Rock” are “novel”. In other words, those names refer to specific parts of the compound, but before they were even built, the ENTIRE COMPOUND was called “al-Masjid al-Aqsa

Let me quote the relevant part of his admission for all to see:

Al-Aqsa’ is a name for THE WHOLE MOSQUE WHICH IS SURROUNDED BY THE WALL…for THE BUILDING that exists in the southern part of the Mosque and the other ones SUCH AS THE DOME OF THE ROCK and the corridors and OTHER [BUILDINGS] are novel…”

So his own source admits that the BUILDINGS, not simply its surrounding area, are the mosque, which again proves that masjid al-aqsa in Q. 17:1 doesn’t reference a place, BUT AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL BUILDING. It is evident why the Muslim authority he cited including the entire area within the definition of masjid al-aqsa. Since they were all connected and/or attached to the physical buildings themselves, the Muslims therefore decided to extend the meaning to encompass the whole area surrounding these buildings.

And this gentleman actually thinks he is refuting me and defending the errors and foolishness of his false prophet!

Sadly, this is the incoherent babble that his fellow Muhammadans lauded! This only shows that you Muslims could care less about truth, since what matters to you is defending the nonsense and fables of your profit. Lord willing, I have more in response to this neophyte’s fluff which I will post shortly.

FURTHER REPLIES

Time to make the clown and his profit cry again. I am going to omit all his fluff since all the neophyte did was repeat himself without refuting my actual points.

This is the jihadi’s response to my schooling him on his misuse of Ezra 2:68 and how it backfired against him.

“ROTFL!! So just because the temple WILL EVENTUALLY be rebuilt (but is still just ruins), somehow that means that the “House of the Lord” is already present there? Notice Shamoun’s double standards. He knows he’s stuck.

“And here we go. Shamoun’s humiliation begins. We know the phrase ‘house of the Lord’ means the temple and NOT the “location” because Ezra 1:5 says:

‘Then the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and Levites—everyone whose heart God had moved—prepared to go up and build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem.’

DOUBLE OUCH!! The “house of the Lord” is in Jerusalem and has to be built.

Therefore, it CANNOT be just the location, but rather the TEMPLE ITSELF! Poor Shamoun keeps getting trounced!”

Being so stupid he doesn’t realize that he just buried his profit further down the hole. If the phrase “the house of the Lord” does mean the actual temple itself, THEN HE JUST PROVED MY POINT THAT MASJID AL-AQSA CANNOT REFER TO A PLACE, BUT TO AN IMAGINARY BUILDING THAT HIS PROFIT FOOLISHLY THOUGHT WAS STILL IN EXISTENCE! The illiterate jihadi is simply committing the tu quoque fallacy, i.e. the “you too” fallacy. He assumes that if the Bible contains a similar blunder like his book of porn then this somehow explains away the egregious blunder of his god and profit. The problem is that finding a similar in the Bible doesn’t explain away the error in the Quran. It simply means that both books are wrong.

However, let’s expose the utterly wicked deceit and dishonest of this vile Muhammadan by quoting what he left out:

“In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the LORD spoken through Jeremiah, the LORD roused the spirit of King Cyrus to issue a proclamation throughout his entire kingdom and to put it in writing: This is what King Cyrus of Persia says: ‘The LORD, the God of the heavens, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and has appointed me TO BUILD HIM A HOUSE AT JERUSALEM IN JUDAH. Any of his people among you, may his God be with him, and may he go to Jerusalem in Judah AND BUILD THE HOUSE OF THE LORD, the God of Israel, the God who is in Jerusalem. Let every survivor, wherever he resides, be assisted by the men of that region with silver, gold, goods, and livestock, along with a freewill offering for the house of God in Jerusalem.’ So the family heads of Judah and Benjamin, along with the priests and Levites—everyone whose spirit God had roused—prepared to go up and BUILD the LORD’s house in Jerusalem. All their neighbors supported them with silver articles, gold, goods, livestock, and valuables, in addition to all that was given as a freewill offering. King Cyrus also brought out the articles of the LORD’s house that Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Jerusalem and had placed in the house of his gods.” Ezra 1:1-6

The context makes it clear that Cyrus was sending the Jews to REBUILD THE HOUSE OF THE LORD which had previously been destroyed by the Babylonians. Now let us repost Ezra 2:68, which this vile Muhammadan himself cited. I will even use his own quotation:

“When they arrived at the house of the Lord in Jerusalem, some of the heads of the families gave freewill offerings toward THE REBUILDING of the house of God on ITS SITE.” (Ezra 2:68)

