8/4/2019 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revisiting-the-problem-of-islamic-monotheism 1/27 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism Responding to Sami Zaatari’s defense of Tauhid Pt. 1 Sam ShamounMuslim propagandist Sami Zaatari tries to come to the defense of Bassam Zawadi by writing a “reply” to my analysisof Zawadi‘s dialogue with Muslim turned Christian pastor Thabiti Anyabwile. In this ―response‖ Zaatari attempts to expose my ―ignorance‖ and correct the ―several errors‖ that I made in my three-part rebuttal concerning the Islamic conception of tauhid or unitarianism. Let us see how well he does and whether he achieved his goal of proving that Zawadi‘s unitarian beliefs are based on what the so-called authentic sources of Islam teach concerning this issue. Islam’s multiple lordsZaatari quoted a few verses which he thinks affirm tauhid al-rububiyyah or the unity of Allah‘s lordship. However, none of the passages he cited say that Allah is the only lord. In fact the Quran acknowledges other lords besides Allah. More importantly, simply citing references doesn‘t address all the verses and narrations which I provided that conclusively prove that Allah is not the only lord since we saw that Muhammad shares in his deity‘s sovereignty and authority. Moreover, the Quran mentions a prophet calling on an angel as his lord! Then and there did Zachariah PRAY TO HIS LORD ( rabbahu), saying, ‗MY LORD ( rabbi ) grant me from Thyself pure offspring; surely thou art the Hearer of Prayer.‘ AND THE ANGELS CALLED TO HIM as he stood praying in the chamber, ‗ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of Yahya, who shall testify to the truth of a word from ALLAH - noble and chaste and a Prophet, from among the righteous.‘ HE SAID ‗MY LORD ( rabbi ), how shall I have a son, when old age has overtaken me already, and my wife is barren?‘ He answered, ‗Such is the way of ALLAH; HE does what HE pleases,‘ HE SAID ‗MY LORD (rabbi), give me a commandment.‘ HE [the angel] REPLIED, ‗The commandment for thee is that thou shalt not speak to men for three days except by signs. And remember THY LORD ( rabbaka) much and glorify HIM in the evening and in the early morning.‘ S. 3:38-41 Sher Ali When he called upon HIS LORD (rabbahu) in a low voice, He said: MY LORD (rabbi)! surely my bones are weakened and my head flares with hoariness, and, MY LORD ( rabbi)! I have never been unsuccessful in my prayer to Thee: And surely I fear my cousins after me, and my wife is barren, therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, Who should inherit me and inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well pleased. O Zakariya! surely We give you good news of a boy whose name shall be Yahya: We have not made before anyone his equal. He said: O MY LORD ( rabbi)! when shall I have a son, and my wife is barren, and I myself have reached indeed the extreme degree of old age? HE SAID: So shall it be, YOUR LORD ( rabbuka) SAYS: It is easy to Me, and indeed I created you before, when you were nothing. He said: MY LORD (rabbi )! give me a sign. HE
Transcript
8/4/2019 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism
Responding to Sami Zaatari’s defense of Tauhid Pt. 1
Sam Shamoun
Muslim propagandist Sami Zaatari tries to come to the defense of Bassam Zawadi by writing
a “reply” to my analysis of Zawadi‘s dialogue with Muslim turned Christian pastor Thabiti
Anyabwile.
In this ―response‖ Zaatari attempts to expose my ―ignorance‖ and correct the ―several errors‖
that I made in my three-part rebuttal concerning the Islamic conception of tauhid or
unitarianism. Let us see how well he does and whether he achieved his goal of proving that
Zawadi‘s unitarian beliefs are based on what the so-called authentic sources of Islam teach
concerning this issue.
Islam’s multiple lords
Zaatari quoted a few verses which he thinks affirm tauhid al-rububiyyah or the unity of
Allah‘s lordship. However, none of the passages he cited say that Allah is the only lord. In
fact the Quran acknowledges other lords besides Allah.
More importantly, simply citing references doesn‘t address all the verses and narrations
which I provided that conclusively prove that Allah is not the only lord since we saw that
Muhammad shares in his deity‘s sovereignty and authority.
Moreover, the Quran mentions a prophet calling on an angel as his lord!
Then and there did Zachariah PRAY TO HIS LORD (rabbahu), saying, ‗MY LORD (rabbi)
grant me from Thyself pure offspring; surely thou art the Hearer of Prayer.‘ AND THE
ANGELS CALLED TO HIM as he stood praying in the chamber, ‗ALLAH gives thee glad
tidings of Yahya, who shall testify to the truth of a word from ALLAH - noble and chaste anda Prophet, from among the righteous.‘ HE SAID ‗MY LORD (rabbi), how shall I have a son,
when old age has overtaken me already, and my wife is barren?‘ He answered, ‗Such is the
way of ALLAH; HE does what HE pleases,‘ HE SAID ‗MY LORD (rabbi), give me a
commandment.‘ HE [the angel] REPLIED, ‗The commandment for thee is that thou shalt not
speak to men for three days except by signs. And remember THY LORD (rabbaka) muchand glorify HIM in the evening and in the early morning.‘ S. 3:38-41 Sher Ali
When he called upon HIS LORD (rabbahu) in a low voice, He said: MY LORD (rabbi)!
surely my bones are weakened and my head flares with hoariness, and, MY LORD (rabbi)! I
have never been unsuccessful in my prayer to Thee: And surely I fear my cousins after me,
and my wife is barren, therefore grant me from Thyself an heir, Who should inherit me and
inherit from the children of Yaqoub, and make him, my Lord, one in whom Thou art well
pleased. O Zakariya! surely We give you good news of a boy whose name shall be Yahya:
We have not made before anyone his equal. He said: O MY LORD (rabbi)! when shall I have
a son, and my wife is barren, and I myself have reached indeed the extreme degree of old
age? HE SAID: So shall it be, YOUR LORD (rabbuka) SAYS: It is easy to Me, and indeed Icreated you before, when you were nothing. He said: MY LORD (rabbi)! give me a sign. HE
SAID: Your sign is that you will not be able to speak to the people three nights while in
sound health. S. 19:3-10 Shakir
These passages mention Zechariah‘s prayer to Allah for a son, the angels‘ response, and the
subsequent discussion that supposed to have taken place between the prophet and the angels.
What this means is that this prophet of Allah was either addressing the angels collectively orone specific angel as his very own lord!
We repeat again the specific portion in order to help the readers see this point more clearly:
He said, ‗O my Lord, how shall I have a son, seeing my wife is barren, and I have attained to
the declining of old age?‘ SAID HE, ‗So it shall be; THY LORD says , "Easy is that for Me,
seeing that I created thee aforetime, when thou wast nothing."‘ S. 19:8-9 Arberry
The entity speaking to the prophet refers to the words of Allah, Zechariah‘s lord, which
shows that it was someone other than Allah who was addressing Zechariah. The speaker must
have therefore been one of the angels, which means that Zechariah was addressing a specificangel as his lord!
And lest Zaatari accuse us of misinterpretation, Sunni commentator Ibn Kathir provides
indirect attestation for our analysis since he says that the person who responded to Zechariah
was the angel, thereby confirming the fact that the prophet must have been addressing the
angel. Here is what he wrote concerning Q. 3:40:
<"O my Lord! How can I have a son when I am very old, and my wife is barren'' (He)
said…> meaning the angel said, (Source)
And in connection to Q. 19:9 Ibn Kathir states that,
Zakariyya was amazed when his supplication was answered and he was given the good news
of a son. He became extremely overjoyed and asked how this child would be born to him, and
in what manner he would come. This was particularly amazing because his wife was an old
woman who was barren and had not given birth to any children in her entire life. Even
Zakariyya himself had become old and advanced in years, his bones had become feeble and
thin, and he had no potent semen or vigor for sexual intercourse.
