Friday, 30 July 2010

Answering Islam Challenged to a Debate (Sam Shamoun)


Well, here it is; a debate challenge for Sam Shamoun. I guess Muslims could not take any more lies from Sam Shamoun and his colleagues. So Sam Shamoun (answeringislam) is called out to defend one of his latest lies. (This will be a regular theme from now on in)

My money is on Sam shamoun running to the hills for cover. Sam likes to pretend everybody is afraid of debating him; it is not the case - most ppeople don't take him seriously; this is the reason why people circumnavigate his empty debate challenges

Well Sam here is the challenge...

Video is from Beholderguard (not Yahya snow). Beholder Guard is well known for taking anti-Muslim trolls to task on YouTube. I guess he felt Sam Shamoun fit the bill of an anti-Muslim troll.

PS...for those hardcore followers of Shamoun (ie those who offer him financial aid to encourage his abusive ways): Sam Shamoun has BLOCKED BeholderGuard...I guess your Islamophobic "hero" is a little disconcerted.
To coin Shamoun's saying:

"How do your shoes feel", Sam?

Your move, Sam. BeholderGuard is waiting for you :)
PS...Sam, please focus on your debate with Jibreelk (ongoing YT debate which Sam is really struggling in) and please focus on BeholderGuard's debate challenge. That means you should stop sending myself (yahya snow) debate challenges; you have your hands well and truly full with Beholder Guard and Jibreelk.

Christians: PLEASE stop supporting people who are insincere and who lack regard for honesty. If you want to learn about Islam then learn from a serious Muslim and not from a dishonest anti-Muslim website. Jesus NEVER taught you to follow such people...think about it. Thanks

More info on Sam Shamoun:

Shamoun's immature claim of "black stone lickers" is refuted here:

Those who want to learn about Islam please view:

If you have further info please send it to:

UPDATE: BeholderGuard makes ANOTHER video chasing Shamoun. I guess Sam knows he cannot defend the indefensible:

***Nadir Ahmed Troubles Sam Shamoun***

Thursday, 29 July 2010

Censorship: What Are Acts17Apologetics Afraid Of?

Recently I’ve seen a number of complaints of censorship by people who have been banned/blocked by David Wood/Nabeel Qureshi (the founders of Acts17).

It is all too telling to note the people who are on the end of Acts17 censorship are people who are willing to criticize and/or ask pressing questions. What are Acts17 afraid of?

Why block people for simply challenging your views?

A user named 1MoreMuslim has been censored by them. Now, I know of 1MoreMuslim from YouTube and I don’t recall him using offensive language EVER. However, this user does ask pressing and difficult questions concerning Christian theology. Perhaps that is the reason why this chap was censored by David Wood/Nabeel Qureshi; for simply questioning Christianity.
His YouTube:

Wood and Qureshi claim to be doing things in the interest of the Church despite recent speculation of their motives being monetary (cash) rather than spiritual. Surely if they were serious in evangelising and confident in their Christian (Trinitarian) theology they would not censor those who ask questions or put forward counter arguments…questions are there to be answered, not censored :)

Previously we blogged about David Wood’s wholesale censorship of a Jamaican apologetics group (kufrtokufr). They simply asked 17 questions and they were censored! Are 17 questions too many for people who claim Trinitarianism is the truth?

Kufrtokufr’s (censored) 17 questions to Act17Apologetics:

NOTE: Recently Nabeel Qureshi dropped them a comment, after many complaints regarding the unfair censorship, and did say he will answer their questions. This seems odd; they censor this group (kufrtokufr) and then return with a comment claiming they will respond after much complaining over their censorship. That seems like a double mind and an attempt to appear censorship-free. No response has been put forward thus far.

Now there is Ali and Womenfortruth. They seem to have a blog which highlights negative stories concerning Christians in the news; similar to what David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi do to Muslims. You would imagine Acts17 would welcome dialogue with these two as there are huge similarities in their respective approaches. No dialogue but censorship. Perhaps CENSORSHIP is Acts17’s idea of dialogue. Here is Ali’s comment concerning Wood’s censorship:
Ali said...
I find it humorous christians saying they've been censored, yet at the same time their own sites do the same. david wood will certainly block any comment that threatens his ministry or his senseless views about islam. and i believe david wood went all the way to britain to do a segment on freedom of speech on how islam threatens it. pure hypocricy

Their blog:

Not 100% certain here: If I remember correctly thegrandverbalizer19 (TGV) is also blocked from commenting on David Wood’s blog (answeringmuslims), why? TGV is familiar with Christian theology and apologetics as well as being a bright guy. Surely Nabeel Qureshi/David Wood and co would welcome dialogue with him…it does not seem so. What are they afraid of? People asking questions and putting forward reasoned arguments?

Was Nadir Ahmed not blocked from their blog too?

I also recall David Wood threatening a Christian (ibn Malik?) with blocking…it really does seem to be a case of agree with us or get lost!!!

Lupus el Lobo is a commentator who has suffered at the hands of censorship by…yep you guessed it; Acts17. This user is a polite enough chap, why censor him? Here is Lupus el Lobo filling us in:

I have never used any foul language. It seems to me that the truth they say they are seeking is very selective indeed.
They have developed a very clever scheme for appearing to promote freedom of speech. They only allow comments, however critical, which they know they can counter. Whenever they encounter a comment that they find difficult they simply block it.
There goes their so-called advocacy for freedom of speech.
Lupus el Lobo:

I have seen a number of complaints from YouTube users who have been silenced by David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi. Why?

What are Acts17Apologetics striving to achieve? Are they looking for a group of sycophants who will only ever agree with them and blindly click on the donate button and empty their wallets and purses to such a group without asking questions or even THINKING?
If it is a herd of mindless minions they are after then the internet is not the right place for them to shop for such a group as the internet is bursting with individuals and herding individuals is like herding cats.

Of course, David Wood does have a few minions at his disposal; apparently one of these minions drove 100 MILES to pick up some court documents on a bloke who was disagreeing and feuding with Acts17Apologetics over the internet. Talk about mafia-like behaviour and taking the internet way too seriously. That sad action reeks of Tony Soprano not a serious Christian. Then again, whoever thought the censors-happy brigade at Acts17 were ever serious Christians?

Another quick anecdote…I recall sending David Wood a link to an article showing a scholar teaching us honour killings were NOT part of Islam. Our David Wood censored that particular link and continued to try and convince a Muslim (Ali)) that honour killings were part of Islam. In this anecdote you have the reason behind their censorship. Peddling the type of nonsense Nabeel and David have been doing will only ever be propped by the mindless brigade and CENSORSHIP

What about the other guy who is so terrified of counter arguments he will censor you if he smells a whiff of intelligence and free thought…Christian Prince? Is he linked to this group too?

More censorship from the Dearborn "Christians":

Wednesday, 28 July 2010

Sam Shamoun On the Brink...Say Goodbye

There is a NEW Sam Shamoun in town

Sam, ask yourself do you want to be like Jesus or the new "Sam Shamoun"?
If it is Jesus then please give Islam a chance.

Here Is "Father" Zakaria Butrous' claim of sex with a dead body (refuted and discussed):

Here are some of Sam Shamoun's mistakes/pieces of dishonesty in his latest article:

For those christians and other non-muslims who are genuinely interested in learning about Islam with a clean heart please view the videos on this page:

Muslims, if you have questions about Islma then this site has access to scholars, it has an ask the scholar facility. This could be really useful for you:

If you have any files of interest to send then please send them to myself (Yahya Snow) at

Muhammad HAS Salvation: When will it sink in to Christian missionary minds?