Notice the reference to ITS SITE, which makes abundantly clear that this is speaking of the the rebuilding of the temple in the very place that the former temple once stood. Now let’s see what happens when we quote the next chapter:

“When the seventh month arrived, and the Israelites were in their towns, the people gathered as one in Jerusalem. Jeshua son of Jozadak and his brothers the priests along with Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and his brothers BEGAN TO BUILD THE ALTAR of Israel’s God in order to offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the law of Moses, the man of God. THEY SET UP THE ALTAR ON ITS FOUNDATION and offered burnt offerings for the morning and evening on it to the LORD even though they feared the surrounding peoples. They celebrated the Festival of Shelters as prescribed, and offered burnt offerings each day, based on the number specified by ordinance for each festival day. After that, they offered the regular burnt offering and the offerings for the beginning of each month and for all the LORD’s appointed holy occasions, as well as the freewill offerings brought to the LORD. On the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to the LORD, EVEN THOUGH THE FOUNDATION OF THE LORD’S TEMPLE HAD NOT YET BEEN. They gave money to the stonecutters and artisans, and gave food, drink, and oil to the people of Sidon and Tyre, so they would bring cedar wood from Lebanon to Joppa by sea, according to the authorization given them by King Cyrus of Persia.” Ezra 3:1-7

Hence, the immediate and over all contexts make it clear that . This is unlike Q. 17:1 since there is nothing contextually to suggest it is referring to a place as opposed to a building. Only someone demonized like his profit could butcher sources the way this thug does. What makes it all the more shocking is that he even has the audacity to think he can get away with it.

He then barks:

“LOL!! Notice again the double standards! So now, it’s the “location” and not necessarily the temple itself! This is EXACTLY my point!”

That is exactly not your point, because the example you gave refutes your entire “rebuttal” since, unlike Q. 17:1, the context of Ezra 2:68 makes it clear that it is referring to the site where the temple once stood. Only someone so wickedly dishonest could employ such deceitful tactics to defend the blunder of the Quran.
Therefore, let me repeat my point once again. Unlike the context of Ezra 2:68, there is nothing in the context of Q. 17:1 that even remotely suggests that masjid al-aqsa refers to a place. As the evidence I have presented has proven, and which you have yet to refute, masjid al-aqsa can only refer to a physical building, one which did not exist at the time of your profit. Therefore, this is a blunder that exposes your profit for the fraud that he truly was. So Oy vei is right! And ROFL right back at you since you and your profit just got trounced!

I have more for your burial in the next reply.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/04/15/refuting-a-muslim-greenhorn-on-q-171/

IHS

The Third Caliph’s Abuse of the Quran’s Greatest Compiler

In this post, I am going to cite certain Muslim authorities concerning the abuse and physical beating that the third caliph Uthman ibn Affan inflicted on Abdullah ibn Masud. The purpose of doing so is to unveil what Sunni Muslims are too embarrassed to mention since it reflects rather poorly on their prophet’s companions and the preservation of the Quran

THE STATUS OF IBN MASUD

The greatness of Abdullah ibn Masud is apparent from the fact that the Islamic traditions testify that he was the most knowledgeable companion of Muhammad (along with Ubai ibn Kab) concerning the compilation of the Quran:

Abdullah (bin Masud) reported that (he said to his companions to conceal their copies of the Qur’an) and further said: He who conceals anything shall have to bring that which he had concealed on the Day of Judgment, and they said: After whose mode of recitation do you command me to recite? I in fact recited before Allah’s Messenger more than seventy chapters of the Qur’an and the companions of Allah’s Messenger know that I have better understanding of the Book of Allah (than they do), and if I were to know that someone had better understanding than I, I would have gone to him. Shaqiq said: I sat in the company of the companions of Muhammad but I did not hear anyone having rejected that (that is, his recitation) or finding fault with it. (Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6022 https://sunnah.com/muslim/44/162)

His importance can be further seen from the following ahadith where Muhammad lists him first among three others as the foremost authorities on the Quran:

Narrated Masruq: ‘Abdullah bin Masud was mentioned before Abdullah bin ‘Amr who said, “That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet saying ‘Learn the recitation of Quran from four from ‘Abdullah bin Mas’ud –he started with him–Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudaifa, Mu’adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka’b.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 153 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=58&translator=1&start=0&number=153)

Masruq reported: We were in the company of Abdullah b ‘Amr that we made a mention of a hadith from Abdullah b. Mas’ud; thereupon he said: That is a person whose love ever remains (fresh in my heart) after I heard Allah’s Messenger as saying: Learn Qur’an from four persons: Ibn Umm ‘Abd, i.e. Abdullah b. Mas’ud and he started from his name-then Ubayy b. Ka’b and Mu’adh b Jabal. Zuhri did not make a mention of the words yaquluhu in his narration. (Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6045  https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=031&translator=2&start=0&number=6008)