The Answer of the Angel …
<He said:> That is, the angel, in his response to Zakariyya and his was amazement. (Source;
underline emphasis ours)
The Quran further asserts that Mary herself, the Lord Jesus‘ mother, called the angels or one
angel in particular her very lord:
Behold! THE ANGELS SAID: ‗O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen
thee above the women of all nations. O Mary! worship thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself,
and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down.‘ This is part of the tidings of the things
unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Messenger) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them
when they cast lots with pens (or arrows), as to which of them should be charged with thecare of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point). Behold! THE
-Believing in another false God, a God who creates and is control over the affairs of the
universe (Christian)
What is amazing about his list is that he conveniently left out the specific manner that his
own false prophet said would directly conflict with Allah‘s lordship:
<They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah, and the Messiah, son
of Maryam> [9:31]. Imam Ahmad, At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Jarir At-Tabari recorded a Hadith
via several chains of narration, from 'Adi bin Hatim, may Allah be pleased with him, who
became a Christian during the time of Jahiliyyah. When the call of the Messenger of Allah
reached his area, 'Adi ran away to Ash-Sham, and his sister and several of his people were
captured. The Messenger of Allah freed his sister and gave her gifts. So she went to her
brother and encouraged him to become Muslim and to go to the Messenger of Allah. 'Adi,
who was one of the chiefs of his people (the tribe of Tai') and whose father, Hatim At- Ta‘i,
was known for his generosity, went to Al-Madinah. When the people announced his arrival,
'Adi went to the Messenger of Allah wearing a silver cross around his neck. The Messenger
of Allah recited this Ayah...
<They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah>. 'Adi commented, ―I
said, ‗They did not worship them.‘‖ The Prophet said...
((Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and
Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshiped
them.)) …
<They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah…> that the
Christians and Jews obeyed their monks and rabbis in whatever they allowed orprohibited for them…‖ (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Surat Al-A'raf to the end of Surah
Yunus, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur Rahman Al-
Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London,
Lahore; First Edition: May 2000], Volume 4, pp. 409-410; bold emphasis ours)
As we saw, Muhammad demanded this very same kind of blind obedience and allegiance
from his own followers! If unquestioningly submitting to the whims and dictates of the rabbis
and monks is an act of deification, an act of worship, then Muslims are worshiping and
deifying Muhammad for giving him the very same kind of allegiance; and yet they do so on
the express and strict orders of Muhammad! Worse still, according to Muhammad they are
actually doing so on the express commands of Allah, which means that it is Allah who isdemanding that Muslims deify and worship Muhammad!
Moreover, Muhammad taught that Allah deliberately conjoined their names together in the
Islamic creed with a conjunction which denotes equality and partnership, thereby making a
finite creature one of the two pillars of tauhid !
The fact that mention of the Prophet is directly connected to mention of Allah also shows that
obedience to the Prophet is connected to obedience to Allah and his name to Allah's name.
Allah says, "Obey Allah and His Messenger" (2:32) and "Believe in Allah and His
Messenger." (4:136) Allah joins them together using the conjunction wa WHICH IS THE
CONJUNCTION OF PARTNERSHIP. IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO USE THIS
CONJUNCTION IN CONNECTION WITH ALLAH IN THE CASE OF ANYONE
EXCEPT THE PROPHET.
Hudhayfa said that the Prophet said, "None of you should say, ‗What Allah wills and (wa) so-
and-so wills.‘ Rather say, ‗What Allah wills.‘ Then stop and say, ‗So-and-so wills.‘‖
Al-Khattabi said, ―The Prophet has guided you to correct behaviour in putting the will of
Allah before the will of others. He chose ‗THEN‘ (thumma) which implies sequence and
deference as opposed to ‗AND‘ (wa) WHICH IMPLIES PARTNERSHIP.‖
Something similar is mentioned in another hadith. Someone was speaking in the presence of
the Prophet and said, ―Whoever obeys Allah and His Messenger has been rightly guided, and
whoever rebels against them both (joining them together by using the dual form) …‖ The
Prophet said to him, ―What a bad speaker you are! Get up! [Or he said: Get out!]‖
Abu Sulayman said, ―He disliked the two names being joined together in that way because it
implies equality.‖ … (Qadi Iyad, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta'rif huquq al-Mustafa (Healing by therecognition of the Rights of the Chosen One), translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley
[Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K., third reprint 1991, paperback], Part One. Allah‘s
great estimation of the worth of His Prophet expressed both in word and action, Chapter One:
Allah‘s praise of him and his great esteem for him, Section 1. Concerning praise of him and
his numerous excellent qualities, pp. 7-8; capital and underline emphasis ours)
And:
―… He coupled his name with His own name, and his pleasure with His pleasure. He made
him ONE OF THE TWO PILLARS OF TAWHID.‖ (Ibid., Chapter One: Allah‘s praise of his
Prophet, Section 9. Concerning the marks of honour given to the Prophet in Sura al-Fath, p.
27; capital and underline emphasis ours)
Allah not only joined Muhammad‘s name to his own by the use of the conjunction wa he also
placed the name of an imperfect finite creature on the very door of the heavenly garden itself!
Ibn ‗Abbas said, ―Written on the door of the Garden is: I am Allah. There is no god but Me.
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. I will not punish anyone who says that.‖ (Ibid.,
Chapter Three:, p. 90; underline emphasis ours)
This means that it is not simply a matter of obeying a prophet because he speaks God‘swords, as Zaatari erroneously contends. What Muhammad commanded goes far beyond
anything a true prophet ever demanded or expected for him/herself. Muhammad placed
himself on the level of deity by expecting his followers to accept his authority without
question and by placing his name alongside of Allah‘s as a necessary object of salvation.
There is more to Islam‘s blatant idolatry and blurring of the Creator/creature distinction.
Muhammad actually believed that the earth belonged to him just as it did to Allah!
VI: Expelling the Jews from the Arabian peninsula
'Umar said that the Prophet said, ―We will let you remain in that as long as Allah lets youremain there.‖
8/4/2019 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism
2996. It is related that Abu Hurayra said, ―While we were in the mosque, the Messenger of
Allah came out and said, ‗Go to the Jews.‘ We went out until we came to the house of al -
Midras. He said, ‗Become Muslim and you will be safe. Know that the earth belongs to Allah
AND His Messenger . I want to expel you from this land. Whoever of you has some property
should sell it. However, the earth belongs to Allah AND His Messenger .‘‖ (Aisha Bewley,
Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 63. Chapters on the Jizya and Truces; capital andunderline emphasis ours)
And as we had mentioned in our response to Zawadi, Muhammad not only shares Allah‘s
ownership of the earth he will also share the very throne of Allah! Al-Qurtubi, a renowned
Muslim exegete, in his explanation of Q. 17:79 wrote that,
The third explanation of this verse is what al-Tabari reported from a party of scholars –
among them Mujahid – whereby ―the Exalted Station is the seating by Allah of the Prophet
with Him on His Throne (kursiyyih).‖ They narrated a hadith to that effect, and al-Tabari
backed up the possibility (jawâz) of such a thing with some extravagant statements (shatatin
min al-qawl). However, what he said cannot be inferred [from the verse] except with over-subtlety as to meaning (al-talattuf bi al-ma‘nâ), and it is far-fetched (fîhi bu‘d). This is not to
say that there is no such narration; only that [one endowed with] knowledge interprets it
figuratively (al-‘ilmu yata’awwaluhu)… On that basis it is the same, with respect to
possibility, whether Allah seats the Prophet on the Throne or on the ground. For His elevation
over the Throne is not in the sense of displacement (intiqâl), removal (zawâl), nor change of
position from standing to sitting, nor any state or condition to which the Throne itself is
subject. Rather, He is elevated over the Throne in the way He has stated concerning Himself,
without saying how. Nor does His seating of the Prophet on the Throne impose upon the
Prophet (s) the attribute of Lordship [sic] or move him out of that of servanthood [sic].