Yet another Christian polemicist is peddling the “Muhammad was not assured salvation” claim despite there being a plethora of material disproving their claim. Previously his colleague was admonished for such erroneous claim; unfortunately his colleague did not fill him in and thus he is looking rather red-faced indeed.

Sadly, this Christian polemicist has not been privy to the source material which proves Muhammad was guaranteed Paradise (i.e. assured of salvation). However, in an act of responsibility and altruism we will guide him into the right direction by showing him proof Muhammad was assured of salvation and then we will clear up some of his misdirected ideas within his article.

Proof Muhammad was Certain of Salvation and Paradise

It is difficult to believe people are still peddling questions regarding Muhammad’s salvation, ponder upon this Quranic verse:

Surah 9:72

Allâh has promised to the believers -men and women, - Gardens under which rivers flow to dwell therein forever, and beautiful mansions in Gardens of 'Adn (Eden Paradise). But the greatest bliss is the Good Pleasure of Allâh. That is the supreme success.

Now Muhammed is a believing man, thus according to the Quran he is to be in Paradise thus showing his salvation is certain. Those who are unsaved are not going to Paradise, only the saved enter Paradise (like Jesus and Muhammad).

Muhammad Declares he Will be in Paradise

Here is the most explicit reference I could get hold of regarding Muhammad:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 34:
Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd:
The Prophet said, "I and the person who looks after an orphan and provides for him, will be in Paradise like this," putting his index and middle fingers together.

Thus Muhammad is CONFIRMING he will be IN Paradise (and those looking after orphans will be very close to him in Paradise). Anybody of a reasonable disposition will acknowledge this points to Muhammad being GUARANTEED Paradise and SALVATION!

Here is another quick one:

“No one will enter Paradise except a Muslim” ((Reported by al-Bukhaari, 6047).

Muhammad is a Muslim therefore Paradise is guaranteed for him. However knowing Shamoun’s fertile imagination and obstinacy he will claim Muhammad to be a non-Muslim in order to maintain his bizarre claim

We have already seen Muhammad is going to Paradise and therefore is guaranteed salvation. But let us cut through some of the now obsolete points Sam Shamoun has been making in the interest of thoroughness and in the hope Sam will drop his invalid claims.

Cutting Through Sam Shamoun’s Dubious Rhetoric

In typical zealous style our Sam Shamoun begins his outrageous claim which is symptomatic of his misunderstanding of basic Islamic principles and practices; within his title he proclaims:

“Praying for Muhammad’s Peace and Security”

A quick interjection to correct him; Muslims don’t pray for Muhammad’s “security” we simply ask God to send His Peace and Blessings upon the Prophet. The more times we do this the more goodness God showers upon the Prophet. Would you not do this for a Prophet you love? I actually do this for Prophet Jesus too as I love him as well. By Shamoun’s warped understanding this means we are praying for the “security” of Jesus.

I think Sam can see the erroneous nature of his claim. Unsurprisingly the rest of his lengthy article is a dire attempt in propping this already refuted claim.

Does this mean we can end the article and toddle off to the gym and avoid inflicting further refutation upon Shamoun’s outrageous material?

Not so fast Sam, stay right where you are!

There are a few other points of contention which I want to bring to your attention. I will get the most embarrassing one out of the way.

PROOF: Sam you have NEVER read the WHOLE Bible

Shamoun wrote this:

In the first place, there is not a single Biblical verse or Quranic citation which exhorts believers to pray for the peace and salvation of any of God’s true prophets and apostles after their respective deaths; Muhammad is utterly unique in this respect

Firstly Sam, we have already taught you that Muslims do not pray for Muhammad’s “salvation” so you can go back and expunge such fanciful claims. However it gets more interesting as our Sam Shamoun appears to have never read the Bible. God is speaking to Abram (Abraham) in this verse:

I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you."
(Genesis 12:3 NIV)

Now, that is undisputable. It clearly encourages people to pray for blessings on Abraham. This is all too similar to what Muslims do to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Indeed Muslims would be considered uncouth not to say peace be upon Abraham after mentioning his name. Muslims do this prayer for ALL prophets when mentioned.

Thus two points are proven here:

1. Muslims are blessed by God according to Genesis 12:3 as we Muslims ask God to bless Abraham with peace (alayhissalam)

2. Sam Shamoun is unfamiliar with the Bible

Sam may be hiding behind the sofa right now, hold on Sam is American so I guess he will use the word “couch” as opposed to “sofa”. Nevertheless he is finding it rather embarrassing.
Before the embarrassment can subside, Sam let’s get the appended claim out of the way:
“Muhammad is utterly unique in this respect.”

I’m sure you have realised Muhammad is not alone in this respect as Genesis 12:3 encouraged people to send blessings upon Abraham just like Muslims do for the last Prophet, Muhammad.

Sam, before we move on please join us in this supplication:

O Lord of all that exists, please send your peace and blessings on Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad and upon all the other Prophets. Ameen.

Sam Shamoun also states:

If Muhammad who is the founder of Islam needed and continues to need individuals to pray for his salvation

It is getting a little repetitive, Sam. I’m sure having read up to this point in the article a man of comprehension will realise Muslims are not praying for “salvation” as Muhammad had salvation guaranteed. May I remind you he told us he will be in Heaven, that sounds like guaranteed salvation, thus he does not require anybody to pray for his salvation. Muhammad has already attained salvation he will be in the same place as Abraham and the other Prophets.

Worry about your own salvation, Sam. Prophets are more than fine when it comes to salvation.

I think we have had our fill of Shamoun’s wild and spurious claims for today

God willing Sam will realise the error in his ways.

I know I have been having some fun with Sam Shamoun throughout the course of this article but it is all for effect in order to help him and others see the truth. God willing it will be of use to people of a sincere disposition.

May Allah send His peace and blessings upon all his Prophets. Ameen.

Any files or information should be sent to:

Appendix 1:
Sam Shamoun latest outright lie of Muslims being” black stone lickers it is refuted here:

Appendix 2:

Interesting article by Jonathon Dupree which could further the truth-seeker’s understanding, God willing:

Appendix 3:

Here is a typical Muslim prayer asking for further blessings upon the Prophet they love:

Translation (2) O Allah, Lord of this lasting call and this beneficial prayer, confer blessings upon Muhammad and become pleased with me so that You are never displeased with me thereafter.

Here’s one in which ABRAHAM is mentioned:
Translation (4) O Allah, confer blessings upon Muhammad and upon the family of Muhammad, and bless Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, and shower Your mercy upon Muhammad and the family of Muhammad, in the manner You conferred blessings, blessed and showered mercy upon Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim. Verily, You are the Praiseworthy, the Majestic.

Here’s one asking for blessings for ALL believers (obviously that includes Jesus and Abraham, right?):
Translation (3) O Allah, confer blessings upon Muhammad, Your bondsman and Your messenger and confer blessings upon the believing men and women, and the Muslim men and women.

Tuesday, 27 July 2010

The False Allegation of Muhammad having sex with a dead body

The allegation is that Muhammad had sex with Fatima bint Asad when she was dead.

It is a nonsensical and a malicious claim which is gaining some popularity amongst the aberrations on the internet

The simplest way to disprove this allegation is to go to Islamic Jurisprudence.

As the charge is that of necrophilia (sex with a dead body) we can look into Islamic theology. If the allegation is true then the act of necrophilia would be allowed in Islam. So what does the expert (Ibn Hajar Haytami) say?

Well, he includes necrophilia in his list of sins [1]. Thus we can realise necrophilia is not allowed in Islam and the Prophet did not engage in such a deed.