Other traditions confirm Ibn Masud’s surpassing the knowledge of the Quran and that Muhammad had even personally taught him the recitation as he had received it from Gabriel for the final time:

Hashim Ibn al-Qasim informed us; (he said): al-Mas’udi informed us on the authority of Qasim, i.e., ‘Abd al-Rahman; he said: Gabriel used to descend before the Apostle of Allah and he recited the Qur’an before him once every year [P. 4] in Ramadan, till the year when the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, died; when Gabriel made him recite the Qur’an twice. ‘Abd Allah said: I recited the Qur’an as I have it from the mouth of the Apostle of Allah that year. If I had known any one more well versed… in the Book of Allah than me and camels had borne me to him, surely I would have gone to him; but by Allah! I DO NOT KNOW ANY SUCH PERSON. (Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi- 110 002 India], Volume 2, p. 244; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Yahya Ibn Khulayf Ibn ‘Uqbah al-Basri informed us; (second chain) ‘Abd al-Wahhab Ibn ‘Ata informed us; he said: Ibn ‘Awn informed us on the authority of Muhammad ibn Sirin; he said: Gabriel used to recite the Qur’an before our Prophet, may Allah bless him, once every year in Ramadan. In the year in which he breathed his last he recited it twice before him. Muhammad said: I hope our style of reading… conforms to the last recitation by Gabriel. (Ibid., p. 243; bold emphasis mine)

Abu Mu’awiyah al-Darir informed us; (he said): al-A’mash informed us on the authority of Abu Zabyan, he on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas, he asked: Which of the two readings (of the Qur’an) do you prefer? He (Abu Zabyan) said: We replied: The reading of ‘Abd Allah. Thereupon he said: Verily the Qur’an was recited (by Gabriel) before the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, once in every Ramadan, except the year in which he breathed his last, when it was recited twice. Then ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud came to him (Prophet) and he learnt what was abrogated or altered.

Yahya Ibn ‘Isa al-Ramli informed us on the authority of Sufyan, he on the authority of al-A’mash, he on the authority of Abu al-Duha, he on the authority of Masruq; he said: ‘Abd Allah said: No surah was revealed but I know about what it was revealed. If I had known any one knowing more of the Book of Allah than me, and if the camels or other riding beasts had carried me there, I must have gone to him…

Wahb Ibn Jarir Ibn Hazm informed us: (he said): Shu’bah informed us on the authority of Ibrahim Ibn Muhajir, he on the authority of Ibrahim, he on the authority of ‘Abd Allah; (second chain) Abu Nua’ym al-Fadl Ibn Dukayn informed us; (he said): Abu al-Ahwas informed us on the authority of Sa’id Ibn Masruq, he on the authority of Abu al-Duha, he on the authority of ‘Abd Allah; he said: The Apostle of Allah said to me: Recite (the Qur’an) before me. Thereupon I said: How can I repeat before you and it has been revealed on you. He said: I like it. Wahb said in his version: I desire to hear it from others. He (‘Abd Allah) said: I recited the surah of al-Nisa before him, till I reached the verse: But how (will it be with them) when We bring of every people and We bring thee (O Muhammad) a witness against them. Abu Nua’ym said in his version: Thereupon he said: It is enough. Both of them said: Then I saw him that the eyes of the Prophet were filled tears, and he said: Whoever seeks pleasure in reciting the Qur’an according to its fresh reading he should recite after the reading of Ibn Umm ‘Abd. (Ibid., pp. 441-442; bold emphasis ours)

Waki ‘Ibn al-al-Jarrah informed us on the authority of Isma’il Ibn Khalid, he on the authority of Abu ‘Amr al-Shaybani; he said: Abu Musa al-Ash’ari said: Do not put questions to me as long as this learned man, that is Ibn Mas’ud, is among you. (Ibid., p. 443; bold emphasis ours)

Ma’an Ibn ‘Isa informed us; (he said): Mu’awiyah Ibn Salih informed us on the authority of Asad Ibn Wada’ah: Verily ‘Umar mentioned Ibn Mas’ud and said: (He is) a box full of knowledge for which I honoured the people of al-Qadisiyah. (Ibid., p. 444; bold emphasis mine)

When informed that Zaid’s text was to receive official status, Ibn Masud reacted indifferently:

Abdullah Ibn Masud said, “I recited from the Messenger of Allah seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid Ibn Thabit had embraced Islam.” (Gilchrist, Chapter 3. The Codices of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka’b, p. 66 – citing Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, p. 17)