Rather, it consists in an elevation because of his status, and an honor bestowed upon him
because of his sublime character. (Al-Qurtubi, al- Jami‘ li Ahkam al -Qur’an; underline
emphasis ours)
Another Muslim authority named Ibn Batta wrote in p. 61 of his book al-Sharh wa al-Ibana
‘ala Usul al -Sunna wa al-Diyana (―Elaboration of the Principles of Sunni Doctrine‖) that:
The Prophet shall be seated on the Throne with his Lord (yujlas ma‘a rabbihi ‘alâ al -‘arsh),
and this privilege belongs to no one else. Thus did Nafi‗ narrate it from Ibn ‗Umar from the
Prophet concerning the verse: ―It may be that thy Lord will raise you to an Exalted Station‖ –
he said that He shall seat him with Him on the Throne. Thus also did Mujahid explain it, as
narrated by Muhammad ibn Fudayl, from al-Layth, from Mujahid. (Underline emphasis ours)
In case the readers are wondering who this Mujahid is, he is Mujahid ibn Jabr, Abu al-Hajjaj
al-Makhzumi (d. 102), one of the major commentators of the Qur‘an among the tabi‘in or
followers of Muhammad‘s companions (sahabah), and viewed as holding the highest rank in
reliability among hadith narrators (thiqa). It is related by a Muslim scholar named Ibn Sa‗d,
in al-Tabaqat al-Kubra (6:9), that Mujahid went over the explanation of the Islamic scripture
together with Ibn ‗Abbas, Muhammad‘s first cousin and one of the most knowledgeable
Muslims that ever lived, approximately thirty times.
The foregoing clearly shows that Allah is not the sole ruler and possessor of creation since
Muhammad also owns the earth and will sit on the divine throne.
And yet the Quran emphatically denies that Allah has any associate in his kingdom:
To Allah belongs the Kingdom of the heavens and of the earth; and Allah is powerful over
everything. S. 3:189; cf. 5:17-18; 9:116
And say: 'Praise belongs to Allah, who has not taken to Him a son, and who has not anyassociate in the Kingdom, nor any protector out of humbleness.' And magnify Him with all
the magnificence. S. 17:111
The Islamic scripture even goes so far as to describe Muhammad‘s characteristics in the same
way it depicts the very qualities of Allah! According to the Quran Allah is most kind and
most merciful to the believers:
Allah turned with favour to the Prophet, the Muhajirs, and the Ansar, - who followed him in a
time of distress, after that the hearts of a part of them had nearly swerved (from duty); but He
turned to them (also): for He is unto them Most Kind, Most Merciful (raoofun raheemun).
S. 9:117
And had it not been for the Grace of Allah and His Mercy on you, (Allah would have
hastened the punishment upon you). And that Allah is full of kindness, Most Merciful
(raoofun raheemun). S. 24:20
And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have
preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed.
Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful (raoofun raheemun). S. 59:10
This is precisely how the Muslim scripture describes Muhammad‘s relationship to the
believers!
Now hath come unto you an Apostle from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye should
perish: ardently anxious is he over you: to the Believers is he most kind and merciful
(raoofun raheemun). S. 9:128
To make matters worse, Muhammad is not the only creature that the Quran conjoins with
Allah in his attributes. In one particular passage the Islamic scripture uses the conjunction wa
to ascribe honour or glory to Allah, Muhammad and Muslims:
They (hypocrites) say: ―If we return to Al-Madinah, indeed the more honourable ('Abdullahbin Ubai bin Salul, the chief of hypocrites at Al-Madinah) will expel therefrom the meaner
(i.e. Allah's Messenger).‖ But honour, power and glory belong to Allah, His Messenger
(Muhammad), and to the believers (WA-lillahi al-aizzatu WA-lirasoolihi WA-lilmumineena), but the hypocrites know not. S. 63:8 Hilali-Khan
What makes this rather problematic for dawagandists like Zaatari is that we are expressly and
repeatedly told throughout the Quran that this attribute belongs wholly to Allah!
Those who take unbelievers for their friends instead of believers -- do they seek glory in
them? But glory altogether belongs to God (inna al-aizzatu lillahi jameean). S. 4:139
Arberry
8/4/2019 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism
Responding to Sami Zaatari’s defense of Tauhid Pt. 2
Sam Shamoun
We resume our refutation of Zaatari‘s ―defense‖ of Bassam Zawadi‘s unitarianism.
Whom do Muslims really fear?
Here is Zaatari trying to explain away the Quranic command to Muslims that they should fear
Allah and the wombs:
Did it never occur to Shamoun that there could be two different categories of fear? Did it
never occur to Shamoun that that fear we hold for Allah is unique and different to the fear we
hold for other things?
It would have helped Zaatari to have actually read my article which discusses this text in
some depth, since he would have saved himself the embarrassment of being exposed for
attacking a straw man by distorting my position.
The point isn‘t simply that the Quran says to fear the wombs, but that it does so by conjoi ning
it with fearing Allah through the use of the Arabic conjunction wa (―and‖), which as we saw
in part 1 is the conjunction of partnership and equality according to Muslim expositors and
scholars!
Another supposed scholar who held this position was the late Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhabhimself, the man who was mainly responsible for the resurgence and revival of the modern
Salafi cult (considered a deviant sect by many Muslim scholars because of its blatant
distortions of early Islamic teachings). He exhorted his followers in his book on monotheism
to avoid using wa when referring to Allah together with someone or something else. He
stated that a Muslim should rather use the conjunction thumma (―then‖) or some other
formulation which avoids associating Allah with anything:
A Jewish man came to the Prophet and said: "Verily, you (Muslims) commit Shirk, for yousay: ‗As Allah wills AND as you will;‘ and you say: ‗By the Ka‘bah!‘" And so the Prophet
ordered whoever wanted to swear, to say: "By the Lord of the Ka’bah" and to say: "As
Allah wills, THEN as you will." (An- Nasaa‘ee, it was declared saheeh by Albanee in asSaheehah # 137 and declared saheeh by Adh-Dhahabee in his checking of Al Mustadrak and
declared saheeh by Ibn Hajar in Al Isaabah 4/389)
A man came to the Prophet and he said: "As Allah AND you will," at which the Prophet said:
"Would you set me up as a partner besides Allah? As Allah Alone Wills" (An- Nasaa‘ee,
declared authentic (hasan) by Albanee in as Saheehah # 139)
On the authority of At-Tufail the half brother of Aishah it is reported that he said: "I saw in adream that I came upon a number of Jews and I said to them: ‗You are indeed a good people
were it not that you claim ‗Uzair is the son of Allah.‘ They replied: ‗You too are good, were
it not that you say: As Allah wills AND as Muhammad wills.‘ Then, I came upon a number of Christians and I said to them: ‗You are indeed a good people were it not that you claim the
Messiah (Jesus) is the son of Allah.‘ They replied: ‗You are also good, were it not that you
say: As Allah wills AND as Muhammad wills.‘ When I awoke I told someone about this then
I went to the Prophet and repeated it to him. He asked me: ‗Have you told anyone about
this?‘ I said: ‗Yes.‘ Then he went to the pulpit and, after praising Allah, he said: ‗At-Tufail
had a dream which he has already communicated to some of you. You used to say
something which I was prevented from forbidding to you until now. Henceforth do notsay: As Allah wills AND as Muhammad wills, but say: What Allah Alone Wills.‘" (Ibn
Maajah, Albanee mentioned it in as Saheehah # 138, Al Haythamee said in Majma Az-
Zawaaid: the men in its chain are reliable according to the conditions of Imam Muslim)
(Takhreej of Kitaab at Tawheed, posted by SalafiManhaj.com, 2004, Chapter 43: Saying:
"As Allah Wills and You Will", pp. 21-22; See also Kitab At-Tawheed, by Sheikh ul-Islam
Muhammad ibn Abdul-Wahhab, translated by the Compilation and Research Department
How it is to say “What Allah may will and you may will”; capital, italic and underline
emphasis ours)
This proves that the Quran is commanding Muslims to fear the relationships established bythe wombs in the same way that they fear Allah. The Islamic scripture is therefore exhorting
the so-called believers to commit shirk , or of associating partners with Allah in his exclusive
worship!
The idolatrous veneration of the black stone
Zaatari splits hairs over the fact that I stated that some of Muhammad‘s companions were
confused and baffled over his kissing a stone that could neither hurt nor harm anyone when it
was only the companion Umar who seemed to be bewildered at what his false prophet did.
He further denies that Umar was confused or baffled.