In fact if we consult Fiqh we realise “it is unlawful to look at the nakedness of the deceased or touch it” [2].Thus further showing sex with the deceased (dead) cannot possibly be allowed. This further shows the Prophet did not engage in such a deed as if he did then the practice of necrophilia would have been allowed in Islam.

Now we know the claim of necrophilia against Prophet Muhammad is incorrect we can analyse the methodology used by the claimant (Zakaria Botros) and the narration he uses. This course of action will suffice for us to be fully conversant with this claim and able to explain why the claims are erroneous (false).

It is important to be able to explain it as there is a growing number of willing propagators of such falsehood, thus this false claim will only become popular if good people sit on their hands.

Analysing the Allegation: Authentic?

The narration which is used is from a book named Kanza ul Amal. This book contains fabricated and weak narrations, thus is not recognised as an authoritative source (individual narrations need to be checked).

Regardless of the authenticity let’s still look at the narration and context to gain understanding so we can realise the actual meaning of such a narration (regardless of authenticity)

The Narration

Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

"I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah's creatures to me after Abu Talib"... The prophet was referring to Fatima, the mother of Ali.

Looking at the narration alone one would not cry “necrophilia” or any wrong doing as “sex” is not mentioned. However, simply looking at the narration’s English translation one would find it odd. Sleeping with somebody in a coffin (grave) is an odd occurrence indeed. However, once the context is given we realise what actually happened.

The Context and Explanation

Firstly the translation of “I slept” does not best convey the meaning based on the context, the Arabic word translated as “I Slept” is Idtaja’ (اضطجع ). This word can either mean:
lie down, lie, recline, repose [3].

I hope you have noticed within the list of definitions (lie down, lie, recline, repose) the word “sleep” (or “sex”) does not appear. Lane’s Lexicon does indicate it can refer to sleeping too:

lay upon his side; or] he laid his side upon the
ground; [and simply he lay; and he slept [4]

Though the word can refer to sleep, I have seen NO indication in Lane’s Lexicon nor the other dictionary which indicates the word means sex. (I will elaborate on this later on in this paper whilst discussing Father Zakaria’s bizarre and fallacious interpretation of the narration)

So we are left with the question: did Muhammad sleep or lie in the grave?

The context explains it all, as it was a grave we realise the word cannot possibly mean “sleep” but rather it means “lie/lay in the grave”.

This actually makes sense with the other bits of context we have at our disposal; “When the grave was prepared Muhammad himself examined it and placed her into the grave” [5].

Thus, it is reasonable to think the examination procedure also involved Muhammad lying in the grave. This would not have been at length in terms of duration (time). Therefore we realize Muhammad simply laid in the grave to make sure it was comfortable for his deceased foster mother as well as to honour the lady as it would be seen as a fabulous honor to be resting in a place where a Prophet of God had previously laid.

Did Muhammad Lie with his Foster Mother (Fatima Bint Asad) in the Grave?

It does not appear so as the process of investigating/examining the grave would have been PRIOR (before) lowering Fatima Bint Asad into the grave. Therefore Muhammad would have reclined (lied) in the grave in order to check the grave before Fatima was placed in the grave, thus he would not have lied with her. Furthermore, there were two types of graves in vogue at the time of the Prophet which were Lahd and Shaqq (shiq) [6], [7].

The Shaqq type of grave is characterized by a niche within the grave for the dead body to be placed within. So it is impossible to lie with the body due to the niche. [8]
The Lahd form of grave is characterized by a lateral hollow which is dug into the side of the base of the grave for the body to be placed [8]. This type of grave makes lying with the deceased body risky as the earth could cave in on top of the body and the one who is lying with the deceased.

Thus, it seems the laying in the grave for examination purposes was done prior to Fatima being lowered into her resting place. This is despite the Arabic phraseology used literally denoting “with”:

اضطجعت معها في قبرها

However, even if one takes it literally it does not mean wrong doing took place and it certainly does not refer to sex.

If Muhammad did lie with his foster mother whilst she was in the grave in order to check for comfort and honor her before the companions filled the grave it would only have been for a short time and this would have been witnessed by other people too. There is nothing wrong with lying in the grave to ensure comfort for your foster mother and honor; in fact it was an act of great compassion.

Having established all the above we can move on to discuss and deconstruct the misdirection of Father Zakaria (the one who initially made this fallacious claim)

This seems to be a transcript of Father Zakaria’s explanation to the narration:

The Arabic scholar Demetrius explains: "The Arabic word used here for "slept" is "Id'tajat," and literally means "lay down" with her. It is often used to mean, "lay down to have sex." Muhammad is understood as saying that because he slept with her she has become like a wife to him so she will be considered like a "mother of the believers." This will supposedly prevent her from being tormented in the grave, since Muslims believed that as people wait for the Judgment Day they will be tormented in the grave. "Reduce the pressure" here means that the torment won't be as much because she is now a "mother of the believers" after Muhammad slept with her and "consummated" the union."

Firstly, who is “Demetrius”? Zakaria gives no introduction to this scholar. Why? I have had a look at Lane’s Lexicon and I did not get the inference the word meant sex. However, this is a smaller point in the deconstruction of Zakaria’s claim.

We will look at Father Zakaria’s unauthorised interpretation of the event and show the holes within his reasoning.

Have Sex with Her in Order to give her a Special Status?

Zakaria states:

“Muhammad is understood as saying that because he slept with her she has become like a wife to him so she will be considered like a "mother of the believers””

Zakaria’s premise is that Muhammad had sex with Fatima because he wanted her to attain special status as the “mother of the believers”. Well, Zakaria’s premise falls flat on its face because Fatima bint Asad already had the special status of being Muhammad’s foster mother. [5]

In the transcript this information has been withheld (i.e. nobody is told of her special status as the foster mother of Muhammad). Why is this information not relayed to us in the transcript which is circulating the internet? It is because Zakaria’s premise is thrown into doubt immediately if we are told she already has a special status. Thus if she already had a special status then there would be no need for her to be given the special status of being “like a wife to him” as she was already like a mother to him (Muhammad).

So Father Zakaria’s reasoning is flawed from the start. However, it gets worse for the Zakaria.

“She has become like a wife to him”

Father Zakaria is trying to fool us. He is claiming Muhammad had sex with Fatima in order for her to have a status of a wife of Muhammad and thus the title of “mother of the believers”.

Zakaria is either ignorant or dishonest.

Muhammad could NOT possibly have taken Fatima Bint Asad as a wife as Islamic Law dictates consent be given by BOTH parties in a marriage; of course marrying a dead person would not be allowed simply based on this injunction. Father Zakaria knows this but continues with his fanciful claim because it suits his agenda to besmirch the reputation of the Prophet Muhammad

So the point here is that Fatima could never have become his wife through such an act, despite Father Zakaria’s nonsensical pleadings. Thus Father Zakaria is looking even more foolish in his claim. It gets more embarrassing for Father Zakaria

“Muhammad did this to save her from the torment of the grave”?

Father Zakaria is showing signs of a fertile imagination and utter ignorance.

If we consult Ahadith literature we will realise Muhammad’s PRAYER made the grave a better abode for people (Hadith) through the grace of God. This shows us if Muhammad seriously felt Fatima Bint Asad was in danger of the punishment of the grave he would have simply PRAYED for her grave to be a better dwelling. [9]

Thus we realise Zakaria’s debauched idea that sex (or marriage) is required to save a person from the punishment of the grave is warped and fallacious to say the least. It gets worse for Father Zakaria.