“I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth – must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah?” (Ibid., p. 15)

Ibn Masud during a religious sermon (khutba) declared:

“’Affan Ibn Muslim informed us; (he said): ‘Abd al-Wahid Ibn Ziyad informed us; (he said): Sulayman al-A’mash informed us on the authority of Shaqiq Ibn Salamah; he said: ‘Abd Allah Ibn Mas’ud delivered a sermon to us when the order concerning uniform reading of the Qur’an was issued, as it was indeed. He (Shaqiq) said: He mentioned ABOUT DECEIT and said: Who so deceived, will bring his deceit on the Day of Resurrection. The people have been guilty OF DECEIT IN THE READING OF THE Qur’an. I like it to read according to the recitation of him (Prophet) whom I love more than that of Zayd Ibn Thabit. By Him besides whom there is no god! I learnt more than seventy surahs from the lips of the Apostle of Allah, may Allah bless him, while Zayd Ibn Thabit was a youth, having two locks and playing with the youth. Then he said: By Him besides Whom there is no other god! If I know any one to be more conversant with the Book of Allah than me, and if the camels could carry me to him, I shall surely go to him. Then ‘Abd Allah went away. Shaqiq said: Subsequently I sat in the circles of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah and others BUT NONE contradicted his statement.” (Ibn Sa’d’s Kitab al-Tabaqat, Volume 2, p. 444; bold, capital and underline emphasis mine)

Here Ibn Masud accuses Muslims of introducing deceit or deception into the reading of the Quran! Ibn Masud even warned his followers against copying and reciting Zaid’s version of the Quran:

(19). 3104. Az-Zuhri narrated from Anas who said: “Hudhaifah bin Al-Yaman came to ‘Uthman, at the time when the people of Ash-Sham and the people of Al-‘Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminiyah and Adharbijan. Hudhaifah saw their (the people of Ash-Sham and Al-‘Iraq) different forms of recitation of the Qur’an. So he said to ‘Uthman: ‘O Commander of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book as the Jews and Christians did before them.’ So he (‘Uthman) sent a message to Hafsah (saying): ‘Send us the manuscripts so that we may copy them in the Musahif then we shall return it to you.’ So Hafsah sent the manuscripts to ‘Uthman bin ‘Affan. ‘Uthman then sent order for Zaid bin Thabit, Sa‘eed bin Al-‘As, ‘Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and ‘Abdullah bin Az-Zubair to copy the manuscripts in the Musahif. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraish men: In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the (recitation dialect of the) Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish for it was revealed in their tongue.’ So when they had copied the manuscripts in the Musahif, ‘Uthman sent one Mushaf from those Musahif that they had copied to every province.”

Az-Zuhri said: “Kharijah bin Zaid [bin Thabit] narrated to me that Zaid bin Thabit said: ‘I missed an Ayah of Surat Al-Ahzab that I heard the Messenger of Allah reciting: Among the believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah, of them, some have fulfilled their obligations, and some of them are still waiting. – so I searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah bin Thabit, or Abu Khuzaimah, so I put it in its Surah.’”

Az-Zuhri said: “They differed then with At-Tabut and At-Tabuh. The Quraish said: At-Tabut while Zaid said: At-Tabuh. Their disagreement was brought to ‘Uthman, so he said: ‘Write it as At-Tabut, for it was revealed in the tongue of the Quraish.’”

Az-Zuhri said: “Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utbah informed me that Abdullah bin Mas’ud disliked Zaid bin Thabit copying the Musahif, and he said: ‘O you Muslim people! Avoid copying the Mushaf and recitation of this man. By Allah! When I accepted Islam he was but in the loins of a disbelieving man’–meaning Zaid bin Thabit–and it was regarding this that Abdullah bin Mas’ud said: ‘O people of Al-Iraq! Keep the Musahif that are with you, and conceal them. For indeed Allah said: And whoever conceals something, he shall come with what he concealed on the Day of Judgement. So meet Allah with the Musahif.’” (Sahih) (English Translation of Jami‘ At-Tirmidhi: Compiled by Imam Hafiz Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad Ibn ‘Eisa At-Tirmidhi, translated by Abu Khaliyl (USA), ahadith edited & referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, final review by Islamic Research Section Darussalam [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: November 2007], Volume 5, From Hadith No. 2606 to 3290, 44. The Chapters On The Tafsir Of The Qur’an From The Messenger of Allah, Chapter 9., pp. 412-414 https://sunnah.com/urn/641130; underline emphasis mine)

Interestingly, the Muslim community in Iraq refused to receive Uthman’s text, preferring Ibn Masud’s instead. This led to a confrontation between Hudhaifah and Ibn Masud:

`Abdullah, Hudaifa and Abu Musa were on the roof of Abu Musa’s house. `Abdullah said, ‘I hear you say such-and-such.’ Hudaifa said, ‘Yes, I deplore folk talking about this one’s reading and that one’s reading. They are differing like non-Muslims.‘ Hudaifa continued, ‘`Abdullah b. Qais, you were sent to the Basrans as governor and teacher. THEY HAVE ADOPTED YOUR ADAB, YOUR DIALECT AND YOUR TEXT.’