Here, once again, is a narration which helps bring out Muhammad‘s idolatrous veneration of
this pagan idol and the confusion this caused for the Muslims:
It is Sunnah to perform certain acts in tawaf as given below:
Facing the Black Stone at the start of the tawaf while uttering a takbir (Allahu-Akbar), and a
tahlil (La ilaha illahlah), and raising one's hands as they are raised in prayers, and if possible
touching it with both hands and kissing it quietly, or placing one's cheek on it . Otherwise, one
may touch it with one's hand and kiss the hand , or touch it with something, and then kiss it ,or if even that is not possible, one may just point to it with a stick, etc. as is mentioned in
some of the ahadith given below.
Ibn 'Umar said: "Allah's Messenger faced the Black Stone, touched it, and then placed his
lips on it and wept for a long time." 'Umar also wept for a long time. The Prophet said: 'O
'Umar, this is the place where one should shed tears.''' (Reported by Al-Hakim, who
considers it a sound hadith with a sound chain of authorities)
It is reported by Ibn 'Abbas that 'Umar bent down towards the Black Stone and said: "By
Allah! I know that you are A MERE STONE, and if I had not seen my beloved Prophet
kissing you and touching you I would have never done so." The Qur'an says: "You have
indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct)."' (Qur'an 33.32) This was
reported by Ahmad and others in slightly different words.
Nafi' said, "I have seen Ibn 'Umar touching the Black Stone with his hand, and then kissing
his hand and saying: 'Ever since I saw the Prophet doing this, I have never failed to do that.'''
(Reported by Bukhari and Muslim)
Sowayd bin Ghaflah said: "I have seen 'Umar kissing the Black Stone and touching it." He
further said: "I know that the Prophet was especially very particular about it.'' (Muslim)
Ibn 'Umar reported that Allah's Messenger used to come to Ka'bah, touch the Black Stone and
then say: Bismillahi wallahu akbar (In the name of Allah, Allah is the Greatest.)" (Ahmad)
Muslim has reported on the authority of Abu Tufail that he said: "I have seen the Prophet
making tawaf around the Ka'bah and touching it with a stick and then kissing the stick ."
Bukhari, Muslim and Abu Daw'ud reported that 'Umar approached the Black Stone andkissed it. Then he said: "I know that you are A MERE STONE that can neither harm nor do
any good. If I had not seen the Prophet kissing you, I would have never kissed you."
Al-Khatabi said: "This shows that abiding by the Sunnah of the Prophet is binding,
regardless of whether or not we understand its reason or the wisdom behind it ."
Such information devolves obligation on all those whom it reaches, even if they may not fully
comprehend its significance. It is known, however, that kissing the Black Stone signifiesrespect for it, recognition of our obligation toward it, and using it as a means of seeking
Allah's blessings. Indeed Allah has preferred some stones over others, as He preferred some
countries and cities, days and nights, and months over others. The underlying spirit of all this
is unquestioning submission to Allah.
In some ahadith which say that "the Black Stone is Allah's right hand on earth," we do find,
however, a plausible rationale and justification for this statement. In other words whosoever
touches the Black Stone he pledges allegiance to Allah, as it were, by giving his hand into the
hand of Allah, just as some followers do pledge their fealty to their kings and masters, by
kissing and shaking hands with them.
Al-Muhallib said: "The hadith of 'Umar refutes the assertions of those who say that 'The
Black Stone is Allah's right hand on earth wherewith He shakes the hands of His slaves."'God forbid that we should ascribe any physical organs to Allah [sic]. The commandment to
kiss the Black Stone is meant to test and to demonstrate palpably as to who obeys and
submits. It may be compared with the command to Iblis to bow to Adam.
We have no definite evidence, however, to believe that any of the stones used in building the
Ka'bah originally (by Ibrahim and Isma'il), is still in existence today excepting the Black
Stone. (Fiqh-Us-Sunnah, Volume 5, Number 74b – ALIM CD-ROM Version; capital, italic,
and underline emphasis ours)
8/4/2019 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism
Let us summarize the main points of this narration:
Muhammad would touch and kiss the black stone, as well as place his cheek on it, and
took its station as the place to weep.
Muhammad would touch the stone with his hand and then kiss the hand. He would do
the same thing to his stick whenever he touched the stone with it. According to certain narrations the black stone is Allah‘s right hand on earth so touch
it is to shake Allah‘s right hand!
Venerating the black stone is a means of receiving blessing from Allah.
The Muslims imitated and continue to implement this practice of their prophet even
though they didn‘t/don‘t understand the wisdom behind it.
The readers will see the significance of all this in a moment.
Zaatari says that the pagans worshiped their idols directly since they felt that this would
insure that their so-called gods would intercede for them. He denies that this is what
Muhammad did even though he kissed and caressed the black stone idol, and even wept in itspresence!
What Zaatari failed to take into consideration is that kissing and caressing stone objects were
an integral part of the worship which the Meccan pagans rendered to their idols! Zaatari also
conveniently forgets to mention that the black stone was actually one of the idols which the
pagans venerated and worshiped!
In fact, according to the Islamic sources an event took place roughly five years before
Muhammad claimed to be a prophet where the Meccans decided to rebuild the Kabah. These
sources say that the pagans almost came to blows over who would place the black stone in its
spot. In order to resolve the matter they allowed Muhammad to decide who would put it back
in its place:
When Muhammad reached thirty-five years, he settled by his judgment a grave dispute which
threatened to plunge the whole of Arabia into a fresh series of her oft-recurring wars. In
rebuilding the Sacred House of the Ka'ba in A.D. 605, the question arose as to who should
have the honor of raising the black stone, the most holy relic of that House, into its proper
place. Each tribe claimed that honor. The senior citizen advised the disputants to accept for
their arbitrator the first man to enter from a certain gate. The proposal was agreed upon, and
the first man who entered the gate was Muhammad "Al-Ameen." His advice satisfied all the
contending parties. He ordered the stone to be placed on a piece of cloth and each tribe toshare the honor of lifting it up by taking hold of a part of the cloth. The stone was thus
deposited in its place, and the rebuilding of the House was completed without further
interruption. (Stories of the Prophets – ALIM CD-ROM Version; bold and underline
emphasis ours)
And:
―… When they came to him and they informed him about the matter he said, ‗Give me a
cloak,‘ and when it was brought to him he took the black stone and put it inside it and said
that each tribe should take hold of an end of the cloak and they should lift it together. They
did this so that when they got it into position he placed it with his own hand, and then building went on above it.‖ (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq‘s Sirat
8/4/2019 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism
Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press,
Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 86; bold and underline emphasis ours)
This story demonstrates just how important the black stone was to the pagans before
Muhammad‘s time. It is inconceivable to think that an object that held such importance
would not have been worshiped by the idolators in light of their fascination with and worshipof stones.
Christian Apologist John Gilchrist is worth quoting at length since he helps to bring out the
significance the black stone had for the pagan Arabs:
As the Arab idols were generally made of stone - some fashioned into various forms, others
unshapen - is it not probable that the Black Stone itself was an idol worshipped by the pagan
Arabs? As the custom of kissing it has been retained in Islam the suggestion naturally appalls
Muslims.
The Black Stone was never regarded as an idol by the pre-Islamic Arabs, nor was it everworshipped by them like the idols of the Ka'bah . . . It, no doubt, contained idols, yet it was
the idols that were worshipped, not the Ka'bah; and the same is true of the Black Stone. It
was kissed but never taken for a god, though the Arabs worshipped even unhewn stones, trees
and heaps of sand. (Ali, The Religion of Islam, p.440, 441).
Why, then, did the pagan Arabs make a special point of kissing it as Ali himself admits?
What significance did it have for them if it was not an idol? It is, perhaps, too remarkable to
believe that it was not worshipped as an idol. After all, stone gods were the very thing the
Arabs reverenced, whether shapen into some form or not. Another Muslim writer says:
Is it not unfortunate that so many Orientalists have misinterpreted the Muslim's veneration of
the Ka'bah, the Black Stone and the pilgrimage rites as a whole, imagining them as some kind
of idol worship, or dismissing the rites as silly, ridiculous or merely the relics of idolatrous
superstition? Another faulty assumption is that the rites of pilgrimage were remnants of a pre-
Islamic cult included by the Prophet in an attempt to reconcile the idolatrous Meccans with
the faith. (Khalifa, The Sublime Qur'an and Orientalism, p. 140).