“Muslims believed that as people wait for the Judgment Day they will be tormented in the grave”

Zakaria is showing signs of clear ignorance. Muslims of course believe in the punishment of the grave but those whom Allah is pleased with are NOT punished. Fatima Bint Asad is considered a saintly woman thus Muslims do not believe she is subjected to the punishment of the grave.

In fact the Muslim belief concerning pious people (such as Fatima Bint Asad) is that their graves will reflect Paradise and will be very comfortable and blissful indeed.

'The grave is a garden of paradise or a pit of hell." (Mishkat)

Rasulullah said, 'The grave is a garden of paradise or a pit of hell.' (Mishkat).
Concerning the pious people (such as Fatima Bint Asad) “A believer will answer all three questions and he will be honored with the clothing of Jannah. The window of Jannah will be opened for him and he will enjoy the sight of Jannah
” (Mishkat) (appendix 1)

Thus we realise the grave of a saintly woman (i.e. Fatima Bint Asad) would not be one of torment but of splendour, peace and bliss. She will also see Jannah (Paradise).

This just illustrates Father Zakaria’s ignorance and shows his crackpot idea of Muhammad having sex with his foster mother in order to save her from torment is unadulterated nonsense and a product of a very strange mind indeed.

Father Zakaria’s Hypocrisy

The one making this odd claim is a Christian and it just goes to reveal his hypocritical nature because the same word (a construct of Idtaja) is used in the Arabic Bible and it is not translated as sex but is translated as “LAID”. Does Father Zakaria want to be consistent now and withdraw his silly claims?

Please also bear in mind the dictionary references (given earlier) which disprove Father Zakaria’s malicious claims, well the Bible is now disproving hm.

The same Arabic word is used in the Bible (2Kings 4:32) and it is translated as “laid” and not sex or anything of that nature:

وَدَخَلَ أَلِيشَعُ الْبَيْتَ وَإِذَا بِالصَّبِيِّ مَيْتٌ وَمُضْطَجعٌ عَلَى سَرِيرِهِ.

English Translation: And when Elisha was come into the house, behold, the child was dead, and laid upon his bed. (KJV)

This along with the dictionary references shown earlier just further indicates the narration in question has nothing to do with sex.

Clarification: Why Do You Say There Was No Sex?

I think this point needs reiteration and summarizing so nobody is in any doubt. It is a silly, unfair and false claim to say sex was involved, consider the following:

*The word used (Idtaja’) does not infer sex. It simply refers to lying down or sleeping. The meaning of lying down is further highlighted by the context. There is NO way it refers to sex. NO authority would consider it meaning sex. In fact if the narrator wanted to convey the idea of sex/marriage taking place he would have used a totally DIFFERENT Arabic word (i.e. a construct of nikah).

*The same Arabic word is used in the Bible (2Kings 4:32) and it is translated as “laid” and NOT “sex” or “sleep”.

*Islam does not allow sex with dead people (already mentioned above). Islam is based on the deeds and actions of the Prophet as well as the Quran. Thus if Muhammad did involve himself in this type of activity it would be allowed within Islam. This just goes to show Muhammad never committed such an act.

*Fiqh (Jurisprudence) tells us it is not allowed to touch the nakedness of the deceased, as most Fiqh is also based upon Muhammad’s actions we can realize Muhammad did not touch any deceased body in a sexual manner.

*Fatima Bint Asad was deceased, thus meaning a marriage between Muhammad and her or any subsequent conjugal (sexual) relations would be rejected by Islam

*The burying of a deceased person is a community effort thus Muhammad would not have been alone whilst at the grave side. Thus it would be absurd to suggest somebody had sex with a deceased woman whilst everybody sat and watched

* Muhammad’s enemies would have mentioned it and used it against him if he did commit such an act. Muhammad’s enemies never accused him of necrophilia. This further shows this allegation of necrophilia is false and baseless.

*As we have already mentioned, the dictionary references do not indicate sex but lying down/sleeping (the context of which simply refers to lying down). These references are further strengthened by the context.

*Also, the two grave types (Lahd/Shaqq) would physically render the grave as unsuitable for sex.

*The body of the deceased is meant to be handled with care [10] so much so that a bone of the body must not be broken. Of course it goes without saying this would mean sex would be out of the question.

*Fatima bint Asad was the foster mother of Muhammad. “When Muhammad heard Fatima Bint Asad had died, he immediately went to her house sat beside her body and prayed for her soul”

*“When the grave was prepared Muhammad himself examined it and placed her into the grave. Thus, she was one of the few people whose graves were examined by Muhammad”. Examination of a grave does involve lying down in a grave but does NOT involve sex.

* It is dehumanizing and a disconnection from reality to believe a world religion of nearly 2 billion will be founded by a man who involved himself in necrophilia


Muhammad was doing what any loving and caring person should do; that was focussing on the well being of his relative (foster mother and aunt, Fatima bint Asad) ) both in this life and the hereafter. There was no sex or wrong doing involved.

This heart warming story of compassion and love for one’s family member is now being hijacked by the debauched and hateful mind of a few who are motivated by hatred and destruction.

Father Zakaria should be ashamed with himself; this man has a poor reputation in the Arab world, both Christians and Muslims will see him as a man looking for controversy and attention whilst viewing him as a crackpot figure.

I have had some dealings with the English speaking version of Father Zakaria and he, too, is seen as a man motivated by deviance and outright deception. This man’s deception extends to making up his own BIBLICAL verses up! (Appendix 2)

Fair people (both Muslims and Christians) should be wary of such characters and help fight their misinformation. If you happen to be somebody who dislikes Islam or a supporter of such perpetuators of outrage and dishonesty then I urge you to have a rethink and refrain from supporting such individuals financially as they will ultimately be laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of the truth.

There is no copyright restriction on this work so feel free to share it in order to further the truth


May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon Prophet Muhammad and may Allah send more good upon Fatima bint Asad. Ameen

How the Muslim calendar works

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam



1. Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994 [W52.1, 343]

2. Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994 [g2.7]

3. Online Arabic-English dictionary,

4. An Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, Williams and Norgate, 1872


6. Bulug al Maram, compiled by Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (with brief notes from Subul us Salam), Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, 2002 pg 186

7. Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994 g5.3

8. Ibid. g5.3

9. Bulug al Maram, compiled by Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (with brief notes from Subul us Salam), Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, 2002 pg179 Hadith no 447 (see appendix 3)

10. Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Aman Publications, 1994 w52.1/119

Appendix 1
Rasulullah said, 'When a person is buried and the people go away, two angels approach the deceased and ask three questions, a) Who is your lord? b) What is your religion? and c) Who is he (Rasulullah )?. A believer will answer all three questions and he will be honored with the clothing of Jannah. The window of Jannah will be opened for him and he will enjoy the sight of Jannah. On the contrary, a disbeliever will express regret at not being able to answer the questions. Upon that, an angel who is blind and deaf is appointed to punish him. Blind so that the angel does not see the punishment and feel mercy and deaf so that the punishment is not heard. The hammer used to punish a disbeliever is so heavy that it can reduce a mountain to dust. The disbeliever screams with pain and every creation can hear him besides human and Jinns.' (Mishkat)
Rasulullah said, 'The grave is a garden of paradise or a pit of hell.' (Ibid)

Appendix 2
The English speaking version of Father Zakaria makes up his own Biblical verse in order to fit in with a strange “mathematical code” idea:

Such is the disrespect for the truth people of this nature possess.

Appendix 3

Narrated Abu Huraira ®: Regarding the story of a woman who used to sweep the mosque. The Prophet (S) asked about her and they ( the Companions) told him she had died. He (S) then said, “why did you not inform me?” and it appeared as if they had considered her as of little importance. He (S) said, “show me her grave”, and when they did so he prayed on her. And Muslim added : He (S) then said, “these graves are full of darkness for their occupants, but Allah will illuminate them (the graves) for them (the occupants) because of my prayer on them”.