To b. Mas`ud he said, ‘You were sent to the Kufans as their teacher and THEY HAVE ADOPTED YOUR ADAB, YOUR DIALECT AND YOUR READING.’

‘In that case,’ retorted b. Mas`ud, ‘I have not misled them. There is no verse in the Book of God but that I know where and in what connection it was revealed. Did I know of anyone more learned than myself on the subject I should go to him.’ (Burton, p. 147, Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da’ud, “K. al Masahif”, ed. A. Jeffery, Cairo, 1936/1355, p. 14; bold emphasis mine)

The foregoing makes what Uthman did to Abdullah all the more reprehensible.

THE EVIDENCE

According to the Islamic sources, Abdullah was insulted, physically beaten, resulting in two of his ribs being broken, imprisoned in Medina, and had his pension taken from him by Uthman. Uthman did this to Abdullah all because of the latter’s refusing to give up his copy of the Quran to be burned and for not going along with the mishandling of the Muslim funds by Uthman’s brother Walid ibn ‘Uqbah:

The historian Ya’qubi (died 278 A.H.) writes in his book that Uthman collected the Qur’an and arranged it in such a way that he placed big surahs (chapters) together and the small surahs together separately, and sending for copies from all sides, got them washed with hot water and vinegar and set fire to them. As a result of it no Qur’an was left except the copy belonging to Ibn Mas’ud which was with him in Kufah. When Abdullah Ibn ‘Amir, the Governor of Kufah, asked Ibn Mas’ud for his copy he refused to give it. At this news Uthman wrote to ‘Amir to arrest Ibn Mas’ud and send him to Medina. When Ibn Mas’ud came and entered the masjid, Uthman was busy delivering his speech. Seeing Ibn Mas’ud he said, “An ugly and ill-natured animal has come”. Ibn Mas’ud also strongly retorted in response. Hearing it Uthman ordered people to beat him. So the people beat him and dragged him in such a way that two of his ribs got fractured.

It is written in the Persian translation of Tarikh A’tham Kufi (printed in Bombay vide page 147 line 8) that Uthman tore off the Qur’an and got it burnt. The same is given in the book “Successors of Muhammad” (W. Irving p.160 printed in London, 1850 A.D.). According to “Najatul Mu’minin” by Mulla Mohsin Kashmiri, Uthman got the ribs of Ibn Mas’ud fractured and snatching his Qur’an got it burnt. According to Rauzatul Ahbab vol. 2, p. 229 printed in Lucknow), Uthman ordered, “My Qur’an must be given currency in my domain and the remaining Qur’ans should be burnt. Accordingly all the remaining copies of Qur’an were got burnt. According to Tarikh al-Qur’an by Abdul Qadir Makki, p. 36 printed in Jeddah 1365 A.H. Sahih Bukhari vol. 6, p. 26 printed in Bombay, Mishkit Sharif printed in Dehli, p. 150, and Tafsir Itqan Suyuti, printed Ahmadi, vol. 1, p. 84; Uthman sent word to Hafsah, the wife of the Holy Prophet, to send him the Scriptures so that he might copy them out and then return them to her. Hafsah sent those Scriptures which were with her and Uthman appointed Zayd bin Thabit, Abdullah bin Zubayr, Sa’id bin ‘As, Abdul Rahman bin Harith to collect and copy the Scriptures, and asked all three men of the Quraysh to write the Qur’an in the colloquy of Quraysh in case there arose some difference on some point in it, because the Qur’an had been revealed in their language. They did accordingly till the Scripture was copied out and Uthman returned the Scriptures to Hafsah as promised and sent one newly-prepared copy to her. Now only the copy of the Qur’an prepared by Uthman remained in existence and all the other copies were got burnt. According to Fathul Bari of Ibn Hajar ‘Asqalani vol. 4, p. 226, Uthman sent back the Qur’an of Hafsah but Marwan snatched it forcibly from her and burnt it. According to Tarikh Khamis p. 270, Isti’ab p. 373 and Sawa’iq Muhriqah p. 68.