One understands the Muslim determination to absolve Islam of a relic of idol-worship in its
pilgrimage rites but it does seem most improbable that this stone, one of the sacred stones
built into the Ka'aba by the pre-Islamic Arabs, just somehow happened to be exempted from
the adoration and worship afforded to the others. This seems even more improbable when weremember that it was over this stone that they argued even before Muhammad's mission when
rebuilding the Ka'aba, finally requesting Muhammad himself to replace it. This clearly shows
that they regarded it more highly than all the other idols in the shrine and it is most unlikely
that it escaped the worship paid to them. It seems far more probable that it was a "fetish pure
and simple" (Gairdner, The Reproach of Islam, p.156) and that it was, if anything, the chief
idol in the shrine, a stone worshipped like all the others. At least one Muslim writer has
admitted as much:
In fact, the Arabs venerated these stones so much that not only did they worship the black
stone in the Ka'bah, but they would take one of the stones of the Ka'bah as a holy object in
their travels, praying to it and asking it to bless every move they made. (Haykal, The Life of Muhammad , p. 30)
8/4/2019 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism
As the Arabs worshipped all the stone idols of the Ka'aba it seems historically more probable
that this worship has a legacy in the reverence paid today to the Black Stone rather than the
Arab worship of stones arose out of the sanctity of the Black Stone which somehow escaped
this worship and adoration.
The most singular feature in this worship was the adoration paid to unshapen stones.Mussulmans hold that this practice arose out of the Kaaba rites . . . The tendency to stone-
worship was undoubtedly prevalent throughout Arabia; but it is more probable that it gave
rise to the superstition of the Kaaba with its Black stone, than took its rise therefrom. (Muir,
The Life of Mahomet , p. xci)
Another writer is probably close to the mark when he says that the Black Stone was "the great
fetish, the principal though not the only divinity of the Quraish clan" (Lammens, Islam:
Beliefs and Institutions, p. 17). In any event, there appears to be no point in kissing the stone
and Muslims will be hard-pressed to find a really sound reason for the perpetuation of a
practice more suited to primitive pagan idolatry than the true spirit of monotheistic worship.
The kiss which the pious Muhammadan pilgrim bestows on it is a survival of the old practice,
which was a form of worship in Arabia as in many other lands. (Tisdall, The Original
Sources of the Qur'an, p. 43). (Gilchrist, Muhammad and the Religion of Islam, 3. ISLAM:
THE RELIGION AND ITS MOVEMENTS, 7. THE PRINCIPAL DUTIES OF ISLAM, D.
THE HAJJ PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA, 2. Al-Hajarul-Aswad - The Black Stone;
underline emphasis ours)
With the foregoing in perspective let us compare Muhammad‘s veneration of the black stone
with the practice of the idolators:
Like Muhammad, the pagans would touch and kiss their idols.
Like Muhammad, the pagans thought that their veneration and worship of these stones
brought them closer to Allah and was a means of receiving his blessings.
And just like Umar, Muhammad didn‘t see the sense behind the Meccans worshiping
stones and idols that could neither harm nor benefit anyone.
If ye call them to guidance, they will not obey: For you it is the same whether ye call them or
ye hold your peace! Verily those whom ye call upon besides God are servants like unto you:
Call upon them, and let them listen to your prayer, if ye are (indeed) truthful! Have they feet
to walk with? Or hands to lay hold with? Or eyes to see with? Or ears to hear with? Say:
"Call your 'god-partners', scheme (your worst) against me, and give me no respite! For myProtector is God, Who revealed the Book (from time to time), and He will choose and
befriend the righteous. But those ye call upon besides Him, are unable to help you, and
indeed to help themselves." S. 7:193-197 Y. Ali
Can anyone see any real difference between Muhammad‘s veneration of this pagan stone
object and the manner in which the Meccans worshiped their idols?
The pagan origins of the black stone
Zaatari cannot appeal to the alleged Abrahamic origins of the pagan rites associated with theKabah in order to justify Muhammad‘s blatant idolatry since there is absolutely no pre-
Islamic evidence that Abraham ever traveled there or that Ishmael himself settled in that area.
All the extant evidence we have indicates that the Kabah was a pagan shrine erected by
pagans for the worship of a pagan god:
Maximus Tyrius, who wrote in the second century, says, "The Arabians pay homage to I
know not what god, which they represent by a quadrangular stone," alluding to the Ka'bah ortemple which contains the black stone. The Guebars or ancient Persians assert that the Black
Stone was amongst the images and relics left by Mahabad and his successors in the Ka'bah,
and that it was an emblem of Saturn. It is probably an aerolite, and owes its reputation, like
many others, to its fall from the sky. Its existence as an object of adoration in an iconoclastic
religious system, can only be accounted for by Muhammad's attempt to conciliate the
idolaters of Arabia. (Thomas P. Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam, p. 155; underline emphasis
ours)
And:
Thirdly, secular history in no way supports the Qur'an's claim that the Ka'aba was ever aplace of monotheistic, non-idolatrous worship. The first mention of the Ka'aba is found in the
writings of Diodorus Siculus who, about 60 BC, described it as a "temple greatly revered by
the Arabs". Accordingly the Ka'aba dates back at least to before the time of Christ. But this
fact only helps to support the final conclusion we shall draw in this chapter. It certainly does
not in any way suggest that the Ka'aba existed before the Jewish Temple. On the contrary,
before the time of Muhammad, the Ka'aba was only known as the principal shrine of pagan
idolatry of the Arab world in and around Mecca.
We do have clear evidence, however, that the Ka'aba is not of monotheistic origin. We refer
to the black stone built into its east corner known as al-hajarul-aswad. Before Muhammad's
time the Arabs worshiped stones and the black stone was one of these objects of worship. Not
only was the kissing of this stone incorporated into Islam, but the whole form of the Hajj
Pilgrimage today is fundamentally that of the Arabs before Islam. Muhammad only changed
the meaning of the formalities - he made no attempt to change the forms and rites of the
pilgrimage themselves.
Some have suggested that stone-worship among the Arabs arose out of veneration of the
black stone, but this is highly improbable. Any form of veneration of a dead stone - especially
to the extent of bowing down and kissing the stone - can only be identified with pagan
idolatry rather than pure monotheistic worship. Even Umar was reluctant to imitate the pagan
Arabs by kissing the stone and only did so because he saw Muhammad do it. But in our viewMuhammad likewise was only perpetuating one of the forms of Meccan idolatry and we
cannot possibly see how veneration of a form of idol-worship can be reconciled with the
worship of the one true God.
Secular history knows of only one form of pre-Islamic veneration of the Ka'aba and that is
the idolatry of the pagan Arabs. There is no corroborative evidence whatsoever for the
Qur'an's claim that the Ka'aba was initially a house of monotheistic worship. Instead there
certainly is evidence as far back as history can trace the origins and worship of the Ka'aba
that it was thoroughly pagan and idolatrous in content and emphasis. Certainly in the six
hundred-odd years between the destruction of the Temple and the final conquest of Mecca the
Ka'aba was purely a shrine of thriving pagan idolatry. Therefore the Ka'aba cannot havebecome the form and place of true worship in God's providence when the Temple of the Jews
was destroyed. (John Gilchrist, The Temple, The Ka'aba, and The Christ; underline
emphasis ours)
The veneration of the black stone in light of Biblical monotheism
Besides, even if Abraham built the Kabah we know from the Holy Bible that he would have
never permitted the veneration of a stone since the true God expressly forbids such practices.
According to the Holy Bible God prohibited his people from fashioning images which are
then taken as objects of worship:
―You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the
earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for
I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to
the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,‖ Exodus 20:4-5
―Yet I reserve seven thousand in Israel— all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal and all whose mouths have not kissed him.‖ 1 Kings 19:18
Pay attention to the fact that bowing to and kissing an idol is considered an act of worship.