Appendix 4

Another example of Muhammad caring for people in the grave

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet once passed by two graves and said, "These two persons are being tortured not for a major sin (to avoid). One of them never saved himself from being soiled with his urine, while the other used to go about with calumnies(to make enmity between friends)." The Prophet then took a green leaf of a date-palm tree, split it into (pieces) and fixed one on each grave. They said, "O Allah's Apostle! Why have you done so?" He replied, "I hope that their punishment might be lessened till these (the pieces of the leaf) become dry." (See the foot-note of Hadith 215). (217)

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: Once the Prophet, while passing through one of the grave-yards of Medina or Mecca heard the voices of two persons who were being tortured in their graves. The Prophet said, "These two persons are being tortured not for a major sin (to avoid)." The Prophet then added, "Yes! (they are being tortured for a major sin). Indeed, one of them never saved himself from being soiled with his urine while the other used to go about with calumnies (to make enmiy between friends). The Prophet then asked for a green leaf of a date-palm tree, broke it into two pieces and put one on each grave. On being asked why he had done so, he replied, "I hope that their torture might be lessened, till these get dried." (215)

Read more:

Appendix 5

Claim in full:

(Narrated by Ibn Abbas:

"I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and I SLEPT with her in her coffin (grave) that I may lessen the pressure of the grave. She was the best of Allah's creatures to me after Abu Talib"... The prophet was referring to Fatima , the mother of Ali.

The Arabic scholar Demetrius explains : "The Arabic word used here for "slept" is "Id'tajat," and literally means "lay down" with her. It is often used to mean, "lay down to have sex." Muhammad is understood as saying that because he slept with her she has become like a wife to him so she will be considered like a "mother of the believers." This will supposedly prevent her from being tormented in the grave, since Muslims believed that as people wait for the Judgment Day they will be tormented in the grave. "Reduce the pressure" here means that the torment won't be as much because she is now a "mother of the believers" after Muhammad slept with her and "consummated" the union."

now, i know the same word اضطجع
is used in 2 king:4:32-34

the word
means lay dawn , it doesn't mean he have sex with the boy.

Appendix 6

Lack of authenticity in Kanzal ul Amal

Appendix 7

More context:
Fatima looked after Muhammad during his youth.
Anas bin Malik says that when Muhammad heard Asad had died, he immediately went to her house sat beside her body and prayed for her soul.
"My dear mother, may God keep you under His Protection. Many times you went hungry in order to feed me well. You fed me and clothed me on delicacies that you denied yourself. God will surely be happy with these actions of yours. And your intentions were surely meant to win the goodwill and pleasure of God and success in the Hereafter."
He gave his shirt to be used as part of her shroud. When the grave was prepared Muhammad himself examined it and placed her into the grave. Thus, she was one of the few people whose graves were examined by Muhammad. Fatimah is buried in Jannatul Baqee' cemetery in Madinah, Saudi Arabia.

Appendix 8:

Here is a video refuting this claim of Zakaria Butrous. It also contains some claims related to Zakaria Butrous' past and morality. I'm not sure of the authenticity of the claims related to Butrus but the refutation is useful
From Islamresponses:

What is Takiya, Taqiyya?

Did Ali and Abu Bakr Really Burn People?

Stupid claim of Aisha not having reached puberty at time of consummation

[QURAN MIRACLES] The Miracles of the Number 19 in Quran | Dr. Shabir Ally

Brief Comment on 'Satanic Verses', Dr Yasir Qadhi

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Learn about Islam


Saturday, 24 July 2010

AnsweringIslam Angling for Debate?

Sam Shamoun has been traversing the internet for the last decade and throwing out empty debate challenges to anybody and everybody. Well, JibreelK has called him on his bluff. What does our “pal” Sam Shamoun do?

Yes, you guessed it, he loses his bottle.

Sam Shamoun is superficial personified. He likes to appear as an individual who everybody is frightened of debating; this is one of the reasons why he and his fans issue empty challenges to Yusuf Estes and Zakir Naik. Naik does not debate “no bodies” and Yusuf Estes does not debate at all. Thus, Shamoun is always going to get a negative response; he uses this negative response in order to misdirect his audience into thinking big Muslim personalities are quaking in their boots at the sight of Shamoun.

The truth is most people have never heard of Sam Shamoun and the Muslim debaters who have heard of Shamoun would not give Shamoun the time of day as he lacks domestication. Yes, you read correctly; he lacks domestication (i.e. he does not know how to behave in a civilized fashion).

It is a real shame Rex from IslamandFriends radio show is away and not covering this as this story would be right up his street and he would have taken the empty shell of Shamoun to task. Oh, did I say “empty”. Well it was empty until it was imbued with hatred, ignorance and a general affinity for the uncouth. Let us take glance at the latest episode between Jibreelk and Sam Shamoun.

JibreelK Agrees to Debate Sam Shamoun but Shamoun Develops Pangs of Cold Feet

JibreelK has AGREED to debate Shamoun on YouTube; one topic at a time.

If Shamoun is serious (after all he did challenge Jibreel) he should accept and begin the video dialogue. People are looking forward to it, I am looking forward to commentating on the discussion between the two of them. However Shamoun is being a party-pooper.

Not only is Sam Shamoun trying to back out, he is now seriously wasting Jibreel’s time (not to mention everybody else’s time). Think about it, if you were serious about dialogue/debate you would not be censoring the opponent’s comments and looking like an obstinate amateur in the process.

JibreelK confirms Shamoun’s censorship:

Jibreel: Sam Shamoun is not posting my comments on his channel. I wonder why?
Does everyone agree that he should be fair and post whatever I write. I have not insulted him, or used foul language. He has been changing the topics left and right, and I am just asking him to stick to our initial points. He can't do that. So, people watching, you are the judges, you are the oneswho are observing all this. Is he fair?

I have popped over to Shamoun’s page and I do not see any recent comments from JibreelK approved. Due to Shamoun’s heavy censorship it appears as though our pal, Shamoun, is having a conversation with himself!

Now ask yourself: If you are serious about debate are you going to censor the potential opponent’s comments? Welcome to the unorthodox world of Sam Shamoun!

This just shows Shamoun is a time waster. The fact that JibreelK is now forced to make videos to address Shamoun is testament to Shamoun’s time wasting abilities.

Sam, STOP wasting his time. Either allow his comments and debate him on YouTube or just scrap it and go back to dealing with kids on Pal Talk (right now that seems to be your level).

Here is a commentator levelling his disapproval at Shamoun’s tactics:

it seems like u dont want to let JibreelK's comments come through to ur page to have an even debate..this shows u dont know how to debate sham

Shamoun Becomes Down Right Pathetic

He disallows comments from the serious and well respected Jibreelk whilst allowing an abusive comment from a passerby:

May a thousand **** furiously **** your **** until your sphincter is turned into a gooey pink paste and you bleed out, Mr. Shamoun

I’m sorry, I don’t respect Shamoun’s actions. Shamoun is not serious and is simply wasting everybody’s time. Sam, before you send me messages to rebuke the commenter please watch Jibreel’s latest videos where he picks you apart on this issue. Sam, I am not some internet administrator but for the record I do condemn the comment and ask people to refrain from such uncouth discourse.