Uthman got all the copies of the Qur’an burnt except his own and got Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud beaten so much that he developed the disease of hernia. Then he sent him to prison where he died. According to Tuhfah Ithna ‘ Ashariyah of Abdul Aziz, Ubayy bin Ka’b gave his Qur’an to Uthman and he escaped beating. That Qur’an was also burnt.20 (The Suffering of the Ahl ul Bayt and their Followers (Shia) throughout History, compiled by: Sheikh Mateen J. Charbonneau [2nd Chance Books, 2018], pp. 93-94; bold emphasis mine)

20 The great companion of the Prophet Abu Dharr chapter 18 (Ibid., p. 94)

Provincial affairs gave Aishah her opportunity to play her hand against ‘Uthman. The latter, early in his reign, had been forced by public pressure to recall his governor of Kufah, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, for his refusal to repay into the Kufan treasury a sum of money advanced him by the low-born but strict treasurer, ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud. ’Uthman replaced Sa’d in that turbulent city’s governorship by his (‘Uthman’s) uterine brother Walid ibn ‘Uqbah (25-30/644-650/51), who, though he retained Ibn Mas’ud as treasurer, tried, nevertheless, to misuse the treasury. Ibn Mas’ud would not oblige. Walid complained to ‘Uthman, who reminded Ibn Mas’ud that he was their treasury and that he was, therefore, not to oppose Walid. The indignant Ibn Mas’ud threw down the keys of the treasury with the retort, “I thought I was a treasurer for the Moslems; but If I am a treasurer for you, then I have no need of that (office).” He remained, however, in Kufah but definitely in the ranks of the opposition and a thorn, therefore, in the side of Walid. When ‘Uthman, in his effort to issue a standard text of the Qur’an, ordered other texts destroyed, Ibn Mas’ud refused to yield his. This, together with Walid’s persistent complaints of his disturbing influence in Kufah, led ‘Uthman to order Ibn Mas’ud to Medina. Arrived in the city, he went to the mosque where the caliph was making a speech. Soon the two came to sharp words, with Aishah taking ‘Uthman to task for his rough speech to a Companion of the Messenger of Allah. This probably enraged ‘Uthman all the more. At any rate, he ordered Ibn Mas’ud thrown out of the mosque. His order was carried out with such violence that among the physical injuries suffered by Ibn Mas’ud were two broken ribs. It was then that Aishah let go of herself and spoke out her mind freely, or as the historian reports with tantalizing brevity, “And then Aisha spoke and she said plenty.”81 Ibn Mas’ud was thereafter forbidden to leave Medina lest he causes trouble wherever he went. He was, besides, subjected to financial deprivations. Just before his death (A.H. 32 or 33) ‘Uthman attempted a reconciliation; but Ibn Mas’ud said he had no need now of the caliph’s favors. Like ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf, he too left word that ‘Uthman was not to pray over his body-a service which was performed, some say, by ‘Ammar ibn Yasir.82 (Nabia Abbott, Aisha: The Beloved of Mohammed [The University of Chicago Press, 1942] pp. 109-110 https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/aishah.pdf); bold emphasis mine)

81 Ya’qubi, II, 196 f.; Baladhuri, Ansab, V, 36 f.

82 Ya’qubi, II, 197 f.; Baladhuri, Ansab, V, 37 f.; but cf. Ibn Sa’d, III, 113; Tabari, I, 2894; Nawawi, pp. 371 f. (Ibid., p. 110)

Tradition n.4

Sayyid Hamid Husayn then goes on to deal with some other narrations ascribed to the Prophet and cited by Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz, which are…

Hold on to the covenant of Ibn Umm ‘Abd (i.e. ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud)…

That which Ibn Umm ‘Abd approves of is approved for you by me.

Both of these are weak (da’if) and isolated (ahad) traditions, while Hadith al-Thaqalayn is a mutawatir one. That both Muslim and al-Bukhari did not record them in their works indicates that they considered their isnad to be weak. Moreover, even if assumed to be authentic they do not contradict Hadith al-Thaqalayn, for while they only show the merit of Ibn Mas’ud, Hadith al-Thaqalayn signifies the preeminence and leadership of the Ahlul Bayt.