The next reference shows what happens when an object commissioned by a prophet of God is
venerated through religious gestures such as kissing, bowing or by burning incense to it:
―In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah
began to reign. He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in
Jerusalem twenty-nine years. His mother's name was Abijah daughter of Zechariah. He did
what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done. He removed the
high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces
the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burningincense to it. (It was called Nehushtan).‖ 2 Kings 18:1-4
The bronze serpent that the righteous king Hezekiah destroyed was one that God commanded
Moses to fashion:
―From Mount Hor they set out by the way to the Red Sea, to go around the land of Edom; and
the people became impatient on the way. And the people spoke against God and againstMoses, ‗Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no
food and no water, and we loathe this worthless food.‘ Then the LORD sent fiery serpentsamong the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. And the people
came to Moses, and said, ‗We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and
against you; pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us.‘ So Moses prayed for
the people. And the LORD said to Moses, ‗ Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and
every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live.‘ So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set
it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.‖
Numbers 21:4-9
An image that God commanded Moses to make was subsequently destroyed once the people
started venerating it! If this is what Yahweh did to an image fashioned by one of his greatest
prophets what makes Zaatari think that the God of Abraham would change his mind and
command Muhammad and his followers to start kissing a stone that can neither harm nor
benefit anyone?
Moreover, Zaatari often appeals to the Holy Bible to prove that Muhammad was a true
prophet on the grounds that he preached the same message of monotheism that God‘s true
prophets taught. He must therefore accept the fact that these Biblical passages conclusively prove beyond any reasonable doubt that his false prophet was an idolator who didn‘t
completely eradicate the pagan practices of the Arabs. According to the inspired Scriptures
Muhammad‘s sunna is the cause for countless numbers of individuals sinning against the true
God of Abraham by committing blatant acts of idolatry.
Zaatari has tried to defend the inconsistent use of the Holy Bible by Muslims in a series of
―replies‖ to my six propositions that prove that Muhammad was a false prophet. We havealready begun replying to his ―rebuttals‖ which, if the Lord Jesus wills, shall appear soon.
Suffice it to say his ―defense‖ simply further exposes the utter circularity and fallacious
reasoning of Islamic polemics, as well as providing another example of the inconsistent and
dishonest use of sources which has become the hallmark of Muslim polemics.
More blatant idolatry from the "prophet of monotheism"
In a recent article Zaatari writes that according to the doctrine of tauhid al-uluhiyya a Muslim
must take his/her oaths only in the name of Allah:
Now it must be made clear that when we say that all worship belongs to Allah we do not
simply mean your salat prayer, rather we mean all acts of obedience in the religion belong to
him, worship is not restricted to your salat prayer alone, but worship extends to fear, hope,
trust, love, scarifying, and oath making...
Also when you make an oath, which is when you swear, you only swear by Allah, for
instance you say I swear by Allah that my repentance is sincere and truthful, you do not say I
swear by Muhammad (AS), or by any other person etc. (Tawheed, the core of Islam)
However, Muhammad himself failed to practice this and didn't follow his own rules.
Muhammad had told his followers that swearing in the name of someone's father was shirk ,
or the sin of associating partners with Allah:
Narrated 'Umar:The Prophet said, ―If anybody has to take an oath, he should swear ONLY by Allah.‖ The
people of Quraish used to swear by their fathers, but the Prophet said, ―Do not swear by your
fathers.‖ (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 177)
And:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle met 'Umar bin Al-Khattab while the latter was going with a group of camel-
riders, and he was swearing by his father. The Prophet said, ―Lo! Allah forbids you to swear
by your fathers, so whoever has to take an oath, he should swear by Allah or keep quiet.‖
And yet the prophet of the black stone went ahead and swore in the name of a person's father,
thereby committing shirk !
Chapter 4: The Prohibition Of Withholding While Alive, Only To Squander Upon
One’s Death
2706. It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said: ―A man came to the Prophet and said: ‗O
Messenger of Allah, tell me, which of the people has most right to my companionship?‘ He
said: ‗Yes, BY YOUR FATHER, you will certainly be told.‘ He said: ‗Your mother.‘ He
said, ‗Then who?‘ He said: ‗Then your mother.‘ He said: ‗Then who?‘ He said: ‗Then your
mother.‘ He said: ‗Then who?‘ He said: ‗Then your father.‘ He said: ‗Tell me, O Messenger
of Allah, about my wealth – how should I give in charity?‘ He said: ‗Yes, BY ALLAH, you
will certainly be told…‘‖ (Sahih)
Comments:
… c. An oath can only be taken by the Name of Allah. It is not legal to take an oath overother than Allah‘s Name, as in authentic Ahadith it has been made clear. The Prophet said:
―Verily! Allah forbids you to swear by your fathers. If one has to take an oath he should
swear by Allah or keep quite [sic].‖ (Sahih Al-Bukhari: 6108.) In this Hadith the oath taken
by the father is either before the time when it was prohibited, or just part of Arabian culture,
as a habitual custom. It was common in Arabia that during conversation some additional
words or phrases without any particular intention were added. ( English Translation of Sunan
Ibn Majah - Compiled by Imam Muhammad Bin Yazeed Ibn Majah Al-Qazwini, From Hadith
No. 1783 to 2718, Ahadith edited and referenced by Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‗Ali Za‘i,
translated by Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), final review by Abu Khaliyl (USA)
[Darussalam Publications and Distributors, First Edition: June 2007], Volume 3, pp. 553-554;
capital and underline emphasis ours)
The comments of the translator are problematic for at least three reasons. First, Muslim
dawaganists like Zaatari believe that the Meccans are descendants of Ishmael and that he
built the Kaba along with his father Abraham and that both of them instituted the rites of
pilgrimage. This means that the people would have known and been informed that such
swearing was forbidden by the God of Abraham since the Holy Bible clearly forbids taking
oaths or swearing in anyone else's name:
―Therefore, be very strong to keep and to do all that is written in the Book of the Law of
Moses, turning aside from it neither to the right hand nor to the left, that you may not mixwith these nations remaining among you or make mention of the names of their gods or
swear by them or serve them or bow down to them,‖ Joshua 23:7
―By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be
revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.‖ Isaiah 45:23
―‗If you will return, O Israel, return to me,‘ declares the LORD. ‗If you put your detestable
idols out of my sight and no longer go astray, and if in a truthful, just and righteous way you
swear, “As surely as the LORD lives,‖ then the nations will be blessed by him and in him
they will glory.‘‖ Jeremiah 4:1-2; cf. 12:16
8/4/2019 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism
At the very least, Muhammad should have known this in light of his association and contact
with both Jews and Christians.
Second, Muslims assert that Allah protected Muhammad from all idolatrous practices even
before he allegedly became a prophet. If this were correct then wouldn‘t Allah have protected
his messenger from committing idolatry by swearing by someone‘s father?
Third, Muhammad‘s slip occurred after his alleged prophetic ministry began, during the time
when Muslims believe that their prophet was receiving inspiration. Again, if this were
actually the case wouldn‘t Muhammad‘s lord have gone out of his way to guard his prophet
from committing such a sin after the ―revelation‖ began to descend, during the time where
Muhammad always supposedly spoke by revelation? Or does this mean that it was Allah who
inspired Muhammad to make this idolatrous oath in the name of somebody‘s father since the
latter never spoke except by way of inspiration?
With that said it is rather obvious that this is another time where Muhammad failed to
practice what he preached and was guilty of idolatry. So much for the claim that Muhammadcame to restore pure monotheism.
Prostration and Worship in Islam
Zaatari again splits hairs by arguing that there are only two individuals in the Quran that
receive prostration, namely, Adam and Joseph. He again denies (not surprisingly) that these
are cases where creatures are being worshiped and challenges me to prove that the prostration
shown to these two individuals are in fact acts of worship.
However, I don‘t need to prove that these were blatant acts of worship since Zaatari does that
for me in his very own article. Zaatari admits that all acts of worship belong to God alone,
Now what is Tawhid of Worship? Tawheed of Worship is to believe THAT ALL ACTS OF
WORSHIP BELONG TO GOD ALONE, this goes from YOUR PRAYERS, your sacrificing,
your vows, your hope, your fear, your trust, and so forth and so forth, all of this belongs to
God. (Capital emphasis ours)
And since the Quran connects bowing down or prostrating to Allah with service or worship:
Surely those who are with thy Lord wax not too proud to serve Him (‘ibadatihi); they chantHis praise, and to Him they bow (yasjudoona). S. 7:206 Arberry
And of His signs are the night and the day, the sun and the moon. Bow not yourselves (la
tasjudoo) to the sun and moon, but bow yourselves (wa-osjudoo) to God who created them,
if Him you serve (ta-abudoona). S. 41:37
Rather prostrate yourselves (fa-osjudoo) before Allah and serve (wa-oabudoo) Him. S.