Shamoun Pulls a Sad Stunt

He was censoring ALL the civil and worthwhile comments from Jibreelk and then pulls a disgraceful stunt in copying and pasting an abusive comment to his mother by a user named Jochenkatzz . Totally irrelevant! The discussion with JibreelK is concerning the debate and topics but Shamoun is hopping around like a grasshopper from one irrelevant topic to another and every now and again our Sam Shamoun leaps on something not too pleasant

Here is Sam Shamoun letting off steam:

Jibreel, are you really illiterate? Do you have A.D.D. since I know Nadir Ahmed does and admits to it? I ask because I haven't seen someone so incapable of comprehending a point. You are virtually illiterate which is why you keep making posts that humiliate both yourself and your false prophet. You simply aren't intelligent enough to understand what you read and hear.

Sam do you even know what “illiterate” means? I doubt it based on your application here. Sam why do you have this propensity to insult?

You have a habit of mentioning Nadir Ahmed, why don’t you go back to debating him on Pal Talk? Has he blacklisted you?

Here is the interesting bit:

You are virtually illiterate which is why you keep making posts that humiliate both yourself and your false prophet

Sam is willing to post insults to his mother and insults to himself but NOT willing to post these phantom comments which “humiliate” JibreelK. Sam, we all really believe you (sarcasm)

Sam, wake up. You are portraying yourself in a poor light. Here is a YouTuber commenting on the dialogue:

Jibreel man, I pray that God protect and bless you and your family, I really love the way you remain levelheaded and calm when arguing with Samand the likes of him

Here is another person commenting on Sam Shamoun:

That's the only way he is capable of defending himself. He has no counter dispute, he doesnt have sufficient information to debate. I feel like he is trying to get under your skin. He makes no sense and doesn't have a platform. People like that.. should be ignored. Allah knows best. Allah yehdeekum.

Here is another one for good measure:

sam shamou clearly doesnt follow his own religion if he speaks with vaulga lanaguge
dude is 40ish years old and acts like that

ps there guy doesnt make sense

I Don't Understand Sam Either: He is Life's Enigma

Jibreel: Wow man, you are amazing I mean I am posting my comments to ask you to stay on track with our discussions, then you are changing the topic left and right, then you say the above statement which is the core of your mission, and that is why we don't debate live with you... you censor and you control things which way you want. Now do you have enough guts to post this. I will post this comment on my section.

Sam did not post this comment or any recent comment by Jibreel. The comments from Jibreel which are displayed in this blog posting are fished from JibreelK’s YT page. Jibreel responds to Shamoun’s comments and his “grown up terrorist” jibe (appendix 1)

Shamoun still does not get it or is playing dumb for his audience:

Ayas, the sham is you and Jibreelk. I have been BEGGING Jibreelk to debate but he only manages to make up his excuses for being the coward that he is. Please tell him to accept my debate challenge to callow in the show and have several formal debates with equal time and cross examination. Then you will see this fraud for what he is.

This has already been covered by Jibreel. Jibreel wants to have a nice, long and beneficial dialogue on YouTube (one topic at a time). Jibreel HAS AGREED to debate Sam. Sam knows this but likes to use his show as a stumbling block and a tool for misdirection.

Sam YouTube is better for debates/dialogues than your “show” or Pal Talk room. The reasons why Jibreel wants to dialogue on YT is to eliminate debate tactics

1 YT has more potential viewers
2 YT allows audience participation, thus aiding truth-seeking
3 YT is free and widely available as well as reputed and recognised
4 YT suits serious dialogue better than your show and Pal Talk room

Of course, Sam you already know this, you are simply looking for a route to back out of the debate because you know a YT debate nullifies debate tactics and misdirections. You also know your brother, Christian Prince, has struggled on YouTube. Actually, “struggled” is one of those nice soft words, let’s be frank your pal was torn apart. His latest crazed stunt was to make up his own Biblical verse – stuff of a circus act indeed.

So Sam, Please Agree To Debate Jibreelk on YouTube


Secondly, don't make demands on me since I am not your dhimmi nor your slave. It is you who needs to start answering questions otherwise you go on the ignore list... continued

Jibreelk, do I need to block you since your illiteracy is disgusting me? Seriously, you are becoming a virus. Did you get all my messages? Did you get the message that Keith is going to be producing video replies to expose your pathetic replies which only grossly distort my arguments? Did you get my challenge to you to set up debates on the show Jesus or Muhammad ( DO YOU ACCEPT? If so send me a reply saying you accept to do debates on the show concerning various topics, beginning with your god being Satan, followed by a debate on Muhammad mistreating Sawdah and using his god to justify it. We can then discuss the whore house you call paradise and Muhammad prostituting women calling it muta. I will contact the studio to set these debates up. For once be a man and stand up to defend your prophet.

Sam, Jibreel has already discussed the claims around Sawda, he is willing to discuss muta and the “whore house” claim. Please quit insulting him. Sam, anybody with half a brain can see he is coming off better than you

Jibreel writes:

Sam Shamoun is not posting my comments on his channel. I wonder why?
Does everyone agree that he should be fair and post whatever I write. I have not insulted him, or used foul language. He has been changing the topics left and right, and I am just asking him to stick to our initial points. He can't do that. So, people watching, you are the judges, you are the ones who are observing all this. Is he fair?

Well, Jibreel, I can only apologise for Sam Shamoun’s shoddy behaviour towards you. He certainly has not been fair or willing. He sees to be doing everything possible to back out of a serious YT debate whilst simultaneously using his show to feign confidence. It is transparent for all to see

Jibreel, Sam knows YT is a graveyard for shoddy argumentation and he lacks confidence in putting his bread and butter arguments as well as his more infamous polemics on the line.

In a nutshell, Sam is in a state of panic whilst feigning confidence in the presence of his loyal followers. Sam’s supporters have been dwindling for quite some time now…he is a sinking ship.

A YouTube dialogue series with JibreelK will see Sam Shamoun submerged and slowly drop to the sea bed and rest alongside his brother Christian Prince.

KeithTruth to the rescue?

At the behest of Sam Shamoun KeithTruth enters the fray:

ibrealk, I know you have been waiting for a reply. Sam had asked me to do so a long time ago and provided me with material. I told him I would do so since I know how to edit videos but I have had lots going on. So, do not get the wrong impression - your garbage will be refuted and is in the process of being assesed. By next tuesday there will be a series rebuting your position.

Keith, you call Jibreel’s work “garbage” yet you have been busy as you “have had lots going on”. Jibreel’s video series is pretty lengthy and as a newcomer who has “had lots going on” I doubt you have viewed his material. If so, what gives you the right to call his material garbage?

Keith, it does not require fancy editing…all it requires is for Sam Shamoun to speak on the mic….it is a debate on YouTube thus audio is key not fancy editing. Sam Shamoun should get on the microphone and get the ball rolling.

Sam begin the conversation with John 3:16…Jibreel has been trying to redirect your attention back to this topic for an eon. Sam, do the honourable thing and accept Jibreel’s challenge and take part in the YT discussion/debate with Jibreel.

Appendix 1:

Just to refute some nonesense:
Let's be clear, Paul is not mentioned in the Quran please see:

Jibreelk's YT page for all his other vids:

My analysis of Sam Shamoun's previous encounter with Jibreelk:

Friday, 23 July 2010

Refuting a False Claim Against Muhammad's Parentage

An Ignorant, Malicious and False Claim has been made against the Parentage of the Prophet Muhammad
An erroneous allegation (by an Islamophobe) has been which claims Muhammad’s father is unknown as his mother had an affair with “somebody” after the death of her husband (Abdullah), the claimant also alleges Muhammed was born four years after the death of Abdullah.