Furthermore, it is inconsistent of Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz to advance those traditions, for ‘Umar, instead of approving Ibn Mas’ud’s acts, forbade him to give fatwa and narrate the Prophet’s hadith and forbade him from leaving Madinah, which Ibn Mas’ud could not leave until the former’s death. ‘Uthman went a step further and had Ibn Mas’ud beaten so mercilessly that his ribs were broken. (Al-Islam.org, “Some Traditions that Appear to Conflict with Hadith al-Thaqalayn” https://www.al-islam.org/hadith-al-thaqalayn-a-study-of-its-tawatur/some-traditions-appear-conflict-hadith-al-thaqalayn#four)

Ibn Masood arrived in Medina, and went into the Mosque. When he entered the Mosque, Uthman was reading the sermon. When Uthman saw him entering the Mosque, he said: “A foul and despicable beast is coming toward you.” Ibn Masood said: “That is not so. I am the companion and friend of the Apostle of God. I fought at Badr, and I am a Companion of the Tree.” Ayesha also heard in her chamber what Uthman had said, and she cried out: “Is this the kind of language you use for a companion of the Apostle of God?”

Uthman ordered Abdullah ibn Masood to get out of the Mosque of the Prophet. Uthman’s slaves threw him out of the Mosque, and down on the ground breaking his ribs.

Ali rose to upbraid Uthman, and said: “You have hurt a friend of the Apostle merely at a report from Walid. You know that Walid is a liar.” He then carried Ibn Masood to his home.

But Uthman was not satisfied with what he had done. After breaking the ribs of Abdullah ibn Masood, he stopped payment of his pension, and forbade him to leave Medina. Ibn Masood wished to go to Syria and to take part in the campaigns but Uthman repeated what he had heard Marwan saying: “He has created enough trouble in Kufa; do not let him do the same in Syria.” (p. 160) (al- Fitna-tul-Kubra {The Great Upheaval}, published in Cairo in 1959)

As noted before, Abdullah ibn Masood had made his own collection of the verses of Qur’an, and he had arranged them in chronological order. But Uthman had appointed his favorite, Zayd bin Thabit, to collect and to arrange the verses of Qur’an. He did not “recognize” the collection of Ibn Masood, and ordered him to surrender his copy. Abdullah ibn Masood refused to do so whereupon the slaves of Uthman broke into his house, and forcibly seized the copy of Qur’an from him. This copy was burned at Uthman’s orders. (Al-Islam.org, A Restatement of the History of Islam and Muslims, by Sayyid Ali Asghar Razwy, “Uthman, the Third Khalifa of the Muslims” https://www.al-islam.org/restatement-history-islam-and-muslims-sayyid-ali-ashgar-razwy/uthman-third-khalifa-muslims; bold emphasis mine)

al-Walid also reported these stinging words of Ibn Mas’ud, to ‘Uthman and added that he slandered the caliph and abused him. ‘Uthman summoned Ibn Mas’ud to Medina. When the people of Kufah learnt of his recall to the capital, they gathered round him asking him not to go but to stay with them to remain immune from any possible injury. Ibn Mas’ud said: “He has the right of being obeyed, and I have no wish to be the first person to open the door to riot and sedition upon him and disobey him.”139

al-Isti’ab gives Ibn Mas’ud’s answer to the people of Kufah as follows: “These conditions are bound to produce riot and sedition, and I have no desire to start a riot.” The people of Kufah saw him off and he advised them to be chaste and act upon God’s injunctions and then asked them to return home before his departure. The people praised him for his goodness, and on his leaving for Medina, they thanked him for his efforts and services, saying: “May God reward you! You familiarized our ignorant ones with religion, and made our wise ones more steadfast in faith. You taught us the Qur’an, informed us of the Islamic faith and made us clear-sighted about religion. You were indeed a good Muslim, a fine friend and a kind brother.” Then saying farewell, they returned home.140

When Ibn Mas’ud arrived at Medina, he went straight to the Prophet’s mosque where ‘Uthman was at that moment giving a sermon while standing on the Prophet’s pulpit. When he saw Ibn Mas’ud he changed his words and said: “Just now a mean and worthless quadruped has entered upon you, a fellow who on people’s stretching their hands for bread, will vomit what he has eaten and throw it out of his belly.”

In answer to this abuse, Ibn Mas’ud said: “No, ‘Uthman, I am not such a man! I am one of the Prophet’s companions with the honor of being present in the battle of Badr and Pledge of ar-Ridwan (Good pleasure).”141 ‘A’ishah, too, exclaimed: “O ‘Uthman! Are you using such words about Ibn Mas’ud who has been an intimate companion of the Prophet?” In answer to her, ‘Uthman shouted: “Be silent”, and then ordered to expel Ibn Mas’ud from the mosque. They carried out the caliph’s order with Shocking insults to Ibn Mas’ud. ‘Abd Allah ibn Zam’ah knocked him down, and it is said that Yahmun, ‘Uthman’s slave, got between Ibn Mas’ud’s legs, lifted him and threw him down so violently that his ribs were broken. At this time, ‘Ali who was witnessing this scene, turned to ‘Uthman and said: “O ‘Uthman! Do you act in this way only on the words and reports of al-Walid ibn ‘Uqbah towards a companion of the Prophet?”