53:62 Pickthall
This means that the angels and Joseph‘s family were guilty of worshiping the creation instead
of the creator! As one Christian author put it in regards to the angels prostrating themselves toAdam:
8/4/2019 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism
―The story, as a whole, involves a difficult issue. Why did God order all His angels to fall
prostrate before a being inferior to them in nature? The manner of prostration is reserved for
the worship of God. It was not proper, therefore, to employ it in showing respect to creatures,
including Adam. Realizing the problem involved in the use of the term 'Sajda' (prostration) in
the passage under discussion, Jalal al-Din made the following observation:
The original word signifies properly, to prostrate one self till the forehead touches the ground,
which is the humblest posture of adoration and strictly due to God only; but it is sometimes
used to express civil worship or homage which may be paid to creatures. (W.T. Wherry, A
Comprehensive Commentary on the Quran, Vol. I, p. 301 [read Wherry's note online; see
comments on 2:34])
―Despite Jalal al-Din's apology, strictly speaking, 'Sajda' (prostration) is due only to God.
That is why the commentator did not support adequately the exception he has made to the
rule, from the Koran. The 'Wahhabis,' who consider themselves strict Muslims and true
Monotheists, forbid worship of any creature. God alone deserves to be worshipped, according
to them. They would not allow 'Sajda' to a civil authority - the kind of prostration which ismeant to be used in prayers to God… Moreover, it is true that strictly speaking pro stration
before any being other than God is a practice against monotheism and spirit of the Koran, as
Wahhabis would say.‖ (Abdiyah Akbar Abdul Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim
[Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, MN 1980], p. 78; bold emphasis ours)
In fact, you will occasionally catch a Wahhabi Muslim slipping and forgetting that Allah, in
the Quran, commanded his servants to bow and prostrate before other creatures. When this
happens you will find that these Salafi anthropomorphists basically agree that, from a purely
Islamic perspective, prostrating before a creature is nothing less than idolatry even if the
intention is not to worship the person. Note, for instance, the candid admission of the
following Salafi website:
Question:
I would like to know what to do. Someone told me that when reciting dhuwa, that i have to
prostrate seven times for the prophet, but i just don't know how, would you…
Undoubtedly this action is a kind of worship, and the Prophet warned us against following the
Jews and Christians in that. He said during his final illness: "May the curse of Allaah be upon
the Jews and Christians, for they took the graves of their Prophets as places of worship." He
was warning against doing what they did. (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, al-Salaah, 417)
… Prostration is one of the most exclusive acts of worship, TO BE DONE ONLY FOR
ALLAAH. Allaah has commanded us to prostrate TO HIM ALONE AND NONE OTHER,
as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
"Prostrate yourselves not to the sun nor to the moon, but prostrate yourselves to Allaah Who
created them, if you (really) worship Him"
[Fussilat 41:37]
"So fall you down in prostration to Allaah and worship Him (Alone)"
The usual greeting is " Assalaamu ‘alaykum wa rahmat -Allaahi wa barakaatuhu" (Peace be
upon you, and the Mercy of Allaah and His Blessings), because Allaah says (interpretation of
the meaning):
"greet one another with a greeting from Allaah (i.e. say: As-Salaamu ‘Alaykum — peace beon you), blessed and good"
[al-Noor 24:61]
The ahaadeeth explain this greeting clearly.
But bowing is not permitted, unless the person being greeted is old and is unable to stand up,
or is one of your parents and you do not want to make him or her stand up to shake your hand
or embrace you. So if you bow and kiss his head or forehead out of respect for the rights that
he has over you, then this is not the kind of bowing that constitutes an act of worship.
Undoubtedly bowing is an act of worship towards Allaah, as in rukoo‘ (the bowing inprayer), so if that is done without shaking hands or kissing, it is an act of veneration towards
that person and is therefore shirk.
Shaykh ‗Abd-Allaah ibn Jibreen. (www.islam-qa.com) (Question #10428: Bowing to
anyone other than Allaah is haram; underline emphasis ours)
Thus, when they are not careful even Wahhabis end up admitting that prostration to any one
besides Allah is outright shirk no matter the intention!
Therefore, Allah is guilty for promoting shirk since he commanded his angels to prostrate
before Adam, a mere creature, and for allowing Jacob and his family to bow before Joseph.
It is now time for Zaatari to shut down his website and leave the false religion of Islam, since
this is what he said he would do if I proved to him that Adam and Joseph received worship by
Allah‘s express command and approval.
For more on this issue we recommend this rebuttal.
Allah’s names and Zaatari’s desperate defense
Zawadi then tries to tackle the mistake of the author(s) of the Quran in attributing Allah‘s
exclusive names to creatures such as the Potiphar and Moses. Zaatari argues that al-aziz is not
a personal name but a title, which is nothing more than a straw man since we never claimed
that this was a personal name. Zaatari is confused since he erroneously assumed that when we
challenged Muslims to show us that al-aziz was Potiphar‘s actual name we meant his
personal name.
As if he couldn‘t make it any more obvious that he is incapable of providing a meaningfulresponse, Zaatari says that the Quran is simply quoting what the people said, not what Allah
said about their names! We already refuted this in our initial discussion by saying that these
individuals didn‘t speak Arabic and so there was no need for Allah to ascribe his own titles
and qualities to them in their definite forms in his Arabic Quran. Allah could have mentioned
these names in Arabic without attaching the definite article to them, just like he did in the
examples which we provided. Besides, Allah could have inspired Muhammad to transliterate
the original titles into the Arabic language much like he did with other Biblical names and
words such as Torah, Injil etc. If he had done this he would have avoided all of these gross
problems. (This assumes that the Allah of Islam truly exists and that the Quran is a divinerevelation, all of which we deny since the evidence conclusively proves that Muhammad‘s
deity is a false god and the Muslim scripture wasn‘ t revealed by the true God of Abraham).
So much for Zaatari‘s defense of both his and Zawadi‘s un-Islamic conception of
monotheism, as well as his desperate attempt of justifying and explaining away his god‘s
direct violation of his own rules and commandments.
Lord Jesus willing, more rebuttals to Zaatari‘s bluster and smokescreens will appear shortly.
Addendum
The polemicist has produced a series of "replies" to my rebuttal of his failed defense of
Zawadi's position. In one of the articles the propagandist claims that I argued that Allah has
taken certain creatures such as Muhammad and the wombs as his equal partners by using the
Arabic word wa since it is the conjunction of partnership and equality. I need to correct
Zaatari at this point since I didn't come up with the idea that wa is the conjunction used to
denote equality and partnership, his own Muslim scholars did. I simply took that information
and used it to prove that Allah violated his own instructions concerning tauhid by taking
Where in the above does it say ANYTHING about equality?
Zaatari is either ignorant, and therefore is dealing with issues that are well beyond his ability
to adequately comprehend and address, or he is simply being dishonest and deceptive. The
latter seems to be more likely as we shall shortly see.
In the first place didn't Zaatari bother to read the following?
Al-Khattabi said, "The Prophet has guided you to correct behaviour in putting the will of
Allah before the will of others. He chose ‗THEN‘ (thumma) which implies sequence and
deference as opposed to ‗AND‘ (wa) WHICH IMPLIES PARTNERSHIP."
Something similar is mentioned in another hadith. Someone was speaking in the presence of
the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said, "Whoever obeys Allah AND
His Messenger has been rightly guided, and whoever rebels against them both (joining them
together by using the dual form) …" The Prophet said to him, "What a bad speaker you are!
Get up! [Or he said: Get out!]"