In an act of responsibility it would be wise to state this article is not written due to dispute concerning the parentage of the Prophet Muhammed. It is agreed upon by historians, genealogists and theologians alike that the parents of Muhammad were Amina and Abdullah. It is consensus amongst all authorities, there has never been dispute, controversy or any complexity related to this subject amongst authorities

Then, Why Produce an Article proving the Parentage of Muhammad?
It is a pre-emptive article to ensure false claims do not gain credence on the internet, after all, the internet is a place where malicious and misinformed claims flourish if good people sit on their hands.

ALL scholarly authority agree upon Amina and Abdullah being the parents of Muhammad, thus a claim on the contrary would be inaccurate and odd, to say the least. So this article proving the parentage of Muhammad is simply written in order to prevent false information being spread by Islamophobes on the internet

NOTE: Abdullah can be written as “Abd’Allah” and Amina can be written as Aminah

Authority tells us Abdullah (Abd’Allah) was the Father of Muhammad

The quickest way to show the Islamophobe’s claim to be false is to prove Muhammad’s father was Abdullah

Let us look at scholarly authority, Ibn Kathir confirms Muhammad’s father to be Abdullah

Ibn Kathir states “he (Muhammad) was the son of Abd’Allah who was in turn the son of his father Abd’al Muttalib” [1]

So Ibn Kathir, a classical expert in the life of Muhammad, states Muhammad’s father was Abdullah

What do the Genealogies tell us?

To further point to expertise and the unanimous agreement amongst scholars concerning Muhammad being the son of Abdullah and Amina we can look to the genealogies.

Ibn Hisham and al Tabari both confirm Muhammad as the “son of Abdullah” whilst giving a list of his genealogy [2] [3]

The genealogy in A Chronology of Islamic History confirms Abdullah as the father of Muhammad and Amina as Muhammad’s mother. [4]

Other Biographers Confirm Abdullah and Amina to be the Parents of Muhammad

Al Mubarakpuri mentions the accepted fact of Abdullah being “the father of Muhammad”. [5]

Karen Armstrong names Muhammad’s father as Abdullah [6] [7]

Quite simply there has never been a dispute related to the parentage of Muhammad in scholarly circles as all the authorities have always been in agreement on Abdullah being the father of Muhammad. This clearly illustrates the Islamophobe claiming otherwise is wrong, badly wrong.

Did Abdullah Marry Amina? Yes.
Al Mubarakpuri confirms this by telling us the grandfather of Muhammad (Abdul Muttalib) chose Aminah, daughter of Wahb bin Abd Manaf bin Zuhra bin Kilab as a wife for his son, Abdullah. [8]

He goes further and informs us “they were married in Makkah, and soon after Abdullah was sent by his father” on a trade journey to either Madina or Syria (two versions) [8]

Another biographer, Yahiya Emerick, informs us of Amina telling of signs of pregnancy after Abdullah left for the trade journey. [9]

Abdullah Passed Away Whilst on a Trade Journey

On the way back from this trade journey, Muhammad’s father passed away [10]. Karen Armstrong writes “Muhammad’s father Abdullah died before Muhammad was born”.
“Most historians state his (Abdullah’s) death was two months before the birth of Muhammad. Some others state his death was two or more months after the Prophet’s birth” [10]

Muhammad also told us his father was Abdullah (Abd’Allah)

Muhammad told us who his father was Abdullah (Abd’Allah) whilst giving his genealogy to us:

“I am Muhammad son of Abd’Allah bin Abd’Muttalib bin Hashim bin Abd’Manaf…"(he went on to give mention to his forefathers all the way up to and including bin Nizar) [11]

In the same narration Muhammad tells us: “I was the product of true marriage, not fornication, right down from Adam to my father and mother”. [12]

Ibn Kathir lists other supporting narrations saying the same thing [13]

So what we have here is Muhammad confirming his parentage; i.e. his father is Abdullah and he was a product of true marriage thus any claims of him being born four years after the death of his father (Abdullah) are erroneous (false) and any claims of his mother (Amina) having an affair which bore Muhammed is shown to be erroneous too.

All Muhammad’s contemporaries considered him to be the son of Abdullah

Muhammad’s mother passed away whilst he was a young boy and he then “lived with his grandfather Abdul Muttalib” [14]. Thus everybody saw Abd al Muttalib as Muhammad’s grandfather and therefore considered Abdullah as the father of Muhammad as Abdullah was the son of Abdul Muttalib.

After the passing on of his grandfather; “Muhammad went to live with his uncle Abu Talib” [15]. Abu Talib was the brother of Abdullah. Once again, this shows us the community and the family of Muhammad considered Muhammad to be the son of Abdullah.
Muhammad’s Enemies Confirm Abdullah to be his Father
Whilst agreeing the contract/treaty of Hudaibiyah the Prophet initially wanted his name signed as “Muhammad, the messenger of Allah” but his enemies disagreed and wanted him to use his own name and the name of his father and thus the treaty was signed with the name “Muhammad, the son of Abdullah” [16]. Thus showing even the enemies of Muhammad considered Abdullah to be the father of Muhammad.

I merely mention these extra points to further illustrate there was no disagreement concerning the parentage of Muhammad, everybody knew his mother to be Aminah and his father to be Abdullah.
Looking at the False Claim
Having presented all the incontrovertible evidence we can look at the false claim made by ONE dubious missionary/Islamophobe. Before doing so it is worth noting this “missionary” has a history of falsehood and is infamous for making up his own Biblical verses, such is his lack of regard for accuracy and honesty!

The Islamophobe wants us to believe Muhammad’s father is not Abdullah

We have already seen Abdullah being confirmed as the father of Muhammad by authorities such as al Mubarakpuri, Ibn Hisham and Ibn Kathir

Ibn Kathir states “he (Muhammad) was the son of Abd’Allah who was in turn the son of his father Abd’ al Muttalib”.

So the missionary/Islamophobe is simply making stuff up.

The Islamophobe claims Muhammad was born four years after the death of Abdullah

Well, we have already stated:

"Most historians state his (Abdullah’s) death was two months before the birth of Muhammad (p). Some others state his death was two or more months after the Prophet’s birth." [10]

So the missionary is making stuff up. NOBODY believes he was born four years after the death of his father, Abdullah.

The Islamophobe claims Muhammad was born due to an affair on the part of Aminah

It is depressing to note this “man” (the Islamophobe) would make such a claim against a lady’s honour without any regard for truth or decency. Such is this “man’s” nature

As we have seen every authority recognises Abdullah (the husband of Amina) to be the father of Muhammad and thus proves Amina is free from wrong doing. However, the defence of Amina also comes through Al Kalbi who studied Muhammad’s maternal ancestors (including Amina). Al Kalbi confirms Amina did not have an affair

Al Kalbi who investigated the maternal genealogy of Muhammad (including Amina) found no fornication in any one of them:

Muhammad bin Sa’d said, Hisham bin Muhammad al Kalbi informed us from his father who said “ I wrote out some 500 maternal ancestors for the Prophet(p) and found fornication in NOT one of them nor anything related to “the evil ways) of the Jahaliyya” [17]

So the Islamophobe is making claims without any investigation. If he had looked into matters before making his malicious and ignorant claims he would have noted Muhammad’s confirmation of being from a “true marriage” [12] as well as the other evidence presented such as the findings from Al Kalbi’s investigations

I would advise this Islamophobe to stop in his attempts to malign the good name of past personalities. Wrongly accusing a lady of adultery is not a matter to be taken lightly; this Islamophobe should rethink his ways and incorporate integrity into his raison d’être

The Islamophobe’s Strange Mind
The Islamophobe makes other bizarre and unsupported claims.