‘Uthman answered: “No! It is not only because of al-Walid’s words! I had also sent Zubayd ibn as-Salt Kindi to Kufah for investigation.” Ibn Mas’ud, who was twisting with agony, cried out: ” ‘Uthman’s blood is lawful” and ‘Ali said in answer to ‘Uthman: “And you have relied on Zubayd’s words who is not trustworthy!” Then he rose to aid Ibn Mas’ud and took him home for treatment.

After this incident, Ibn Mas’ud stayed in Medina and ‘Uthman did not permit him to leave that city. Even when he was cured from his injury, he asked leave to participate in the holy war against the Romans, but ‘Uthman refused permission. It is also narrated that before ‘Uthman could give a positive or negative answer, Marwan anticipated it and said to ‘Uthman: “He has roused Iraq against you and made them suspicious of you. Now it is ash-Sham’s turn and he intends to rouse the people there against you!” Thus to the end of his life, Ibn Mas’ud was unable to leave Medina and a watch was kept over him until his death two years before ‘Uthman’s assassination. On this occasion Ibn Mas’ud’s stay in Medina lasted three years. The final conversation between ‘Uthman and Ibn Mas’ud is worthy of attention. When Ibn Mas’ud was ill in bed and passing through the last moments of his life, ‘Uthman came to visit his sick-bed and said:

-What are you suffering from?

-From my sins.

-What would you like?

-God’s favor and forgiveness.

-Shall I call a doctor for you?

-The doctor himself has made me sick.

-Shall I order to pay your salary and pension?142

-You did not pay it when I needed it Do you want to do so today when I have no need for it?

-It will remain for your children.

-God will provide for their livelihood.

-Beg God to forgive me for what I have done.

-I beg God to seize my right from you.

Ibn Mas’ud had willed that ‘Ammar ibn Yasir should perform his burial prayer, and that ‘Uthman should not attend his burial. His will was carried out and he was buried in al-Baqi’ without ‘Uthman’s knowledge.143 When ‘Uthman heard of it, he got very angry and asked why he was buried without his knowledge. ‘Ammar said: “He had willed that you should not perform his burial prayer.” ‘Abd Allah ibn az-Zubayr composed a couplet on this occasion, meaning: “I know that you will lament my death whereas you had cut off my bread and food.”

This was an account of Ibn Mas’ud.144 But al-Walid’s rule did not result in the story of Ibn Mas’ud alone. During his rule he committed many mischievous and seditious acts such as his ill-treatment of Abu Zubayd, a Christian poet, and of a Jewish magician.

138. Ansab al-ashraf of al-Baladhuri 5/36.

139. Ansab al-ashraf of al-Baladhuri 5/36.

140. al-Isti’ab on Ibn Mas’ud.

141. Ibn Mas’ud, in his answer, is directly reproaching ‘Uthman who was not present on the above two occasions and thus he did not have the honour of participation in those events.

142. His pension and salary had not been paid for two years. History of Ibn Kathir 7/163, al-Ya’qubi 2/197, al- Mustadrak 3/13.

143. His death occurred in the year 32 after Hijrah. az-Zubayr buried him at night without informing ‘Uthman. At death his age was about 60 or a little more.

144. From Tabaqat, al-Baladhuri 5/36, al-Isti’ab, Usd al-ghabah, al-Mustadrak 3/13, Kanz 7/54, History of al- Ya’qubi 2/147, History of al-Khamis 2/268, and Ibn Abi al-Hadid 1/236-237. (Sayyid Murtada Askari, The Role of Aishah in the History of Islam, Volume 1, Events which befell Ibn Mas’ud http://www.aldhiaa.com/english/book/book/history_library/various_books/the_role_of_aishah_in_the_history_of_islam_volume_1/010.html; bold emphasis mine)

There you have it folks, the spirit of Islam and the fruit of Muhammad’s teachings! Imagine what Muslims would do if the Apostles of the risen Christ verbally and physically abused each other, threw one another in prison, burned NT writings in order to standardize the one they felt were the most accurate or authoritative, and/or misused the funds of the people of God for personal gain?

Time for Muslims to leave this prophet and antichrist named Muhammad, and turn to the risen and living Savior, Jesus Christ, their only hope of salvation.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2019/12/22/the-third-caliphs-abuse-of-the-qurans-greatest-compiler/

IHS