Abu Sulayman said, "He disliked the two names being joined together in that way BECAUSEIT IMPLIES EQUALITY." … (Qadi Iyad, Kitab Ash-shifa bi ta'rif huquq al-Mustafa
(Healing by the recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One) , translated by Aisha
Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K., third reprint 1991,
paperback], Part One. Allah‘s great estimation of the worth of His Prophet expressed both in
word and action, Chapter One: Allah‘s praise of him and his great esteem for him, Section 1.
Concerning praise of him and his numerous excellent qualities, pp. 7-8; capital emphasis
ours)
Notice that within the context partnership is defined as equality. Besides, what greater sin is
there in Islam if not the sin of assigning partners with Allah, known as shirk ?
Verily, Allah forgives not that partners should be set up with him in worship, but He forgives
except that (anything else) to whom He pleases, and whoever sets up partners with Allah in
worship, he has indeed invented a tremendous sin. S. 4:48 Hilali-Khan - cf. 116
It is obvious that Zaatari is splitting hairs since he knows he cannot deal with the issues and
so seeks to divert attention away from my main argument.
Here is the reason why we say that Zaatari is being dishonest and deceptive. He claims thatthe quotation I provided from Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab wasn't dealing specifically
with the conjunction wa but with the issue of of the will, i.e. it is wrong to say if Allah wills
and if someone else such as Muhammad wills. Zaatari is obviously trying to pull a fast one
over his readers since the point of the citation is not simply over the issue of the will but of
conjoining Allah's will with another's by the use of the conjunction wa! That is why the same
source advises Muslims to say if Allah wills, THEN if so-and-so wills, using the conjunction
thumma instead. This shows that it is wrong to use wa in speaking of Allah and someone
together since this implies that whoever is mentioned alongside Allah is Allah's partner and
therefore a violation of tauhid .
To prove that this is the main concern of the quotation in question, namely to warn Muslimsfrom employing the conjunction wa in joining Allah with anyone else, here is what some of
8/4/2019 Revisiting the Problem of Islamic Monotheism
the very chapters which I linked to state concerning the issue of setting up rivals or partners
with Allah:
Important issues of the Chapter
1) The Jews were aware of the consequences of minor Shirk.
2) Man's understanding of the Shirk if he wishes to.
3) The statement of the Prophet "Have you made me an associate with Allah." How
condemnable is the poet who said:
"O noblest of the creatures, there is none for me but you to seek refuge in distress."
4) This is not the major Shirk as the Prophet said: "I was prevented from doing so for such
and such ..." (CHAPTER No: 44. How it is to say "What Allah may will and you may
will")
Notice that, despite Zaatari's spin and smokescreen, the Muslim translator of this particular
English translation of Kitab al-Tawheed asserts that this specific chapter is not about the will
but about shirk !
And:
Allah the Almighty said:
"Do not set up rivals (Al-Andad) unto Allah (in worship) while you know (that He Alone hasthe right to be worshipped)." (2:22)
With reference to the above quoted verse, Ibn Abbas said:
"Al-Andad means Shirk. It is as inconspicuous as a black ant moving (crawling) on a black
stone in the darkness of night. It is to swear: 'by Allah AND by your life' and 'by my life'. It is
also to say: 'Had there not been this little dog or the duck in the house, the thief would have
entered.' Or, like the statement of a man to his companion: 'By Allah's AND yours will,..' or
'Had it not been Allah AND so-and-so', etc. Do not mention anybody with Allah because all
of it is Shirk." [It has been reported by Ibn Abi Hatim] ...
"Do not say 'With the will of Allah AND with the will of that person' but rather say 'With the
will of Allah and then with the will of that person.' " [Abu Dawud reported this Hadith with a
Sahih chain]
It is related about Ibrahim Nakhyee that he detested to say: "I seek refuge in Allah AND in
you," but it is permitted to say: "I seek Allah's refuge first and then yours." He said, "Say 'If
not Allah and then so-and-so' and do not say 'If not Allah AND so-and-so'"
Important issues of the Chapter ...
5) The difference between the conjunctions 'wa' (and) and 'thumma' (then). (CHAPTER No:42. ("Do not set up rivals unto Allah..."); capital and underline emphasis ours)
Thus, my argument still stands that Allah has made Muhammad his coequal partner by
joining their names together through the use of the conjunction wa which even Muslim
scholars admit is used in relation to partnership and equality.
In another "reply" Zaatari quotes Ibn Kathir to show that the angels and Joseph's family
were not worshiping the creation by bowing to Adam and Joseph respectively since Allahsupposedly permitted people to bow down to men of authority from the time of Adam till the
advent of Christ until Islam came to prohibit it. Ibn Kathir then claims that:
Islam made prostration exclusively for Allah Alone, the Exalted and Most Honored. The
implication of this statement was collected from Qatadah and other scholars.
Zaatari also cites the response of www.islamqa.com to try to refute me without realizing how
the site's answer actually proves my point. This Salafi website claims that prostration is of
two types, the first being an act performed for the purpose of worship with the other being a
kind of greeting and honor. However, Zaatari conveniently failed to understand the
implication of the following assertion made by his very own source:
The prostration of Yoosuf's parents and brothers was also a prostration of greeting and
honouring, which was permissible according to the law (of Allaah) at that time [sic]. But
according to the sharee'ah brought by the Seal of the Prophets, Muhammad, it is not
permissible to prostrate to anyone at all except Allaah. Hence the Prophet said: "If I were to
have commanded anyone to prostrate to anyone else, I would have commanded women to
prostrate to their husbands." The Prophet forbade Mu'aadh to prostrate to him when he
(Mu'aadh) said that the People of the Book prostrated to the great ones among them, and he
mentioned the hadeeth quoted above. The prohibition in this sharee'ah against prostrating to
anyone at all except Allaah is an aspect of its perfection in achieving true Tawheed. It is the
perfect sharee'ah whose perfection is manifested in all its rulings...
The questions that Zaatari should have asked himself are the following: If prostration was
allowed for the purpose of showing honor and greeting then why did Muhammad prohibit it?
And if Islam forbids Muslims from prostrating to anyone other than Allah because it violates
tauhid al-ibaadah, i.e. his worship, then why was it allowed in the first place? How could it
not be a violation of Allah's worship back then if it violates it now? And if prohibiting
Muslims to prostrate before others is an aspect of perfection in achieving true tauhid does this
imply that Allah's worship was imperfect at the beginning? Are we to really believe that
Allah allowed his prophets and true followers to worship him imperfectly, preventing them
from attaining perfection in their worship or tauhid ? Does Zaatari seriously want us tobelieve that his deity actually put up with people honoring him in an imperfect manner? Does
that even make sense?
Moreover, how many times do we hear dawagandists like Zaatari claim that the prophets
before Muhammad were Muslims and believed in tauhid ? If so then why did Allah permit
them to violate a crucial aspect of tauhid by allowing them to prostrate to creatures? If as
propagandists like Sami keep telling us that the angels and Joseph's family were not
worshiping the creation but simply showing honor and respect to great prophets of Allah then
why should such honor and respect be prohibited? And seeing that Islam strictly prohibits
prostrating to anyone besides Allah irrespective of one's intentions doesn't this refute the oft-
repeated assertion that the angels and Joseph's family were simply showing honor? Doesn'tthis actually prove that their actions were in direct violation of the worship which is supposed
to be shown only to Allah? Of course it does and no amount of spinning and mental
gymnastics on Zaatari's part will change this fact.
Zaatari has to face reality and admit that the Quran contradicts itself, or at least is
contradicting what Muslims like Sami have been taught concerning the worship of Allah. He
should be honest enough and be a man of his word and close down his site just like he said hewould do if shown that the Quran permitted the worship of Adam and Joseph. Yet seeing that
he follows a god who permits Muslims to lie and break their oaths (*; *; *; *; *; *; *) we are
not surprised that Zaatari refuses to keep his word. By trying to make excuses to avoid having
to keep his promise Zaatari is simply being a good Muslim and is faithfully carrying out the
example of his own false prophet.
Lord Jesus willing, my thorough refutation of the other part of Zaatari's "response" shall
appear soon. And seeing that Zaatari has posted another of Jalal Abualrub's failed attempt of
addressing the issue of his false prophet's cross-dressing expect my replies to that as well.