This Islamophobe also claims Muhammad made a story up about a woman being pregnant for four years and delivering the child in the fourth year which was born with teeth and hair!

The Islamophobe goes further and claims Muhammad made this story up because he was born four years after the death of Abdullah. The Islamophobe suggests Muhammad made the story up to convince people he was not the offspring of an affair.

These pronouncements are quite clearly the product of a debauched mind.

Muhammad was not born four years after the death of his father (Abdullah); this is quite clearly shown above. We do not need to repeat ourselves as we have already dealt with such an erroneous claim
Muhammad’s father has been shown to be Abdullah, thus Amina had no affair and Muhammad was not the offspring of an affair.As for the story about a child being in a woman’s womb for four years, scholars confirm it to be a fabrication (i.e. a false or made up story). This story was made up by somebody AFTER the Prophet Muhammad passed away, so Muhammad did not make this story up. Somebody needs to pass this information on to the ignorant Islamophobe.
Yahya ibn Abi Kathir said:
“Studying Sacred Knowledge is a prayer”
May Allah's peace and blesseing be upon Muhammad and all the other Prophets


Appendix 1

This Islamophobe is caught lying and making up his own biblical verse:

It now appears the Islamophobe was copying Zakaria Butrus:


[1] Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Ltd, 1998, Volume 1, pg 131

[2] Ibn Hisham 1/1-2

[3]`Tarikh al Tabari 2/239-271

[4] A Chronology of Islamic History, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd, 1998, pg 10-12

[5] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 68

[6] Islam: A Short History, Karen Armstrong, Phoenix Press 2001 pg3

[7] Muhammad: Prophet for our Time, Karen Armstrong, Harper Press, 2006 pg 35-36

[8] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 69-70

[9] Muhammad, Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, 2002, pg 21-22

[10] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 70

[11] Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Ltd, 1998, Volume 1, pg 135

[12] Ibid

[13] Ibid pg 135-136

[14] Muhammad: Prophet for our Time, Karen Armstrong, Harper Press, 2006 pg 36

[15] Ibid

[16] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 404

[17] Life of the Prophet Muhammad, Ibn Kathir, translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing Ltd, 1998, Volume 1, pg 136

Wednesday, 21 July 2010

Misconceptions About the Black Stone (al Hajr ul Aswad)

What is the Black Stone?

The Black Stone (called الحجر الأسود al-Hajaru-l-Aswad in Arabic) is a Muslim relic, which according to Islamic tradition dates back to the time of Adam and Eve. Many geologists and historians believe it to be a tektite or a meteorite.It is the eastern cornerstone of the Kaaba, the ancient sacred stone building towards which Muslims pray, in the center of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia [4]

Clearing Misconceptions/Falsehoods

Do Muslims Lick a Black Stone?

A Christian Missionary is trolling internet forums and comment sections and declaring Muslims to be “black stone lickers”

This is obviously a lie, a malicious one at that. There is no injunction from the Quran, Hadith literature or work of Fiqh which commands Muslims to lick any black stone. Quite simply this Christian missionary is using his fertile imagination and making things up.

Muslims do Kiss (not lick) al-Hajaru-l-Aswad (Black Stone) During Hajj

The black stone (al-Hajaru-l-Aswad) is located at the outer corner of the Kaba (cube-shaped building in Mecca) and serves the function of being an indicator of where circumambulation (Tawaf) of the Kaba commences and ends. Muslims, during the pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj), perform Tawaf around the Kaba seven times as a rite of Hajj.

This stone is kissed prior to commencing Tawaf (circumambulation) and each time one rounds the Kaba it is recommended the black stone is kissed (if possible). [1]

Why do Muslims Kiss the Black Stone?

It was a practice of Muhammad (pbuh) and Muslims do it in order to emulate the last Prophet of God (Muhammad, pbuh).

Do Muslims Worship the Black Stone (al-Hajaru-l-Aswad)?


Muslims do not worship this stone. Kissing does not constitute worship. In fact Umar, the second Khalifah and companion of the Prophet Muhammed (p), made this perfectly clear when he said:

Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said "NO DOUBT, I KNOW THAT YOU ARE A STONE AND CAN NEITHER BENEFIT ANYONE NOR HARM ANYONE. Had I not seen Allah's Apostle kissing you I would not have kissed you." [2]

This clearly shows us the back stone is not meant to be worshipped by Muslims. In fact this would negate a person’s iman (belief/faith), i.e. if a Muslim did worship the stone then he/she would be considered non-Muslim as only Allah has the right to be worshipped.

A Malicious Attack on the Black Stone: “It is looks like a Vagina”

Some Islamophobes have begun a baseless attack on the appearance of the black stone in order to insult Muslims.

How a stone looks like a vagina to them is beyond me. There is a silver frame around the black stone. This silver frame is a modern addition and does not constitute the black stone but with the addition of the silver frame the structure does look doughnut shaped. The claim of vagina-resemblance is simply a product of their debauched and malicious minds.

As Muslims (God’s chosen people) we are accustomed to people looking to insult us; a sad sign of the times.

Was the Black Stone Worshipped by Arab Pagans Prior to Islam?

I am not sure if it was, the Arab Pagans did have 360 idols which they housed at the Kaba and the Prophet destroyed ALL their idols. [3]

However, even if some of them did worship it we must recognise Islam came to abolish such practices. Therefore it has no bearing on Islam.

The black stone was originally given to Abraham who built the Kaba used the black stone as a corner stone for the Kaba. Abraham and Ishmael taught the early Meccan Arabs monotheism; after the passing on of Abraham and Ishmael the Meccan Arabs, with time, regressed into pagan practices such as idol worship and they ended up having a pantheon of gods despite the original message of Abraham and Ishmael which taught the early Arabs to worship Allah alone (monotheism) [3].

Prophet Muhammed (p) was sent to bring these Arabs back to the teachings of Abraham and outlaw polytheistic and pagan practices (i.e. purify the teachings of Abraham from the polytheistic practices which were innovated into the teachings with time) [3]. Thus any history of the black stone being worshipped by pagan Arabs has no bearing on Islam whatsoever.


[1] Reliance of the Traveller, Ahmad ibn Naqib al Misri, edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, 1994 (J5.2,J5.14)

[2] Sahih BUKHARI: Volume 2, Book 26, Number 667

[3] Ar-Raheequl-Makhtum by Safi-ur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri, Darussalam, 2002 pg 26-28


Appendix 1

Here is a good video from Iqraproductions educating people about al hajr ul aswad (black stone) clearing up some misconceptions related to the black stone as well as explaining the history behind it:

What is the Black Stone?

Do Muslims Worship the Black Stone?

Was it considered to be the genitalia of a pagan goddess by the pagans of Mecca?

Why do Muslims kiss the Black Stone?

Appendix 2

What is the Kaba? Muslims do not worship the Kaba (explained by Dr Zakir Naik):


Monday, 19 July 2010

Christians, Have you Ever HEARD the Quran Recited?

Well, here is your chance. The Quran is a Book of Majesty and Excellence. How Excellent is the Author.

Our aim is to leave a legacy of goodness behind as we pass onto the next world, we are all human beings and face the same struggles against materialism and one's inner-self. However, the Quran is a Healing for those who believe.

It is a Book which I have heard and read even in dreams and the spiritual conection with the Words are something out of this world. Please do listen to the recitation with sincerity and a willingness to hear the Word of God recited

Very effective Qur'an recitation=Sura 3, verse 14-18.
Shiek Anes Al Gamdey ;may Allah (swt) bless him
قراءه رائعه للشيخ أنس الغامدي حفظه الله وبارك فيه